""And Jesus Replied..."" - But what issues did Jesus address in his replies?! 9783883099835, 388309983X

Table of contents :
Cover
Titelei
Impressum
Foreword
Table of Contents
Chapter 1- Introduction
1.1 Why Do We Need Another Study on the Conflict Narratives?
1.2 Matthean Community in Research
1.3 Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew: A Brief Overview
1.3.1 Distribution of the Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew
1.3.2 Critics
1.3.3 Hypothesis of the Separation of the Matthean Community from Judaism
1.3.4 Question Leading to this Study
Chapter 2 - Methodology
2.1 Major Research Outcomes of the Conflict Stories in the Gospel of Matthew
2.1.1 History of Research
2.1.2 Utility of Form and Redaction Criticism
2.1.3 Overview of the Major Research Outcomes Reached in the Study of the Unity of Luke-Acts
2.1.4 Working Hypothesis, Presuppositions and Limitations of this Study
Chapter 3 - Conflicts about Jesus’ authority (in Galilee)
3.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 9:1-8
3.1.1 Mt 9:1-8
3.1.2 Mk 2:1-12
3.1.3 Lk 5:17-26
3.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 9:1-8
3.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 12:22-45
3.2.1 Mt 12:22-45
3.2.2 Mk 3:22-30 and 8:11-12
3.2.3 Lk 11:14-26, 29-32, 12:10 and 6:43-5
3.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 12:22-45
3.3. Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts on Jesus’ Authority in Galilee
3.3.1 Matthean Community’s Ministry of Exorcism
3.3.2 Matthew’s Reflection on the Limitations of Miracles
3.3.3 Christological Debate with the Jewish Counterparts
3.3.4 Matthean Community is Given Authority
Chapter 4 - Conflicts on Table Fellowship
4.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 9:9-13
4.1.1 Mt 9:9-13
4.1.2 Mk 2:13-17
4.1.3 Lk 5:27-32
4.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 9:9-13
4.2 Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts on Table Fellowship
4.2.1 Ready to Repent Tax Collector as a Bridge to the Gentile Ministry
4.2.2 Matthean Community and House Fellowship
4.2.3 Priority of Compassion over the Contemporary Norms of Practice
4.2.4 Gentile Ministry
Chapter 5 - Conflicts on the Tradition of the Elders (Oral Law) and the Torah
5.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 15:1-20
5.1.1 Mt 15:1-20
5.1.2 Mk 7:1-23
5.1.3 Lk 11:37-41
5.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 15:1-20
5.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 19:1-12
5.2.1Mt 19:1-12
5.2.2 Mk 10:1-12
5.2.3 Lk 16:18
5.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 19:1-12
5.3 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 22:34-40
5.3.1 Mt 22:34-40
5.3.2 Mk 12:28-34
5.3.3 Lk 10:25-28
5.3.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 22:34-40
5.4 Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts on the Tradition of the Elders
5.4.1 Matthew’s Jesus’ Assessment of the Torah
5.4.2 Bridge between Jewish and Gentile Ministries
5.4.3 Alienation caused by the Pharisees’ halakha
5.4.4 Pacifist Attitude of the Matthean Community towards their Critics
Chapter 6 - Conflicts about the Shabbat
6.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 12:1-8
6.1.1 Mt 12:1-8
6.1.2 Mk 2:23-28
6.1.3 Lk 6:1-5
6.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 12:1-8
6.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 12:9-14
6.2.1 Mt 12:9-14
6.2.2 Mk 3:1-6
6.2.3 Lk 6:6-11, 13:10-17 and 14:1-6
6.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 12:9-14
6.3 Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts on the Shabbat
6.3.1 Matthew’s Motive of Mercy - Underpins the Theological Intention of the Shabbat Rest
6.3.2 Matthew’s Disciples Take up the Function of the Priests
Chapter 7 - Conflicts in/about the Temple in Jerusalem
7.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 21:10-17
7.1.1 Mt 21:10-17
7.1.2 Mk 11:11, 15-18
7.1.3 Lk 19:45-48
7.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 21:10-17
7.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 21:23-27
7.2.1 Mt 21:23-27
7.2.2 Mk 11:27-33
7.2.3 Lk 20:1-8
7.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 21:23-27
7.3 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 21:42-46
7.3.1 Mt 21:42-46
7.3.2 Mk 12:10-12
7.3.3 Lk 20:17-19
7.3.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 21:42-46
7.4 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 22:41-46
7.4.1 Mt 22:41-46
7.4.2 Mk 12:35-37a
7.4.3 Lk 20:41-44
7.4.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 22:41-46
7.5 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 24:1-2
7.5.1 Mt 24:1-2
7.5.2 Mk 13:1-2
7.5.3 Lk 21:5-6
7.5.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 24:1-2
7.6. Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts in/about the Temple in Jerusalem
7.6.1 Children Surpass the Temple Leaders
7.6.2 Transformation of Boulders into a Foundation in the Hands of God
Chapter 8 - Conflicts on Paying Tax to Caesar and Resurrection
8.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 22:15-22
8.1.1 Mt 22:15-22
8.1.2 Mk 12:13-17
8.1.3 Lk 20:20-26
8.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 22:15-22
8.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 22:23-33
8.2.1 Mt 22:23-33
8.2.2 Mk 12:18-27
8.2.3 Lk 20:27-39
8.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 22:23-33
8.3. Matthew’s Redaction in the Paying of Tax to Caesar and Resurrection
8.3.1 Paying Tax to Caesar
8.3.2 Resurrection
Chapter 9 - Summary of Findings
9.1 Who Rocked the Matthean Community?
9.2 What Rocked the Matthean Community?
9.2.1 Justification for the Mission to the Gentiles
9.2.2 Authority to Forgive Sin
9.3 Where did the Matthean Community Stand?
9.3.1 They were not Strong, but Teachable
9.3.2 They were not Born to be Priests, but They were Called to Take Up theirFunction
9.3.3 They were Less Exact than the Pharisees in Observing the Torah, but They were More Eager for Greater Righteousness
9.3.4. Can the Path to Faith be Cleared of all Doubts and Opposition?
9.4 Postscript
9.4.1 Problem of Luke’s Great Omissions
9.4.2 Which Conflicts were Still Rocking the post-Easter Christian Communities?
9.4.3. Short Evaluation of the Method
Bibliography
Index of Ancient Sources

Citation preview

Yee Wan SO

The book tries to answer an old question of the conflict narratives in the Matthean community with another dimension: the previous studies on the subject are primarily conducted through redaction analysis on synoptic gospels alone. The author extends the scope of comparison and includes the conflict narratives in Acts to the analysis. As Acts is a sequel to the Gospel of Luke, it is assumed that Luke has a better tool than Matthew in retelling the conflict narratives; Luke could order the conflicts roughly into his serial of pre- and post-Easter eras while Matthew has to cram his conflict narratives into one single volume. Some conflict narratives that were found missing in Luke ́s Gospel but were reported in Acts could show that they might actually take place in the post-Easter era. By comparing how Matthew and Luke retold and ordered the conflict narratives, one can tell how the Matthean community projected their own conflicts into conflicts in Jesus ́ time.

ISBN 978-3-88309-983-5

Yee Wan SO - „And Jesus Replied...“ – But what issues did Jesus address in his replies!?

15

„And Jesus Replied...” – But what issues did Jesus address in his replies?! The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew Verlag Traugott Bautz GmbH

Jerusalemer Texte

Schriften aus der Arbeit der Jerusalem-Akademie

herausgegeben von Hans-Christoph Goßmann

Band 15

Verlag Traugott Bautz

Yee Wan SO

„And Jesus Replied...” – But what issues

did Jesus address in his replies?!

The Reception of the Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Verlag Traugott Bautz

Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.

Verlag Traugott Bautz GmbH 99734 Nordhausen 2015 ISBN 978-3-88309-983-5

Foreword    This book is a slightly revised version of my dissertation, which was accepted by the  Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel Germany in June 2013.      My  first  heartfelt  gratitude  is  to  God  and  to  all  who  have  accompanied  me  on  the  way.    I  would  like  to  thank  Dr.  Hans‐Christoph  Goßmann  for  accepting  this  book  to  the  series of “Jerusalemer Texte. Schriften aus der Arbeit der Jerusalem‐Akademie”, and  to the efficient help of colleagues at Traugott Bautz Verlag, Nordhausen, for bringing  it to print.      A  special  word  of  thanks  must  also  go  to  my  teacher,  Professor  Dr.  Andreas  Lindemann of the Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel for his astute direction of  my Master’s thesis and dissertation. It is difficult to speak enough of his insights into  the New Testament, and his inquisitive and incisive mind. Yet, it is because of his care  that marks him out as a remarkable teacher. I was his last student but his devotion in  guiding students has not been diminished with his advancing age.    His fatherly care  towards  my  academic  progress  and  personal  vocation  strengthened  me  in  this  difficult,  winding,  but  intellectually  and  spiritually  rewarding  journey.  Thanks  to  Fr.  Lanfranco M. Fedrigotti, whose passion in exegesis ignited the first tiny flame in me  for the love of the scriptures a decade ago, and which now has turned out to be my  devotion. I am also very grateful to Dr. Walter Buchmann. His coaching in the classical  languages  has  helped  me  through  the  most  rugged  phase  of  theological  study  in  Germany. The book is dedicated to Professor Dr. Andreas Lindemann, Fr. Lanfranco M.  Fedrigotti and Dr. Walter Buchmann. They are living witness to “Inter omnes autem  occupationes melior est studium Scripturarum.” Their love for the scriptures inspired  me to join them on the same path.    Thanks also to Professor Dr. Martin Karrer, my second examiner and Professor Dr. Dr.  Drs. (hc) Jonathan Magonet, my teacher in Judaism. Their exciting lectures inspired  me to explore new dimensions in text reading. I am also indebted to Professorin Dr.  Schäfer‐Lichtenberger,  who  supported  my  study  not  only  through  her  organizing  financial aids but also through her motherly care.      Thanks to Elizabeth Fry and Marybeth Hauffe for reading through my manuscript and  reducing much of the foreign tone of my English. Their task was arduous but they did 

it with great care.      My whole period of study has also been richly supported by the prayers and caring  deeds of many friends in Germany and Hong Kong. They are too modest to have their  names mentioned but their support has been the source of the positive energy which  support me to go on.      My  loving  thanks  go  to  my  parents,  Ip  SO  and  Oi  KWONG,  and  my  two  sisters,  Yee  Shan  and  Yee  Ching.  Without  their  love  and  understanding,  the  study  could  never  have started and might never have borne fruit.      Yee Wan SO  March 2015, Wuppertal. 

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

5

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................... 9

1.1 Why Do We Need Another Study on the Conflict Narratives? .................................... 9 1.2 Matthean Community in Research.............................................................................. 11 1.3 Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew: ........................................................... 12 A Brief Overview.............................................................................................................. 12 1.3.1 Distribution of the Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew ................ 14 1.3.2 Critics ............................................................................................................. 16 1.3.3 Hypothesis of the Separation of the Matthean Community from Judaism .... 19 1.3.4 Question Leading to this Study ...................................................................... 22

Chapter 2 Methodology ............................................................................. 23 2.1 Major Research Outcomes .......................................................................................... 25 of the Conflict Stories in the Gospel of Matthew ............................................................. 25 2.1.1 History of Research ....................................................................................... 25 2.1.2 Utility of Form and Redaction Criticism ....................................................... 40 2.1.3 Overview of the Major Research Outcomes Reached ................................... 42 in the Study of the Unity of Luke-Acts ......................................................... 42 2.1.4 Working Hypothesis, Presuppositions and Limitations of this Study ........... 45

Chapter 3 Conflicts about Jesus' authority (in Galilee)......................... 54 3.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 9:1-8 .............................................................................. 55 3.1.1 Mt 9:1-8 ......................................................................................................... 55 3.1.2 Mk 2:1-12 ...................................................................................................... 58 3.1.3 Lk 5:17-26...................................................................................................... 60 3.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 9:1-8 .................................................................. 61 3.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 12:22-45 ........................................................................ 63 3.2.1 Mt 12:22-45 ................................................................................................... 63 3.2.2 Mk 3:22-30 and 8:11-12 ................................................................................ 68 3.2.3 Lk 11:14-26, 29-32, 12:10 and 6:43-5 ........................................................... 70 3.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 12:22-45 ............................................................ 73 3.3. Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts on Jesus’ Authority in Galilee....................... 74 3.3.1 Matthean Community’s Ministry of Exorcism .............................................. 74 3.3.2 Matthew’s Reflection on the Limitations of Miracles ................................... 76 3.3.3 Christological Debate with the Jewish Counterparts ..................................... 78 3.3.4 Matthean Community is Given Authority ..................................................... 80

Chapter 4 Conflicts on Table Fellowship ................................................ 84 4.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 9:9-13 ............................................................................ 84 4.1.1 Mt 9:9-13 ....................................................................................................... 84 4.1.2 Mk 2:13-17 .................................................................................................... 87 4.1.3 Lk 5:27-32...................................................................................................... 91

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

4.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 9:9-13 ................................................................ 95 4.2 Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts on Table Fellowship ....................................... 95 4.2.1 Ready to Repent Tax Collector as a Bridge to the Gentile Ministry ............. 95 4.2.2 Matthean Community and House Fellowship ............................................. 105 4.2.3 Priority of Compassion over the Contemporary Norms of Practice ............ 108 4.2.4 Gentile Ministry ........................................................................................... 110

Chapter 5 Conflicts on the Tradition of the Elders and the Torah .... 114

5.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 15:1-20 ........................................................................ 117 5.1.1 Mt 15:1-20 ................................................................................................... 117 5.1.2 Mk 7:1-23 .................................................................................................... 121 5.1.3 Lk 11:37-41.................................................................................................. 127 5.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 15:1-20 ............................................................ 129 5.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 19:1-12 ........................................................................ 131 5.2.1Mt 19:1-12 .................................................................................................... 131 5.2.2 Mk 10:1-12 .................................................................................................. 136 5.2.3 Lk 16:18 ....................................................................................................... 138 5.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 19:1-12 ............................................................ 142 5.3 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 22:34-40 ...................................................................... 143 5.3.1 Mt 22:34-40 ................................................................................................. 143 5.3.2 Mk 12:28-34 ................................................................................................ 146 5.3.3 Lk 10:25-28.................................................................................................. 148 5.3.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 22:34-40 .......................................................... 151 5.4 Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts on the Tradition of the Elders ...................... 152 5.4.1 Matthew’s Jesus’ Assessment of the Torah ................................................. 153 5.4.2 Bridge between Jewish and Gentile Ministries............................................ 161 5.4.3 Alienation caused by the Pharisees’ halakha .............................................. 168 5.4.4 Pacifist Attitude of the Matthean Community towards their Critics ........... 170

Chapter 6 Conflicts about the Shabbat ................................................. 171

6.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 12:1-8 .......................................................................... 172 6.1.1 Mt 12:1-8 ..................................................................................................... 172 6.1.2 Mk 2:23-28 .................................................................................................. 175 6.1.3 Lk 6:1-5........................................................................................................ 177 6.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 12:1-8 .............................................................. 180 6.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 12:9-14 ........................................................................ 180 6.2.1 Mt 12:9-14 ................................................................................................... 180 6.2.2 Mk 3:1-6 ...................................................................................................... 182 6.2.3 Lk 6:6-11, 13:10-17 and 14:1-6 ................................................................... 183 6.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 12:9-14 ............................................................ 187 6.3 Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts on the Shabbat .............................................. 187 6.3.1 Matthew’s Motive of Mercy ........................................................................ 189

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

6

Underpins the Theological Intention of the Shabbat Rest .......................... 189 6.3.2 Matthew’s Disciples Take up the Function of the Priests ........................... 189

Chapter 7 Conflicts in/about the Temple in Jerusalem ....................... 192

7.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 21:10-17 ...................................................................... 193 7.1.1 Mt 21:10-17 ................................................................................................. 193 7.1.2 Mk 11:11, 15-18 .......................................................................................... 198 7.1.3 Lk 19:45-48.................................................................................................. 200 7.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 21:10-17 .......................................................... 202 7.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 21:23-27 ...................................................................... 202 7.2.1 Mt 21:23-27 ................................................................................................. 202 7.2.2 Mk 11:27-33 ................................................................................................ 204 7.2.3 Lk 20:1-8...................................................................................................... 206 7.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 21:23-27 .......................................................... 207 7.3 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 21:42-46 ...................................................................... 208 7.3.1 Mt 21:42-46 ................................................................................................. 208 7.3.2 Mk 12:10-12 ................................................................................................ 211 7.3.3 Lk 20:17-19.................................................................................................. 211 7.3.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 21:42-46 .......................................................... 213 7.4 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 22:41-46 ...................................................................... 214 7.4.1 Mt 22:41-46 ................................................................................................. 214 7.4.2 Mk 12:35-37a ............................................................................................... 216 7.4.3 Lk 20:41-44................................................................................................. 218 7.4.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 22:41-46 .......................................................... 220 7.5 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 24:1-2 .......................................................................... 221 7.5.1 Mt 24:1-2 ..................................................................................................... 221 7.5.2 Mk 13:1-2 .................................................................................................... 222 7.5.3 Lk 21:5-6...................................................................................................... 223 7.5.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 24:1-2 ........................................................................ 224 7.6. Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts in/about the Temple in Jerusalem ............... 225 7.6.1 Children Surpass the Temple Leaders ......................................................... 226 7.6.2 Transformation of Boulders into a Foundation in the Hands of God .......... 229

Chapter 8 Conflicts on Paying Tax to Caesar and Resurrection ........ 232 8.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 22:15-22 ...................................................................... 233 8.1.1 Mt 22:15-22 ................................................................................................. 233 8.1.2 Mk 12:13-17 ................................................................................................ 235 8.1.3 Lk 20:20-26.................................................................................................. 237 8.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 22:15-22 .......................................................... 239 8.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 22:23-33 ...................................................................... 241 8.2.1 Mt 22:23-33 ................................................................................................. 241 8.2.2 Mk 12:18-27 ................................................................................................ 242

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

7

8.2.3 Lk 20:27-39.................................................................................................. 244 8.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 22:23-33 .......................................................... 246 8.3. Matthew’s Redaction in the Paying of Tax to Caesar and Resurrection ................. 247 8.3.1 Paying Tax to Caesar ................................................................................... 247 8.3.2 Resurrection ................................................................................................. 248

Chapter 9 Summary of Findings ............................................................ 250

9.1 Who Rocked the Matthean Community? .................................................................. 250 9.2 What Rocked the Matthean Community? ................................................................. 253 9.2.1 Justification for the Mission to the Gentiles ................................................ 253 9.2.2 Authority to Forgive Sin .............................................................................. 256 9.3 Where did the Matthean Community Stand? ............................................................ 260 9.3.1 They were not Strong, but Teachable .......................................................... 260 9.3.2 They were not Born to be Priests, but They were Called to Take Up their Function ..................................................................................................... 261 9.3.3 They were Less Exact than the Pharisees in Observing the Torah, ............. 262 but They were More Eager for Greater Righteousness ............................... 262 9.3.4. Can the Path to Faith be Cleared of all Doubts and Opposition? ............... 266 9.4 Postscript ................................................................................................................... 269 9.4.1 Problem of Luke’s Great Omissions ............................................................ 269 9.4.2 Conflicts which Still Rocked the post-Easter Christian Communities ........ 270 9.4.3. Short Evaluation of the Method .................................................................. 273

Bibliography .............................................................................................. 274 Index of Ancient Sources .......................................................................... 331

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

8

Introduction

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Why Do We Need Another Study on the Conflict Narratives? Christianity emerged out of conflicts and dialogues with contemporary religions. Their importance cannot be overlooked, even from the perspective of the composition of the New Testament.1 Without these conflicts, our knowledge of the early Christians would be significantly reduced; removing the conflict narratives would shorten the present synoptic Gospels by a quarter. Without the need to address the conflicts in early Christian communities, slightly less than half of Paul’s letters would not even have been written. Most conflicts were by-products of the expanding Christian ministry. According to Acts, the external conflict between the early church and the Jews takes place immediately following the first preaching success (Acts 4:1-3). The internal conflict between the Palestinian Jews and the Hellenistic Jews starts immediately after the first expansion of the Christian community (Acts 6:1). New conflicts arise before the old ones are settled (Acts 11:1-18, 15:1-35). How did the early Christians handle these conflicts? Was the shared faith in the risen Christ strong enough for conflict resolution? How instructive was the resolution of conflict by the earthly Jesus for settling fights beyond his time? These are not easy questions to answer. Both Paul and Luke quote Jesus’ teachings on the resolution of conflicts sparingly. Paul only mentions the earthly Jesus’ teachings five times in all of his letters to the church (1 Cor 7:10, 9:14, 11:23, 14:37, 1 Thess 4:15),2 possibly because of his lack of acquaintance with the early Jesus. However, even though the memory of the earthly Jesus is vividly represented in his Gospel, Luke does not record a single incident in Acts in which Jesus’ disciples refer to their Lord’s teaching to settle their conflicts. Other second-generation Christians also do not use concrete sayings of Jesus, but only fondly remember a broad-brush account of his sufferings (1 Pet 4:1219, 3 John 9-11).3 What was the function of the conflict stories in the Gospel for the early Christian community? This study is about the conflict narratives in the Gospel of Matthew. As with any study of narratives in the Gospels, it can focus on either the historicity of the conflicts, the 1

Rese thinks that the New Testament is a collection of writings that reflect a primarily Jewish intramuros struggle. Rese, "The Jews in Luke-Acts. Some Second Thoughts" in The Unity of Luke-Acts, p. 195. 2 Paul only quotes Jesus explicitly twice (1 Cor 7:10-11, 9:14). See Neirynck, "Paul and the sayings of Jesus" in Evangelia II, pp. 511-568. Lindemann, "Paulus und die Jesustradition" in Glauben, Handeln, Verstehen, pp. 100-115, especially, pp. 114-115. Pokorny points out that although Paul gives only a few literal quotations of Jesus’ words, he uses Jesus’ words anonymously in the name of his apostolic authority. Pokorny, "Words of Jesus in Paul" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Vol. 4. p. 3465. 3 John records an interest in remembering the earthly Jesus’ teachings in John 14:26. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

9

Introduction

position of the historical Jesus regarding the conflicts, the identification of the literary layers of how Jesus’ logia developed to their present form or the redaction of the 10 narratives. This study focuses on the redaction of the narratives, determining how the conflict stories were retold and what they meant for the Matthean community.4 There is almost complete consensus that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was a Jewish Christian with a good knowledge of the Hebrew text, Targum and Jewish traditions.5 The author intended to write a Bi,bloj.6 The immediate readership was Jewish Christian. However, the Gospel quickly spread across Jewish and Gentile Christian congregations. 7 The Gospel was probably written in Syria after the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD but before the start of the second century.8 The destruction of the temple created a physical and religious vacuum for the Jews; many key religious concepts associated with the temple and its cult had to be reinterpreted in the new religious setting, such as sin, offering, atonement, purity, divine presence and priesthood. Many Jewish religious streams emerged in response. They competed with each other for the reform and revival of Judaism. The destruction of the temple prompted the Jews to reflect on their status as the “true Israel”.9 The Matthean community was just one of the movements winding its way through the historical ruins exhorted by the Kerygma of the 4

See also Senior, "Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity: An Introduction Assessment" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, p. 7. 5 The author of the Gospel of Matthew is likely to have been of Jewish origin as they show relatively good knowledge of Jewish traditions. For example, the division of the Gospel into five sections imitates the Pentateuch. Matthew uses the formula: kai. evge,neto o[te evte,lesen o` VIhsou/j tou.j lo,gouj tou,touj in Mt 7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 19:1 and 26:1. In Mt 26:1, pa,ntaj is added to the formula: kai. evge,neto o[te evte,lesen o` VIhsou/j pa,ntaj tou.j lo,gouj tou,touj, showing that the Passion is a new section. See Bacon, “The Five Books of Matthew against the Jews”, Exp 25 (1918), pp. 56-66. The Gospel’s language also shows Semitic elements, such as in Mt 9:13 and 12:5. The author’s quotations of the Old Testament are nearer to the Masoretic Text (MT). Davies and Allison point out that Matthew and Mark quote the Old Testament 17 times in their Gospels. Mark follows the Septuagint Text (LXX), whereas Matthew’s quotations are nearer to the MT in some cases, such as in Mt 24:21, Mt 24:29 and Mt 26:28. Mt 22:24 and Mt 24:31 more closely resemble the Targum or Jewish tradition. Of the 19 allusions to the Old Testament from the Q-source, Matthew rewrites six of them so that they are nearer to the Old Testament or Jewish tradition, i.e., Mt 5:3, 12, 10:3536, 23:36, 38 and 24:28. See Davies and Allison, Matthew I, pp. 33-57 and Stanton, Matthew, pp. 38-43. Viviano suggests that the author was Matthew the tax collector, who knew Aramaic and Greek. Cf. Viviano, “Who Wrote Q?” in Mark and Matthew II, p. 81. 6 For a discussion of Bi,bloj, see Doole, Matthew, pp. 181-183. Stanton suggests that the Gospel should be a bi,oj. See Stanton, Matthew, pp. 92-103. 7 Runesson, "Early Jewish-Christian Relation", JBL 127 (2008), pp. 95-96. 8 A verse from Didache e.g. IgnSm 1:1, whose content is highly similar to Mt 1:18-19, suggests that the Gospel could have been written in Syria. Mt 22:7, 21:41, 23:28 hint that the author knows the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. See also Conzelmann, Lindemann, Arbeitsbuch, p 331, Schnelle, Einleitung NT, p. 238. Stanton suggests that the Gospel could have been written in places east of Jordan. See Stanton, Matthew, pp. 64-66. 9 Unlike the community reflected in the Damaskus Schrift, the Matthean community did not define itself by the claim to be the true Israel. See Bornkamm, "Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelium" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium, p. 36. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Introduction

risen Christ. The movements later consolidated in competition between Judaism and Christianity (or between the synagogue and early church) over the place of the true bearer 11 of Israel’s mission, as destined by God.10 The Gospel of Matthew is both an exegesis and a Midrash to the Gospel of Mark and Q. The Gospel of Matthew closely follows the order of narration in Mark’s Gospel: (i) baptism, (ii) temptation, (iii) proclamation, (iv) miracles of healing, (v) the Beelzebul controversy, (vi) parable sessions, (vii) prophecies of the crucifixion, (viii) eschatological teachings, (ix) the passion and (x) the resurrection. This leads to another consensus on the study of Matthew: the Gospel was rewritten from its sources for the needs and struggles of the Matthean community.12 11

1.2 Matthean Community in Research The composition, characteristics and identity of the Matthean community have been the focus of research into the Gospel of Matthew since 1970. Schweizer points out that the Matthean community was essentially a Jewish Christian community.13 Luz is of the opinion that the community’s belief in Jesus as the Son of God led to an irreconcilable rift between it and its Jewish community. 14 Most scholars, however, hold that the Matthean community was a relatively young and weak group, whose existence was rocked by its dominating Jewish counterpart. It remains controversial how Jewish the Matthean community was and how it related to its Jewish community. The degree of Jewishness may provide hints of answers to the conflict questions, as the greater the degree of the Matthean community’s Jewishness, the more probable it is that the conflicts were intra-muros and the less probable that the community had separated from the larger Jewish community. The more Gentile Christians in the community, the more pressing the need for flexibility in the halakha and the more acute the conflicts. Most scholars note the tension between the strong representation of Jewish elements and the call for universal ministry by the risen Christ in Matthew’s Gospel. Nevertheless, the conclusion is still unclear. Some scholars hold that the Matthean community was primarily Jewish but was peripheral to mainstream Judaism. It was almost ready to leave the Jewish community, so needed to justify its universal mission to the Gentiles.15 However, some researchers use 10

Iust. dial. 134:3. See also Konradt, Matthäus, pp.12-13, Overman, Mt Gospel, pp. 148-149. See also Stanton, Matthew, pp. 22-23. According to Luz, the following narratives from Matthew’s Gospel are from Q: Mt 3:2-17, 4:1-12, 6:20-49, 7:1-10, 9:57-10:16, 11:14-32, 11:39-52, 17:32-37. See also Conzelmann, Lindemann, Arbeitsbuch, p. 326, Luz, Fiktivität und Traditionstreue, p.177. 12 See also the discussion in Stanton, Matthew, pp. 61-64, 97-103. 13 Schweizer, Matthäus und seine Gemeinde, pp.12-13. 14 Luz, "Fiktivität und Traditionstreue im Matthäusevangeliem im Lichte griechischer Literatur", ZNW 84 (1993), p. 155, p. 159. 15 Hummel, Auseindersetzung, p. 159 and Davies and Allison, Matthew III, p. 695. 11

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Introduction

the same evidence to conclude that the Matthean community had already left Judaism16 and that the Gospel was a collective reminiscence of its history and mission to the 12 Gentiles 1.3 Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew: A Brief Overview Conflict narratives have for a long time been defined from the perspective of form criticism. Conflict narratives describe encounters that end in animosity in which the behaviour or opinions of Jesus or his circle are criticised by their Jewish counterparts.The exchange of opinions on both sides is in direct speech. German scholars have proposed the term Streitgespräch (conflict dialogues/controversial dialogue) to categorise these narratives since the 1920s. 17 They also point out that the term cannot describe the structure and development of the narrative precisely; the writer of the earliest Gospel, Mark, hardly ever retells the conflict narratives in the form of a debate. He uses suzhte,w very seldom in the conflict narratives. Matthew and Luke simply omit it,18 preferring the neutral verb le,gw in the conflict narratives. There is no fair trading of opinions between Jesus and his critics. The backgrounds of the conflict narratives are not well-detailed. The counter-arguments of the critics are ignored.19 The sayings of Jesus alone form the climax of the narrative. This literary form is comparable to chrie or apopthegmata. 20 In this study, the term conflict narratives is used, primarily meaning the exchange of opinions between Jesus and contemporary Jewish leaders in a narrative setting. The term is neutral here. It acknowledges the dissension and even opposition between the two sides. However, the term does not presuppose that all verbal contests are hostile, nor does it restrict the narrative aim of the conflict stories to fanning animosity, or even to promoting Jesus’ authority at the cost of his critics’ credibility. The motive behind Matthew’s retelling of the conflicts remains the subject of the study. No presupposition of motive or literary form was made at the start of the study. 16

Luz holds that the Matthean community had recently separated from a Judaism that was dominated by the Pharisees’ teachings, Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 362-365. Stanton holds a similar opinion. See Stanton, New People, p. 156. Overman thinks that the Matthean community was beginning to lose out to normative Judaism, Overman, Mt Gospel, p. 158. 17 Streitgespräch (Schulgespräch) describes both the narrative form and the direct speechin a scene. It is divided into exposition, dialogue and Jesus’ teachings. Weiss, Eine neue Lehre in Vollmacht, p. 4. 18 suzhte,w is used mostly in debates and discussions between people and the disciples (Mk 1:27, 9:10, 14, 16 and Lk 22:23). It is found only twice in the conflict narratives in the Synoptics, both of which are in Mark’s Gospel (Mk 8:11 and 12:28). See Becker, “Die Markinischen ‘Streitgespräche’ in Plan des Evangeliums. Eine Kritische Relecture der Formgeschichtlichen Methode” in Polemik in der Frühchristlichen Literatur, p. 434. 19 Dibelius, Formgeschichte, pp. 64-65. 20 Both Chrie and Apophthegma use the sayings of a famous person as the climax of a narrative. According to Strecker, Chrie emphasises the situation more and Apophthegma emphasises the person more. See Strecker, Literarturgeschichte des Neuen Testatments, pp. 202-203. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Introduction

There are fourteen narratives of conflicts between Jesus and Jewish leaders in the Gospel of Matthew.21 All except the conflict in the temple in Jerusalem on the stilling of the 13 praise of children are also found in the Gospels of Mark and Luke (Mt 21:15-16). Matthew follows the order, but not the narrative frame, of the conflict narratives in Mark’s Gospel.22 He places the conflict narratives between two long speeches by Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount in Galilee (Mt 5:1-7:28) and the woes against the Pharisees and scribes in Jerusalem (Mt 23:1-39). The first and last conflicts both focus on questions about Jesus’ authority. The first conflict starts with an unspoken question and the last ends with an unanswered riddle (Mt 9:3-6, Mt 22:41-46). The answer is, however, clear to the readers. Almost all of the conflicts take place in an open area or somewhere that the people can easily enter (synagogues or houses open to all), i.e., Mt 9:9-13, 12:9-14 and 12:22-45. The presence of the audience is mentioned in twelve out of the fourteen conflict scenes, but the audience’s reaction is only recorded twice (Mt 9:8, 22:33).23 The main scenes of conflict are clustered in two geographical blocks, in Mt 12-15 in Galilee, and in Mt 21-22 in Judaea, primarily in the temple in Jerusalem. The geographical blocks have similar numbers of conflicts.24 There are indistinct traces of a growing intensity in the conflicts and in Jesus’ critics’ bitterness from Galilee to Jerusalem.25 Each block is heavily loaded with Jesus’ logia and each ends with his warning about the adverse effects of the Jewish leaders’ teachings on the community (Mt 16:11-12, Mt 23:1-32). In both blocks, Jesus’ deeds and words are central to the cause of almost all of the conflicts and his teachings are the climax of every conflict.26 Matthew records only one incident in which Jesus takes the initiative, i.e., the dispute about the Davidic sonship of the Messiah (Mt 22:41-45). Jesus is depicted as defensive in the rest of the conflicts. However, it is implausible that the Jewish leaders behave 21

Mt 9:1-8, 9-13, 12:1-8, 9-14, 24-45, 15:1-20, 16:1-4, 19:3-12, 21:15-16, 23-32, 22:15-22, 23-33, 3440, 41-46. The discussion between Jesus and the disciples of John about fasting is excluded from this study. Only six of the fourteen conflict narratives can be strictly classified as hostile conflicts. In these cases they involve negative or antagonistic reactions from the critics (Mt 12:1-8, 9-14, 12:24-45, 15:1-20, 21:15-16, 21:23-32). 22 Mark tends to use the conflict narratives as plots culminating in the Jewish leaders’ intention to destroy Jesus (Mk 3:6, 11:18, 12:12). 23 No audience is recorded in Mt 16: 1-4, 22:15-20. 24 Conflicts in Galilee are recorded in Mt 9:1-8, 9-13, 12:1-8, 9-14, 22-45, 15:1-20, 16:1-4. Conflicts in Judaea are recorded in Mt 19:3-12, 21:15-16, 21:23-46, 22:15-22, 23-33, 34-40, 41-46. 25 Cf. Metzner. He argues that, "Matthäus nutzt daher die Rückzugsnotizen als literarisches Mittel, sich wiederholende und steigernde Konflikte Jesu mit den Führem Israels darzustellen. Entsprechend wird die Bosheit der Gegner Jesu, inbesondere der Pharisäser, zunehmen, wenn sie in versucherischer, satanischer (Mt 4:1,3) Absicht an Jesus herantreten (Mt 16:1-4, 19:3, 22:18, 35)" in Metzner, "Der Rückung Jesu im Matthäusevangelium – ein literarisches Deja-vu-Erlebnis", ZNW 94 (2003), pp. 1-4. 26 Jesus’ deeds constitute nearly half of the causes of the conflicts (Mt 9:1-8, 10-13, 12:9-14, 22-43, 21:12-13, 14) and his words (Mt 12:9-14, 16:1-4, 19:3-12, 21:23-32, 22:15-22, 23-33, 34-40, 41-45) or their effect on the audience (i.e, both of his disciples in Mt 12:1-8, 15:1-20 and the people in Mt 9:1-8, 9-13, 12:22-45, 21:15-16) cause the other half of the conflicts. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Introduction Introduction

aggressively without provocation. Their questions are actually a reaction to Jesus’ unconventional deeds and words. The Jewish leaders from Galilee and Jerusalem are 14 stirred by Jesus’ challenge to their halakha (Mt 9:1-8, 9-13, 15:1-15, 19:3-12, 22:15-22, 22:23-33, 22:34-40, 22:41-46) and the perceived adverse influence of Jesus (Mt 9:1-8, 913, 12:1-8, 9-14, 22-45). The presence of the disciples is pre-supposed in the conflict narratives.27 They are the “earwitnesses” of the earthly Jesus, the heirs to his teachings and the guardians of their continuity. Like Mark, Matthew reports two conflicts provoked by the disciples, the conflict on the Shabbat (Mt 12:1-8) and the conflict about the traditions of the elders (Mt 15:1-20).28 Luke, however, reports that the disciples cause only the conflict on the Shabbat. 1.3.1 Distribution of the Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

The conflict narratives do not exist in isolation but are part of the literary context of the Gospel. If the Gospel is about the good news and details of Jesus Christ, what literary role do the conflict narratives play? Matthew uses five formulae to divide the Gospel into five literary units (Mt 7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 19:1, 26:1).29 The conflict narratives are found in the second to fourth sections and are distributed almost evenly. They represent obstacles to Jesus’ ministry, but they also call for a deeper reflection on his message. The conflicts cannot contain the spreading of the good news. The weight of the conflict narratives is balanced by the conversion stories, of which there are almost the same number.30 The first section (Mt 4:18-7:27) reveals the origins of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus’ influence is first felt after his Sermon on the Mount. The tension between Jesus and the Jewish leaders is not yet expressed in terms of conflicts, but in the people’s impressions. Although even King Herod acknowledges the authority of the chief priests and scribes (Mt 2:4),31 Jesus is described as having a teaching authority that surpasses that of the scribes (Mt 7:28). Jesus is already positioned as a rival to the established Jewish authority.

27

Their presence is not mentioned explicitly in Mt 16:1-4. The school debate about fasting (Mt 9:14-17) is also provoked by the disciples, although the conflict is not between Jesus and his critics. 29 Bacon, "The Five Books of Matthew’s Gospel against the Jews", Exp 25 (1918), pp. 56-66. Some scholars point out that although there are five formulae at the end of five major discourses, there are six to seven major discourses in the Gospel. Does Matthew imitate the Pentateuch so as to present Jesus as the new Moses? The Gospel does not provide strong enough evidence to support this hypothesis. See the discussion about the structure of the Gospel of Matthew in Stanton, Matthew, pp. 23-27. 30 There are no individual narratives of conversion to faith in the first section, nine in the second section (Mt 8:1-4, 8:5-13, 8:14-15, 8:28-34, 9:1-8, 9:18-26 [two stories], 9:27-31 and 9:32-34), none in the third section, two in the fourth section (Mt 15:21-27 and 17:14-19) and one in the fifth section (Mt 20:2934, 21:14-15). 31 Konradt is of the opinion that the narrative points to the opposition against Jesus' role as the Messiah, Konradt, Matthäus, p. 110. 28

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Introduction

The second section (Mt 8:1-9:37) invites us to go with Jesus in his ministry. It ends with Jesus commissioning the disciples (Mt 10:1-42). In this section, three conflict stories 15 from three groups of critics are recorded in the midst of ten of Jesus’ miracles: Jesus’ authority to forgive sin is questioned by the scribes (Mt 9:1-8). The problem of table fellowship with sinners is posed by the Pharisees (Mt 9:9-13). The practice of fasting is questioned by the disciples of John (Mt 9:14-17). The three questions raised by the critics are highly relevant to the disciples, who must answer three questions themselves before they are commissioned to do ministry: is their ministry legitimised and what authority are they given (Mt 9:8)? Are they allowed to mix with sinners during their peripatetic mission (Mt 9:13, 10:11)? What is the message of the mission and what attitude should they have when the earthly Jesus is no longer there? The conflict stories here prepare the disciples for their engagement in mission. The third section (Mt 13:1-50) describes the emerging Kingdom of Heaven. It contains six of Jesus’ parables (their ending is found in Mt 13:53), five of which are about the Kingdom of Heaven. In this section, three stories of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees and scribes are recorded; two are about the Shabbat and one is about exorcism (Mt 12:1-8, 12:9-14, 12:24-45). The question of Jesus’ authority is raised above the real issues of the conflicts. Jesus also makes reference to himself as the Son of Man three times in the debates (Mt 12:8, 12:32, 12:40). The conflict stories here reveal the Kingdom of Heaven to the audience: it is only by recognising Jesus’ authority that the imminence of the Kingdom of Heaven can be realised (cf. Mt 16:19 in the fourth section). These are the toughest conflicts that Jesus has with the Jewish leaders in Galilee. The fourth section (Mt 13:54-18:35) lays the ruling principles for the evkklhsi,a.32 In this section, only two conflict stories are found: the status of the traditions of the elders (Mt 15:1-15) and the illegitimacy of asking for a further sign (Mt 16:1-4). Here the teaching authority of the Jewish leaders is undermined twice (Mt 15:14, 16:11). Instead, the right of discretion with regard to the halakha is given to Peter (Mt 16:16-19) and the community (Mt 18:18).33 The ruling principles for the church are stated (Mt 18:1-22). The conflict narratives serve here to disarm the rivals of the evkklhsi,a. The last section (Mt 19:3-25:46) brings us to the eve of the Passion. Only two miracles are recorded in this section. Two blind people are healed on the way to 32

evkklhsi,a appears only three times in the Synoptics (see Mt 16:18, 18:17), although Luke mentions it often in Acts (Acts 5:11, 7:38, 8:1, 9:31 etc). Luz thinks that it is highly probably that Mt 16:18 comes from Jesus, although Mt 18:17 may not be. See Luz, Matthäus 2, pp. 454-459, 461-464. 33 The words de,w and lu,w in Mt 16:19 are from rsa and ryth, which mean the enforcement or release respectively of halakha for a particular person. See Luz, Matthäus 2, pp. 458-459, 465-466, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, pp. 634-641. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Introduction

Jerusalem (Mt 20:29-34) and one lame person is healed in the temple (Mt 21:14). Both healings are an allusion to the restoration of those who are hindered by the Pharisees’ 16 halakha. Seven conflicts take place in Judaea in this section, six of which are found in Jerusalem. The conflicts are on divorce (Mt 19:1-9), the healing in the temple (Mt 21:1317), Jesus’ authority (Mt 22:23-27), paying tax to Caesar (Mt 22:15-22), the resurrection (Mt 22:23-33), the greatest commandment (Mt 22:34-40) and the relationship between David and the Messiah. The conflicts end with a lengthy reproach (i.e., the seven woes) against the Pharisees and scribes and Jesus’ appeal for repentance (Mt 23:37-39). The conflict narratives dethrone the Jewish authorities and call for their eventual repentance. 1.3.2 Critics

The Pharisees are Jesus' most important dialogue partners in the Gospel of Matthew.34 They are mentioned twenty-nine times, (nineteen of which are with another group). Matthew mentions them more frequently than any other New Testament writer. In fact, Matthew mentions the Pharisees five times at the cost of other groups or anonymous inquirers in the conflict narratives. Furthermore, he intensifies the malignancy of their motives.35 It is likely that Matthew deliberately chooses the Pharisees as Jesus’ major critics (cf. Lk 7:36, 14:1). The scribes are the second major group of critics, but appear only four times alone. With the Pharisees, they are involved in 13 of the 14 conflict stories in Matthew’s Gospel.36 Both groups appear faceless; their counter-arguments to Jesus’ opinions are recorded only once, in Mt 19:7. Their reactions, which are all negative, are recorded in less than half of the conflicts.37 The recorded reactions serve to support the author’s negative portrayal of the critics, that they are not learned enough (Mt 34

Pharisee (srp) means be separated or to separate oneself from, cf. Lev 24:12, Weiss, “Pharisäer I, II”, TRE 26, pp. 473-477. Many of the New Testament scholars (Wellhausen, Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, p. 11, pp. 21-39, Schürer, History II, pp. 338-403, especially p. 389, pp. 398-402) hold that the Pharisees were an elitist religious group that had a strong influence over the Jews. However, Gedalyahu points out that the Pharisees were not an elitist group, but represented the majority of the Jews. They were relatively active in politics, for example since the time of the Hasmoneans, cf. Jos., Ant, 13:401-404. Their mission was to promote welfare and improvement in the society, involving at times the suppression of the Torah. Although Josephus mentions only six thousand Pharisees at the time of Herod, there may have been more of them, see Jos., Ant, 17:42. Only six thousand of the Pharisees were bold enough to refuse an oath to loyalty to Herod. See Gedalyahu, Jews, Judaism, pp. 20-22. Luz holds similar opinions. He points out that the Pharisees were the most important Jewish group that influenced the devoutness of the Jews before 70 AD, but that the Pharisees were scattered among the Jews and did not form a separate group themselves. See Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 362-365. Not all hold that Pharisees were good (cf. the reproach against seven types of Pharisees in b. Sota 22b). 35 The Pharisees are mentioned at the cost of others in Mt 9:9-13, cf. Mk 2:13-17; Mt 12:22-45, cf. Mk 3:22-27; Mt 22:34-40, cf. Mk 12:28-34; Mt 22:41-46 and cf. Mk 12:35-37. The negative motives of the Pharisees are intensified in Mt 9:1-8, cf. Mk 2:1-12, Lk 5:17-26; Mt 12:16, cf. Mk 2:23-28, Lk 6:1-5, Mt 22: 15-22, 35-37, cf. Mk 12:13-17 and Lk 20:20-26. 36 They are not involved in the conflict about the resurrection (Mt 22:23-33). 37 Mt 12:1-8, 9-14, 22-45, 15:1-20, 21:15-16. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Introduction

22:46) and are resentful of criticism (Mt 12:14, 15:12, 21:15). Their authority is acknowledged once (Mt 23:2), but this single instance of praise is outnumbered by the 17 many narratives on their incompetence. They are thrice warned of future judgment (Mt 12:22-45, 15:1-20, 21:45-46) and again at great length at the end of all of the conflicts (Mt 23:1-39). However, the critics add merits to the Gospel. Without their challenges and questions, the identity of Jesus and the deeper dimension of Jesus’ teachings would not be made transparent to the audience. Jesus makes direct or indirect references to himself in four of the conflicts.38 The disciples are given extra lessons twice, after the conflict about divorce in Mt 19:10-12 and after the conflict about a request for a sign from heaven in Mt 16:5-12. The conflict stories include not only challenges raised by critics, but also questions central to the Christian community. The way Jesus’ answers are received in the narrative shows that the conflicts were primarily written for believers who were ready to accept all that Jesus says as convincing, not for the critics. 39 Matthew’s Jesus is not consistent in his teachings. He talks about loving one’s enemies and unlimited forgiveness, but his reproach of the Jewish leaders never softens. He is ontologically and theologically critical of the Pharisees. Their motives are twice described as malicious (Mt 12:10 and 22:15) and three times are depicted as testing (Mt 16:1, 19:3, 22:35).40 He uses Jewish derision of the critics’ competence in four conflicts (Mt 12:3, 5, 7, 19:4, 21:16, 22:31). He reproaches them metaphorically with u`pokrith,j eight times (Mt 15:7, 22:18, 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29), with gennh,mata evcidnw/n three times (Mt 3:7, 12:34, 23:33) and compares them to barren trees three times in his Gospel (Mt 3:10, 12:33, 21:43). 41 These strong reproaches may show that the Matthean 38

Mt 9:1-8, 9-13, 12:1-8, 24-42. Yieh suggests that Jesus, as the one teacher of God’s will, had polemic, apologetic, didactic and pastoral tasks. His duties corresponded to the Matthean community’s four crises, Jewish hostility, group identity, community formation and church maintenance. See Yieh, One Teacher, p. 274. 39 Repschinski thinks that the conflict narratives carry a rthetorische Überzeugungskraft. They are written for the readers, aiming not to convince Jesus’ opponents but to illegitimatise them. Repschinski, “Literarische Form der Streitgespräche” in Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur, pp. 429-430. 40 In Matthew’s Gospel, peira,zw means testing of one’s competence in an area (Mt 4:1, 3, 16:1 and 19:3). Only in Mt 22:18 does it carry a negative meaning, determined by the introduction to,te poreuqe,ntej oi` Farisai/oi sumbou,lion e;labon o[pwj auvto.n pagideu,swsin evn lo,gw| in Mt 22:15. 41 u`pokrith,j means the discrepancies between the outward behaviour and inner inclinations of the leaders in Matthew’s Gospel. The same meaning is also used by Paul against Peter when he behaves differently at table fellowship in the presence of James’ followers (Gal 2:13). Contemporary Jewish literature distinguishes between two types of Pharisees and reproaches one type for being hypocrites. See b.Sota 22b. In LXX, u`pokrith,j appears twice in Job 34:30 and 36:13. Both uses have ambiguous meanings, either meaning someone who does something inconsistently, hiding his true intentions (Job 34:30), or someone who harbours anger (Job 36:13). u`pokrith,j is near to {@nx, which means godless in the sense of leaving the original faith or perverting or diverting from the truth or justice. {@nx appears 26 times in the Old Testament. It is used to both reproach and to urge for repentance. See Knierim, “@nx” in Jenni and Westermann, Eds., Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum AT, pp. 598-599. u`pokrith,j is also found as words of reproach against the Jews in Didache, e.g. Did 2:6, 8:1, 2 and Barn 21:4. In a Greek context, u`pokrith,j does not necessarily The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Introduction

community was so at odds with its Jewish community that they wish to be clearly differentiated from them. However, the use of the strong grumble to attack critics is not 18 uncommon in Biblical narratives. Uncivilised as the reproach may appear to the readers, it may simply reveal the great difficulty of converting critics to one’s own side.42 The scheme of the seven woes against the Pharisees and scribes (Mt 23:1-38) resembles the composition of Amos, who also ends his book with a call for repentance (Amos 9:7-10).43 Proximity also breeds dissent. The severest conflicts of the Old Testament are within the same family, such as the conflict between Cain and Abel, between Esau and Jacob, between Solomon and his half-brothers, and even between colleagues of the same or different prophetic schools, such as Amos against his priestly colleague Amaziah (Amos 8:10-16) and Jeremiah against the contemporary prophet Hananiah (Jer 28:1-17). These indicators appear to suggest that the conflicts were intra-muros rather than extra-muros.44 Given the strong aversion of Matthew’s Jesus to the Pharisees, it has already long been discussed whether the Pharisees were the historical critics of Jesus or whether they

carry a negative meaning, meaning one who behaves exactly as he is required to in a role in a theatrical play. (Plato Leg. 668c, 817c). Vahrenhost points out that u`pokrith,j appears mostly in the later LXX writings, which have no corresponding text in the Hebrew Bible. It means either deeds whose true intentions are hidden when used in the wisdom literature, e.g. PsSal 4:6, 20, 22, or role play when used in 2 Macc 5:25, 6:21 and 4 Macc 6:15, 17, Vahrenhost, Nicht schwören, pp. 331-338. The meaning of gennh,mata evcidnw/n is unclear in the three contexts in Matthew’s Gospel. Of the three places where evcidnw/n is used in Matthew’s Gospel, only Mt 3:7 has a parallel in Lk 3:7. However, Luke uses it against the people, not the Pharisees. evcidnw/n (#qc) appears four times in the Old Testament (Isa 11:8, 14:29, 59:5 and Jer 8:17). Discarding Isa 14:29, the other three uses relate the word to evilness and the object of accusation is not the Israelites. The use of vipers in ancient literature is often symbolically related to the murder of one’s own parents. Nevertheless, the Pharisees and the Sadducees are said to be too confident of the tradition of the Patriarchs rather than too resentful of it. Obviously their understanding of the Patriarchal tradition is very assertive. However, from the point of view of Matthew’s Jesus, the Pharisees, who claim to be the children of Abraham and the prophets, betray their own traditions in their deeds (Mt 23:23). The usage of the word in Mt 12:34 points clearly to their evilness. Matthew’s usage can mean both their evilness and their role as traitors of their own traditions. 42 Repschinski believes that the conflict narratives in Matthew’s Gospel show that the author did not seek reconciliation between the opponents, but to sharpen the conflicts between the parties and to show their competition. Repschinski, “Die literarische Form der Streitgespräche” in Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur, p. 428. 43 Both Mt 23:1-35 and Amos follow a composition scheme of 7+1. In Matthew’s Gospel, the woes against the Pharisees and scribes start with the formula Ouvai. de. u`mi/n( grammatei/j kai. Farisai/oi u`pokritai,. The seven woes end with the climax of the crime of persecuting the messengers of God (Mt 23:33-36) and the call for repentance (Mt 23:37-39). Amos’ judgments are made against (i) Aram, (ii) Philistine, (iii) Tyrus, (iv) Edom, (v) Ammon, (vi) Moab, (vii) Juda and (vii+1) Israel. The climax is the judgment upon Israel, to whom the book is addressed (Amos 1:3-2:16). 44 See also Lehnert, Provokation, p. 294. Axel von Dobbeler, "Die Restitution Israels und die Bekehrung der Heiden. Das Verhältnis von Mt 10:5b, 6 und Mt 28:18-20 unter dem Aspekt der Komplementarität. Erwägungen zum Standort des Matthäusevangeliums", ZNW 91 (2000), pp. 42-44, Grundeken, "Community Formation in Matthew: A Study of Matthew 18,15-18" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 454-455, 458-459. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Introduction

only represent a literary means to demonstrate Jesus’ teachings. 45 Similarly, are the narrative conflicts in Matthew’s Gospel historical conflicts or are they a means to 19 establish the catechism of the Matthean community? 46 Some scholars suggest that the conflicts show that the Matthean community was fighting a war on two fronts, as Matthew criticises the Pharisees, but still shows great respect for the Torah. As the community was a corpus permixtum, it is possible that Matthew writes for both a Torahfaithful Jewish group and an emerging group of Gentile proselytes who had difficulties in following the Pharisees’ halakha.47 1.3.3 Hypothesis of the Separation of the Matthean Community from Judaism

Few themes in the Gospel of Matthew have attracted more research attention than the relationship between the Matthean community and Judaism. Did the Gospel predate or postdate the separation between the community and Judaism? The traditional argument for the separation of the Matthean community from Judaism is the phrase sunagwgw/n auvtw/n, which may hint that the Matthean community was no longer a part of the synagogue.48 Matthew’s closer proximity to the synagogue is obvious. His sources (Mark and Q) mention the synagogue only once, but Matthew mentions synagogues seven times in his Gospel.49 Despite this frequency, nowhere in the Gospel is sunagwgh, auvtw/n set as 45

Berger maintains that the conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees do not only describe past conflicts but also reflect the same kind of conflicts which took place between the Christian community and the Pharisees in the Diaspora. For Berger, the conflict stories are chrie, which provides an answer to the critical questions raised. Some of the chrie are defensive and apologetic, such as the Shabbat conflicts and the conflict about purity. But others are offensive. Berger, Formen und Gattungen, p. 148. 46 Overman, Mt Gospel, pp. 154-160. 47 Barth, "Das Gesetzeverständnis des Evangelisten Matthäus" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäus Evangelium, p. 138, pp. 149-154, Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, pp. 66-71, 140-142, 157-158. 48 sunagwgh, is a Greek political term which means the gathering or congregation of people. sunagwgh, may also mean a physical building, such as in Lk 7:6, or a congregation, such as in Rev 2:9. The existence and function of the synagogue in Palestine are found in the Theodotus inscription (CIJ II 1404). See Kloppenborg, “The Theodotos Synagogue Inscriptions and the Problem of First Century Synagogue Buildings” in Jesus and Archaeology, pp. 236-282. In LXX, it means the congregation, such as in Exod 12:47, Lev 4:13 and 2 Chr 5:6. The argument is first put forward by Kilpatrick, Origins of Mt, 1946, pp. 110-111. He argues that the genitive attribute of synagogue in the Gospel of Matthew is forced or far-fetched in its syntax. His argument is used by Hummel, Stanton and Luz. See Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, pp. 56-72, Stanton, New People, p. 119, Luz, Matthäus 1, pp. 70-71 and Levine, “Matthew’s Portrayal of the Synagogue and its Leaders” in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 182-186. Konradt maintains that the phrase hints that the Matthean community had distanced itself from the synagogue but does not necessarily mean that it had separated from the synagogue. See Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 382-8. The Sermon on the Mount is further evidence for the separation, as it shows that the Matthean community had a different ethic from the Jewish community. See Davies and Allison, Matthew I, pp. 504-509, Matthew III, pp. 695-699 and Stanton, New People, pp. 320-325. A survey on the discussion can be found in Stanton, Matthew, pp. 30-43. 49 Mk 12:38-39. Mt 23:6-7, Lk 11:43 [Q]. Konradt thinks that the Matthean community was still within Judaism. The community was intensively engaged in conflicts with the synagogues in its region, which were dominated by the Pharisees. Konradt, The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Introduction

an antithesis to Jesus or his circle. 50 Matthew appears to use sunagwgh, to describe a public place where Jesus teaches and heals. sunagwgh, is used in Mt 4:23, 6:2, 5, 9:35, 20 10:17, 12:9 and 13:54. In only Mt 12:9 is there a direct relationship with the Pharisees and scribes. 51 A synagogue is also a place where healing can take place (Mt 12:9). It is not consistently negatively depicted in the Gospel. The arguments for the Matthean community’s continued bond with Judaism are weightier. Hummel summarises four pieces of evidence supporting this position: the avoidance of “Die vollkomme Erfüllung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium” in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im neuen Testament, p. 130. 50 h` evkklhsi,a (lhq, hd[) is often used as a synonym or in parallel to suvnagwgh, (lhq, hd[) in the LXX, which refers to a gathering of the Jews. Cf. Lev 8:3, Num 20:8, Prov 5:14 and Joel 2:16. It was used by first and second generation Christians as a self-designation. It refers to the community of Christians on earth and the apocalyptic and eschatological Christian community at the end of time. In the Gospel of Matthew, h` evkklhsi,a is a self-reference to the Christian community, separate from the Jews who do not believe in Jesus Christ (Mt 16:18 and 18:17). Luke uses the phrase to refer to the Christian community only in the post-Easter period (Acts 5:11, 7:38, 8:1, 3, 9:31, 11:22, 12:1, 5, 15:4 and 22). See also Rom 16:1, 4, 1 Cor 1:2, 4:17, Gal 1:2, 22 and James 5:14. For a summary of this discussion, see Trebilco, “Why did the early Christians call themselves h` evkklhsi,a”, NTS 57 (2011), pp. 440-460. See also Roloff, evkklhsi,a in Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, pp. 998-1011. 51 Of the appearances of sunagwgh, (Mt 4:23, 6:2, 6:5, 9:35, 10:17, 12:9 and 13:54), the genitive attribute auvtw/n is only applied in the five cases in which Jesus teaches and heals (Mt 4:23, 9:35, 10:17, 12:9 and 13:54). In Mt 6:2 and 6:5, the synagogue and hypocrites are compared to real religiosity in Jesus’ speech. Although Jesus associates the place with superficial or false religiosity, he does not stop teaching there. What is reproachable in Mt 6:2 and 6:5 is the behaviour, not the place. Matthew inserts auvtw/n after ‘synagogue’ in Mt 12:9 (cf. Mk 3:1). From the narrative flow in Mt 12:1-14, it seems more probable that the expression describes a transition of the scene from an open field to a synagogue. Mt 10:17 is Matthew’s Sondergut. The verse refers to the future persecution of the Christians by their Jewish counterparts. The genitive attribute refers more to the people Prose,cete de. avpo. tw/n avnqrw,pwn in Mt 10:17a. Likewise, the genitive attribute of evdi,dasken auvtou.j evn th/| sunagwgh/| auvtw/n in Mt 13:54b refers more to the people of his own country kai. evlqw.n eivj th.n patri,da auvtou/ in 13:54a. In both cases, the genitive attribute appears to refer more to a plural subject or object in the previous verses than to an indication of a demarcation between oneself and others. The strong semantic resemblance between the use of the phrase in Mt 4:23 (cf. Mk 1:39) and Mt 9:35 may suggest that they come from the same Urtext. However, some ancient textual witnesses, e.g. P120 (P.Oxy 4402), B (k), C*, sy s.p.h, a1, D and f1, provide a reading for Mt 4:23 that does not contain evn tai/j sunagwgai/j auvtw/n. They supply the reading (o` VIhsou/j dida,skwn) evn o[lh| th/| Galilai,a|. See Min, Die früheste Überlieferung, p. 220. Even if what is provided by NA27 in Mt 4:23 and 9:35 is correct, both verses stress that Jesus is very busy, going from place to place, from synagogue to synagogue. The terms refer more to the geographically located synagogue which Jesus visits. sunagwgai/j u`mw/n (your synagogue) appears only once in Mt 23:34, but the place here is also doubtful as P77 supplies a reading without the genitive attribute in this verse. See Min, Die früheste Überlieferung, p. 195. A genitive attribute in Mt 23:34 would refer to the Pharisees and scribes, whom Jesus has already addressed as u`ma/j in Mt 23:34a. The expression is more a grammatical coherence than a sign of separation. The synagogue in Mt 23:6 does not have a genitive attribute, so refers more to an open place. Some researchers say that Mt 9:18-26 provides a hint that Matthew distanced himself from the synagogue. See Stantion, New People, p. 129. In Mt 9:18-26, Matthew makes the president of the synagogue who seeks Jesus’ help for his dying daughter anonymous (cf. ei-j tw/n avrcisunagw,gwn in Mk 5:22-43, a;rcwn th/j sunagwgh/j in Lk 8:41-56). However, given the strong criticism of Matthew’s Jesus of the leaders, it may be his high position that makes Matthew uneasy, not his relationship with the synagogue. Vahrenhost also analyses ‘your synagogue’ in his study. See Vahrenhost, Nicht schwören, p. 6. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Introduction

the use of avfori,zw (Mt 5:11, par Lk 6:22 Q), 52 the teachings about the future persecution by the Jews, which presuppose that the church was still within Judaism (Mt 21 10:17, 23:34-35),53 the recognition of the teaching authority of the Pharisees and scribes, although Matthew warns of future judgment of the discrepancy between their teachings and their deeds (Mt 23:2) and the payment of the temple dues, etc. (Mt 17:24-27).54 Allison even suggests that Matthew, through his construction of parallels between Jesus and Moses, wrote his Gospel to prohibit the dissociation of Christianity from Judaism.55 Whether the conflicts were intra-muros or extra-muros is a self-assessment of the relationship with the Matthean community’s Jewish counterpart. 56 As the risen Jesus’ commandment of mission to all nations does not exclude Israel (Mt 28:19), the argument for the parting of the community from Judaism cannot be fully substantiated.57 However, even if the argument for the community’s continued bond with Judaism is stronger, the numerous differences between them were not necessarily overcome. Both were faithful to the Torah, but the Matthean community represents a differentiation within Judaism through its interpretation of the Torah and its acknowledgement of Jesus as the Lord. However, the latter is not the only decisive criteria for eligibility to the Kingdom of God. The concrete doing of the Will of the God is the decisive criterion (Mt 7:21b-23, his Sondergut).58 Matthew does not deny salvation to the Jews, even when they do not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

52

Hummel points out that Mt 5:11 does not use the same expression of avfori,zw (separate) and evkba,lwsin to. o;noma u`mw/n (denounce your names) as Lk 6:22 [Q]. These words are the Hebrew or Aramaic equivalents of ldb, which means exclusion from a community in the Old Testament and in Qumran. Hummel, Ausseinandersetzung, p. 30. 53 Mt 10:13, 23:34 imply the disciplinary measures taken within the Jewish community. See Cohn, "Flogging", EJ , vol.7, pp. 78-80. 54 Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, pp. 29-31, p.159. See also Bornkamm, "Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelium" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im MtEv., pp. 36-37. Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 9-13. 55 Allison, The new Moses, p. 290. 56 Konradt, Matthäus, p. 387. 57 See also Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 14-15, 399-401. Vahrenhorst points out that all halahka discussion of the Gospel are within Judaism. Vahrenhorst, Nicht schwören, p. 410. Senior, "Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity: An Introduction Assessment," in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 10-15, Kraus, "Zur Ekklesiologie des Matthäusevangeliums" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 204-205. Cf. Levine, "Matthew's Portrayal of the Synagogue und its Leaders" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 177-186, Luz, Matthäus 4, p. 451. 58 See also Kraus, "Zur Ekklesiologie des Matthäusevangeliums" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 233-234. Vahrenhost, Nicht schwören, p. 25. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Introduction

1.3.4 Question Leading to this Study

This study’s research questions arise from the end of the Gospels. If the priority of Mark is accepted as a working hypothesis for the study,59 then we can note that Mark and the later Gospel writers end their Gospels quite differently. Mark ends his Gospel with the silence of the women upon hearing the news of Jesus’ resurrection (Mk 16:8a). Matthew ends his Gospel with the risen Jesus’s commands. Luke ends his Gospel with the return of the disciples to Jerusalem, the same place where he begins the Gospel (Lk 1:8) and where he starts his sequel (Acts 1:4). The problem of unconvinced Jews disturbed the later Gospel writers. Matthew writes frankly that even some of the disciples were doubtful (Mt 28:17). Luke writes that the disciples return to the temple to praise God, but it is also the place where the toughest critics of Jesus and the early Christians are found (Lk 20:1-7, 19-44 and Acts 4:1). Did those who were unconvinced during Jesus’ lifetime come to faith after his resurrection? How does Matthew handle this problem in his Gospel? Do the conflict narratives in Matthew’s Gospel reflect the hurdles he encountered in his attempts to convert the Jews and, at the same time, his attempts to consolidate the converted? What conflicts in the time of the earthly Jesus were still rocking the Matthean community?

59

Doole and Häfner provide a recent defence on the Gospel of Mark as one of the most important sources of the Gospel of Matthew. See Doole, Matthew, pp. 10-12, 79-80, 128, 175-196. Häfner, "Das Matthäus-Evangelien und seine Quelle" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 25-71. See also Stanton, Matthew, pp. 19-23. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

22

Methodology

Chapter 2 Methodology There is no shortage of narratives about conflicts, nor of instructions for their resolution, in the New Testament. In retrospect, conflicts had both negative and positive functions in defining Christianity. Conflicts split the early Christians from their Jewish neighbours. However, it was also through living with and resolving conflicts that Christianity emerged and gradually distinguished itself from its Jewish roots. It was through the resolution of the conflicts within the Christian community and between Christian communities that solidarity within and between Christian communities was strengthened.1 This dissertation studies the conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees and scribes in the Gospel according to Matthew. This study not only investigates the conflicts per se, it also tries to identify Matthew’s redactional concerns, to determine whether Matthew includes the post-Easter conflicts of his community with his retelling of the conflicts during the time of the earthly Jesus (pre-Easter era).2 As there is little external evidence of the conflicts between the early Christians and their Jewish counterparts during the time the Gospels were written, around 70 AD, this study on the conflicts in the pre- and postEaster eras is investigated primarily through the internal evidence of the Gospels, internal references in the non-Gospel writings in the New Testament and external evidence from contemporary Jewish and Greco-Roman literature. The investigation is mainly conducted on two levels: Matthew’s redaction in the Gospel and a comparison between the ways Matthew and his contemporary Luke handle the same conflict themes in their writing. The methods used are primarily form and redaction criticism. Research into the conflict stories in the Gospel of Matthew through form and redaction criticism started a century ago and is still ongoing. Form criticism has consensus on at least three issues: the conflict narratives in the Gospel do not fit the literary category (Gattung) of Streitgespräch (dispute or controversy dialogue). The 1

Berger names five types of conflicts in the New Testament: (i) the conflicts between Jesus (and his circle of disciples) and the Jewish and Hellenistic authorities (in the Gospels and Acts), (ii) the conflicts between the Christian communities and the opponents of Jewish Christians (Acts 15 and Gal, pastoral letters and Col), (iii) The conflicts between the Christian community and the opponents of Gentile Christians (1 Cor 15:12, 2 Pet, Rev 2 and Jude), (iv) the conflicts between the Christian community and the Gentiles (1 Pet), and the conflicts between different groups of Christian missionaries (2 Cor 11), (v) conflicts between the Christian communities and the Roman authorities. See Berger, Einführung, pp. 255256. 2 Through the retelling of the stories about Jesus, an imaginative, communicative platform is unfolded between the past and the present, where the audiences or the readers of the Gospel are in direct encounter with the earthly Jesus themselves. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

23

Methodology

retelling of the conflict stories was not for the conflicts per se. The arguments of the other partners are not given the same weight as those of Jesus and they are not given a fair 24 avenue for expression in the conflict narratives. The literary form of the conflict stories is very similar to the speech-form of contemporary, prominent figures, which serves the purpose of self-promotion or propaganda. Despite this consensus, however, New Testament scholars have different views on the degree to which the literary forms of the conflict stories resemble contemporary Jewish school debates or Greek self-promotion. Redaction criticism has reached consensus on two issues based on the assumption that Matthew was a Jewish Christian theologian, not a historian, even according to contemporary standards: Matthew relies more heavily on the Gospel of Mark than his other sources, such as the Logien-Quelle (Q) source and his Sondergut. The weight that he puts on the writing of a Gentile Christian, Mark, shows the more enthusiastic reception of the Christian faith by the Gentiles than the Jews in the first century and the positive assessment and widespread reception of Mark’s Gospel in his time. Matthew does not intend to write a more informative biography of the earthly Jesus but a Midrash to it; he follows Mark’s sequence quite faithfully. 3 He leaves many missing details of Jesus’ biography unfilled in his Gospel, but he does insert Jesus’ genealogy and the narrative of his birth to argue for his role as the Messiah of Davidic origin. Matthew is clearly more interested in Jesus’ teachings. By remembering the earthly Jesus’ words and deeds, Matthew tried to respond to the needs of his Christian community, which had strong Jewish elements. 4 Also Matthew, like the other Christian Gospel writers, wrote his Gospel under the kerygma of the risen Jesus. Both form and redaction criticism take into consideration the deciding influence of the kerygma of the risen Jesus on both the form and content of the conflict narratives. The historicity of the conflicts in the time of the earthly Jesus is therefore put into doubt, as all of the Gospel authors write their Gospels with the unflagging theological zeal of the post-Easter era. Equally uncertain is the nature of the Matthean community. Although New Testament scholars have used very similar methods (form and redaction criticism) in their research, different conclusions about Matthew and his community have been reached. The conclusions may reflect not only the different social, religious or cultural facets of the Matthean community, but also the difficulties involved in reconstructing the identity of the readers for whom the Gospel was first written.

3

See also Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, p. 317. Luomanen, “From Mark and Q to Matthew” in Mark and Matthew II, pp. 72-73. 4 Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, p. 317. Loumanen ascertains that Matthew´s Gospel serves to consolidate the social identity oft he growing movement. See Luomanen, “From Mark and Q to Matthew” in Mark and Matthew II, pp. 64-66. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

2.1 Major Research Outcomes of the Conflict Stories in the Gospel of Matthew 2.1.1 History of Research

Form and redaction criticism belong to the same family of research methods for written productions. Both suppose that a primitive tradition is always in the process of transmission and reception in different historical (and also readership) contexts. The transmitter (the authors and redactors), the receivers (the readers) and the historical context of both interact with each other to keep the tradition renewed and relevant to the readers of the time. Form criticism supposes that authors and redactors are collectors of fragments of oral or written traditions.5 They preserve or reformulate them in the literary forms in which the intention and meaning of the messages can be transmitted best.6 The form and content of the tradition are supposed to be closely related in an ideographical way, which affects its interpretation. Form criticism is concerned with two issues: i.

Trace how the oral units of primitive traditions evolve and settle in written forms over time.7

ii.

Identify the literary genre of a tradition and investigate into its relationship with other traditions of a similar genre. Study the function of the literary genre and the category of literary forms or Gattung to which it belongs, in relation to the other available literary forms (Gattungen) of its time.

Unlike form criticism, which presupposes that the Gospel writers were the collectors of individual traditions, redaction criticism presupposes that the Gospel writers were redactors who made use of the traditions collected to write their own texts.8 The process 5

Given the relatively stable word order in the parallel narratives in the Synoptics, Jesus’ words should not be an invention ex nihilo. Some of them should be historical. Nevertheless, the opinion of New Testament scholars on this issue remains divided, cf. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testament, pp. 29-32, 34, Conzelmann, "Gegenwart und Zukunft in der Synoptischen Tradition" in Theologie als Schriftauslegung, pp. 46-47, Theissen and Merz, Der historische Jesu, p. 45. 6 Berger, Einführung, p. 20. 7 The result of the method depends on the successful identification of certain oral or language indicators or elements which are typical of a certain literary form. In the second phase, the analysis of the elements could show the history of how the traditions were transmitted by different literary forms over time, Berger, Einführung, pp. 23-29. 8 Marxsen, The Evangelist Markus, p.10. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

25

Methodology

of redaction is an ongoing process of interpreting traditions for immediate readers. An author’s redaction is only a part of the growing influence of an earlier literary or 26 theological impulse, not the final piece. 9 The redaction detected can be so overwhelmingly strong that it suggests the redactor’s subjective understanding of the events, rather than being an objective report of the historical reality.10 It can be said that even the historicising tendency of a redaction is not for the sake of historical fact per se, but to add weight to the authenticity of the redactor’s viewpoint. Redaction criticism is concerned with two major questions with respect to tradition and innovation in a text:11 i.

Determine the alterations made to the traditions or theology that the redactor inherits and the way he places his alterations in the composition. It is often not easy to discover the extent of the redactor’s innovation when all of his sources cannot be identified with precision.

ii. Determine the central motives of the redaction with respect to the historical and theological origin of the author. They can be identified if the redactor displays consistency in his alterations. The Gospel is a written product. It is a result of the reception of traditions whose most primitive form is fragments in free circulation.12 The use of form and redaction criticism in the study of the Gospels is a response to questions about the historicity of the sources and the reception of the traditions about Jesus.13 The sustained efforts of more than a century of research have firmly entrenched that the pericopae in the Gospels and Acts are literary narratives coloured by kerygma. Their historicity is still under test. 14 When a minimalist approach is taken, the Gospels can be regarded as giving a broadly chronological account of events, despite their tendency to theologise the events unfolding. Form criticism of the conflict narratives in the Gospel was carried out in the early twentieth century. The church historian Jordan named a category of Streitschrift (dispute) in one of his works published in 1911. 15 However, he did not go into details of the Streitschriften in the Gospels. The discussion of form criticism went on most feverishly among the New Testament scholars Fiebig, Albertz, Dibelius and Bultmann from 1920 to 9

Berger, Exegese, p. 203. Berger, Exegese, p. 202, Perrin, Redaction, pp. 1-9, p. 34. 11 Berger, Exegese, pp. 204-5, Stanton, Matthew, p. 15 12 Gassmann, "Rezeption I" in TRE, pp. 131-142, Taylor, Gospel Tradition, p. 13. 13 Berger, Einführung, p. 19. 14 Bultmann, "Kirche und Lehre im neuen Testament" in Glauben und Verstehen, pp. 172-173. 15 Jordan, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, pp. 262-307. 10

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

1930. They debated the relationship between the literary form and authenticity of the 27 accounts. Fiebig compares three conflict narratives in Mark with the Jewish literary form of the school debate. He identifies three stages of conflict narrative – direct speech, question and dialogue – in which the last phase often ends with a question calling for the reader’s decision.16 His method is significant. Not only does it stress the continuity (and hence the interpretative frame) of the narratives in the New Testament with Jewish contemporary texts, but also how it stimulates the future study of the theological motives hidden in the texts. Through their form of speech, the authors of the Gospel identify the central characters in their narratives with the legitimate messengers authorised by God – prophets and teachers.17 A similar trend is found later in the comparison of the literary forms of the conflict stories in the Gospels, contemporary Jewish stories and Hellenistic literature, such as the progymnasmata and its sub-categories, chreia and apophthegmata. Albertz writes on synoptic conflict dialogues and their form criticism, naming them Streitgespräche (disputes) and distinguishing between versucherische Streitgespräche and nichtversucherische Streitgespräche. He studies the conflicts in their places of origin, Galilee and Jerusalem. Albertz holds that at least seven or nine conflict narratives existed before Mark compiled his Gospel.18 He points out that the use of direct speech between two partners to frame the Lord’s words (Herrenworte) was an attempt to convey their authenticity to the readers.19 He also tries to trace how the oral tradition gradually settled into the literary form of a Streitgespräch and how the Streitgespräche vary in the hands of different redactors in the Synoptics.20 Albertz suggests that dispute dialogues were used as apologies by the early churches in their proclamation of the Gospel in the 16

Fiebig’s comparison covers the categories of individual sayings (Aussprüche, Einzelspruche), parables (Gleichnisse), events (Vorkommnis –ma’aseh), and Prayers (Gebete). He compares the form of conflict stories in the Gospel with the form of a conflict of Rabban Gamliel (100 AD) with a philosopher in Mekhilta Par Jethro, par 6. He points out that there are three stages in the dispute (Direkte Rede, Frage und Wechselgespräche). Each stage leads to the next in an escalating manner. The last phase often ends with a question needing a decision, or it is supplemented with a parable in the dialogue. The conflicts he studies are Mk 2:23-28, 7:1-23, 12:18-27. He regards them as comparable to rabbinic school disputes and events. See Fiebig, der Erzählungsstil der Evangelien im Lichte des rabbinischen Erzählungsstils untersucht. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Streit um die Christusmythe, pp. 107-126. According to Mekhilta, the structure of a rabbinic debate consists of four parts: (i) quoting the opponents’ interpretation of a biblical verse, (ii) raising critical questions concerning its interpretation, (iii) citing another relevant verse to suggest different interpretations, (iv) presenting one’s own interpretation. Cf. Mekhilta de Rabbini Jishma’el on Exod 12:2,5. The structure of conflict stories in the Gospels resembles this but the quoting of the opponents’ view is much briefer. 17 Similar to Albertz’s finding, see Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 31. 18 Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, pp. 58-59. 19 Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 59. 20 Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, pp. 117-140. Similar to Fascher’s position, Die formgeschichte Methode, pp. 87-89. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

diaspora, 21 as in nearly all of the Streitgespräche, Jesus is in a reactive, defensive position.22 Similarly to Fiebig, Albertz compares the conflict dialogues in the Gospels 28 with those in classical Jewish literature. He suggests that the reformulating of the tradition in Streitgespräche was made possible by an anti-rabbinic Christian trained as a rabbi.23 He finds that they use the same form for literary expressions, a brief introduction to the background, then a dialogue between two opposing parties with questions/arguments and counter-questions/arguments, through which the characters and motives of the parties involved are revealed. Finally, Jesus always has the decisive word to conclude the scene.24 Dibelius’ “…in the beginning it was sermon…” summarises briefly what he holds to be the function of the Gospel with its manifold literary forms: i.e. it is to be used for preaching.25 In an analysis of the history of literary forms, he suggests that the forms emerged from the church’s engagement to convert people to Christianity and its assertion of Jesus’ legitimacy as the Messiah in their ministries. He names different literary forms and traces them to people working for the early church, such as preaching, teaching, story-telling, prophecy and apology. He compares the literary form of conflict stories with other Hellenistic literary forms. He holds, however, that the conflict stories in the Gospels should be classified as the paradigma of a prominent historical figure. He further classifies a subset of chrie for some conflict scenes that contain very condensed descriptions.26 Both paradigma and chrie focus on how certain sayings are anchored in a given situation. The difference between paradigma and chrie lies in the details given 21

Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, pp. 104-106. Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p.65. 23 Albertz suggests the settling of the tradition in the form of conflict stories was facilitated by an antirabbinischen christlichen rabbinisc- gebildeten Lehrer, Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 105. 24 Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, pp. 155-158. 25 “Am Anfang war die Predigt” is the condensed form of „Am Anfang aller geistigen Produktion im Urchristentum steht die Predigt, Missions und Gemeindepredigt, Erzählung und Paränese, Prophetenrede und Schriftauslegung“. See Dibelius, "Die alttestamentlichen Motive in der Leidensgeschichte des Petrus und des Johannes Evangeliums" in Botschaft und Geschichte, p. 113. Echoes can be found in Käsemann, "Zum Thema der Nichtobjektivierbarkeit" in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, p. 233. 26 Dibelius comments on the literary forms suggested by his contemporary New Testament scholars on the conflict narratives in the Gospel. He finds that the terms used by Bultmann (Apophthegma) and Fiebig (ma aseh) are vague. Albertz’s Streitgespräch is similar to paradigmata but Albertz’s classification has a weakness; it could not demarcate the Lord’s words and the situation clearly. He also considers Taylor’s pronouncement story inexact in describing the essence of conflict stories in the Gospels. Dibelius, Formgeschichte, pp. 24-25. Chrie was widespread and had been popular since 200 BCE, especially in the School of Stoa. It is part of the basic training in rhetoric and literature for Progymnasmata in ancient Greece. The shortest form of Chrie can be reduced to a sentence or a Gnome, Dibelius, Formgeschichte, p. 151, Berger, Formen und Gattung, pp. 82-83. 22

The discussion about Gnome was also made by Schlatter, Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, pp. 104106. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

about the background to the situation. Paradigma generally provide a very elaborate description, whereas in chrie, the background is mostly reduced to the essentials.27 The 29 deciding climax of both lies in a prominent person’s sayings, teachings or ways of handling a given situation. However, the significance of the sayings or action can transcend the specific situation and be generalised in their application.28 Dibelius is of the opinion that the conflict stories in the Gospels were written in the form of chrie during the spreading of the Gospel in diaspora regions.29 Bultmann writes on the history of the synoptic Gospel tradition, in which he studies nearly all of the literary forms found in the Gospels. He groups the conflict stories of the Gospels under apophthegmata, which he further classifies as Streitgespräche, Schulgespräche and biographische apophthegmata.30 In contrast to Dibelius, Bultmann holds that in the beginning was Jesus’ word. However, Jesus’ words and their setting were not on the same time plane. The narrative contexts or pericopes were not constructed until later by the early Christian communities to clothe Jesus’ words. The Gospel is the end product of a literary reconstruction around the words. Hence, on many occasions the sayings and teachings of Jesus may have existed independently of the situation in which they are placed in the Gospels. The pericope provides only a narrative means to make the sayings more easily and vividly comprehensible in an ideal scene.31 Bultmann propounds locating the retelling of the conflict stories in the Gospels in the situation of the early Christian community. What Jesus regards as correct in the conflicts could be readily reformulated as principles of defence or norms for the early Christian communities in similar situations.32 The Sitz im Leben of the conflict stories was the need for apology (defensive) and polemic (offensive) in the early Christian communities. Bultmann points out that the Schulgespräche are so closely related to the Streitgespräche that the former can be readily transformed into the latter by simply mentioning the malice of the critics’ motives.33

27

The typical form of Chrie is that the saying is introduced in a setting where a question is raised or the person is addressed or where the situation is described by a Genitivus Absolutus, Dibelius, Formgeschichte, p. 151. 28 Dibelius, Formgeschichte, p. 24, pp. 82-83. 29 Dibelius, Formgeschichte, p. 24. 30 The difference between Schul- and Streitgespräche is that the former is raised by the disciples and other people, with an introduction: Der Meister wird gefragt. The latter is raised by Jesus’ opponents. The conflict dialogues could be provoked by Jesus’ healings or his behaviour or the behaviour of his disciples. Bultmann, Geschichte, pp. 8-64. Berger comments that the criteria for the three subsets are extremely vague. Every form of Chrie is already a literary form deeply rooted in the speaker’s biography. Berger, Form & Gattungen, p. 144. 31 Bultmann, Geschichte, p. 40. 32 Bultmann, Geschichte, pp. 41-48. 33 Bultmann, Geschichte, pp. 40-42. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

In his book on the Streit- und Schulgespräche of the Gospel of Mark, using primarily form and tradition criticism, Weiss suggests that not only is the scene of dialogue 30 (Gesprächsszene) characterised by exposition-reproach-answer, but that there is also a setting (Rahmenszene) that shows the relationship between the characters in the scene. This setting can be perceived through the concrete issue of a conflict and its solution. However, it does not necessarily or directly lead to Jesus’ final answers.34 Weiss also tries to identify the elements of the literary forms of the Streit- und Schulgespräche. The Streitgespräche consist of reproaches (or attacks) and responses. Their basic form is more apologetic than polemic and they served to legitimise the practices of the early Christian communities (Lebenspraxis) rather than to criticise the Jews. 35 The Schulgespräche consist of genuine questions and answers. No reproach is found in them.36 They served to clarify what was permitted, what was prohibited and what concerned the community, such as the resurrection and the greatest commandment. Weiss points out that in conflict dialogues, Jesus’ answers are often in the form of proverbs. They are used as arguments in the debates, but may have been handed down independently. 37 However, in the Schulgespräche, Jesus’ answers could not have been effectively handed down independently of their setting.38 Taylor studies the conflict stories of the Gospel in his investigation of the formation of Gospel tradition. He refuses to use the literary form used by Dibelius (paradigmata) and Bultmann (apophthegmata). He finds Dibelius’s supposition, which holds that the conflict stories were formed because of the need to preach, too hypothetical. He finds Bultmann’s theory, which places too much emphasis on Jesus’ words and holds that the narrative settings are creative inventions, too lopsided. 39 He proposes to group the conflict stories under the category of pronouncement stories, which leaves the origin and structure of the stories open.40 Taylor is also sceptical about Bultmann’s hypothesis that the conflict stories were the literary construction of the early Christian communities. How could the words of Jesus be neatly transformed into composite utterances combining a historical report with something which Jesus never said, taking into consideration that 34

Weiss, Lehre, p. 268, p. 281. Weiss, Lehre, p. 282. 36 Weiss, Lehre, pp. 265-313. 37 Weiss, Lehre, pp. 273-274. 38 Weiss, Lehre, p. 313. 39 The presupposition that the early church invented stories to embed Jesus’ isolated sayings fails to explain one point, namely, why the early churches did not make use of as many of the literary forms found in the Gospel as possible in their missionary work. For example, the literary form of conflict narratives in the Gospels is not continued in Acts, although they also have disputes. The way a solution is given in the Gospels is however differently presented in Acts. Hence, it could imply that some of the conflict stories probably originated from the historical Jesus. 40 Taylor finds that the term leaves the origin of the narrative open and at the same time covers various types but emphasizes the words of Jesus, Taylor, Gospel Tradition, p. 30. 35

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

even in Corinth there were “not many mighty, not many noble?” This must have been even more so the case in Palestine. If this is so, how could the early community have 31 considered these stories to be authoritative in a situation of controversy?41 Berger uses the terms already used by Dibelius (chrie) and Bultmann (apophthegmata) in his classification of the conflict narratives in the Gospels. He further groups them in a similar structure with numeration. He agrees that the conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish groups not only had historical implications for the early Christian community, but also reflect the central concerns of the early Christian communities in the diaspora.42 All of the conflict narratives in the Gospels can be classified as chrie, which can have a defensive function and be a form of apologetics. Berger further argues that the conflict narratives reflect the internal conflicts between the Christian communities and the Jewish groups before their separation. Only while the situation was not totally hopeless did the early Christian communities still have reason to argue with their critics to try to win them over.43 Berger points out that the questions raised by friendly inquirers or disciples of Jesus are not essentially different from those of the critics. Both raise neutral and critical questions. The only difference lies in the redactor’s insertion of a small note describing their malicious motives.44 This observation agrees with Bultmann’s earlier comment that the Schulgespräche and the Streitgespräche are closely related literary forms. A neutral discussion can be conveniently turned into a conflict story with a slight adverse twist in the inquirers’ motives and reactions. Repschinski devotes a whole volume to the controversy stories in the Gospel of Matthew.45 He uses primarily redaction and form criticism to analyse seventeen conflict stories46 to investigate the relationship between the Matthean community and formative Judaism. 47 With respect to redaction criticism, he finds that Matthew improves the organisation and style of Mark’s Gospel with an obvious proximity to Jewish tradition. Matthew’s context for the controversy stories presumes stronger Jewish traditions than those presupposed in Mark’s Gospel. Jesus is described with a highly Christological emphasis, especially in the controversy in Jerusalem, and his superior authority in teaching is contrasted with false Jewish teachers, such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests and elders. 48 With respect to form criticism, he finds the form of the conflict stories to be dependent on chrie. However, the intensity of the hostility between the 41

Taylor, Gospel Tradition, pp. 34-37. Berger, Geschichte, p. 88. 43 Berger, Geschichte, p. 89. 44 Berger, Geschichte, p. 92. 45 Repschinski, Controversy, which was published in 2000. 46 Repschinski, Controversy, p.61. 47 Formative Judaism was first used by Neusner. See Neusner, The Emergence of Judaism, pp. 1-16. 48 Repschinski, Controversy, pp. 234-235. 42

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

opposing camps is contained by form alone. The literary form of the controversy stories should be qualified by chrie plus hostility.49 He concludes that the Matthew controversy 32 stories are reflections of an intra-muros struggle in Judaism, as Matthew focuses on the conflicts with the Pharisees, who became the successors of Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew also describes the disciples’ involvement in some of the conflicts. Moreover, Matthew postulates a new concept of community with Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of David. He holds that it is probable that the Matthean community saw itself as being within Judaism. Whether its critics saw the Matthean community in the same light is questionable.50 The above discussion highlights two inherent weaknesses of form criticism. First, not all conflict stories can be unambiguously curtailed into a single form. A narrative can contain mixed forms that are close to conflict narrative, such as the combination of apophthegmata and a miracle story in Mk 2:1-12 and its parallels Mt 9:1-8 and Lk 5:1726. Second, the meaning of a narrative cannot exist apart from its form. However, how the literary form of the conflict narrative functions within the Gospel has not been clearly spelt out. Mark considers his work a chronological account of the Gospel (euvagge,lion), VArch. tou/ euvaggeli,ou VIhsou/ Cristou/, not a biography of the earthly Jesus. 51 The conflict stories function as discourse to the Gospel of Jesus, the Christ. As discussed earlier, the conflict stories between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in the Gospels resemble the chrie and apophthegma, in which the climax lies in an authority figure and his sayings.52 Both the content and literary form of the conflict stories are devices to transmit the kerygma of the risen Christ, which was the object of faith of the early Christian communities.53 The conflict stories in the Gospel of Matthew similarly exist to support the kerygma of Jesus. Matthew’s conflict narratives do not deviate much from the literary form of the conflict stories in Mark’s Gospel and Q. He does not clothe his new material in the literary form of the conflict story.54 However, there is a marked temporal difference between the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. Matthew has a more stretched and expanded time line than Mark. Mark begins and ends his Gospel with the activities of Jesus’ 49

According to this criteria, Mt 13:53-58 should not be classified as a controversy story. Repschinski, Controversy, pp. 293-294. 50 Repschinski, Controversy, pp. 344-346. 51 As a noun, euvagge,lion, Mt (4), Mk (8), Lk (0); as a verb, euvaggeli,zw, Mt (1), Mk (0), Lk (10). 52 Berger points out that the literary form of conflict stories should contain the positions of at least two opposing parties. He does not group any conflict stories between Jesus and the Jewish leaders under the category of conflict stories, Berger, Formen und Gattungen, p. 381. 53 Berger, Formen und Gattungen, pp. 140-148. 54 Matthew’s Sondergut includes: (i) the infancy narrative (Mt 1:18-2:23), (ii) parables (Mt 13:24-30, 44-46, 47-50, 18:23-35, 20:1-16, 21:28-32, 22:1-14, 25:1-13, 14-30, 31-46) (iii) sayings (Mt 5:5, 7-9, 21-24, 27-28, 33-37, 41, 6:1-18, 7:6, 10:23, 11:28-30, 23:1-3, 5, 7-10, 15-22, (iv) Petrine tradition (Mt 14:28-30, 16:17-19), (v) temple dues (Mt 17:24-27), (vi) narrative traditions about the passion and resurrection (Mt 27:3-10, 19, 24-25, 51-53, 62-66, 28:2-4, 9-15). See Senior, "The Special Materials in Matthew's Gospel" in Handbook for the Study of Historical Jesus, vol. 3, p. 1877, Davies and Allison, Matthew I, pp. 26-27. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

contemporaries (John the Baptist’s proclamation about Jesus and the women’s visit to the empty tomb of the earthly Jesus), whereas Matthew finds the beginning and end of 33 Mark’s Gospel too restrictive for Jesus’ kerygma. He advances the start of his work with a genealogy of the earthly Jesus, which traces his line back to the Abraham’s covenant with God (Mt 1:1). He ends his Gospel with Jesus’ covenant with his followers (Jews and Christians), which remains valid until the end of time (Mt 27:19-20). Do the conflict stories in Matthew’s Gospel have an extra function in its extended time-span? Form criticism cannot provide an answer to this question, but redaction criticism can. Redaction criticism of Matthew’s conflict stories has almost the same long history as form criticism. It prospered when New Testament scholars found that the sources available for the search for the historical Jesus provided no further concrete advances towards an answer. They switched to searching for the author’s theological intention with redaction criticism. In this way, the study of the conflict narratives has often been subsumed in the redaction criticism of the whole Gospel. The main interest lies in the reconstruction of the Matthean community and its relationship to Judaism.55 Due to the more intense anti-Jewish polemics in the conflict narratives in the Gospel of Matthew, scholars agree that Matthew takes a more critical stance against the Jewish authorities than Mark. Scholars differ, however, on whether the conflicts reflect intra-muros or extra-muros conflicts: whether at the time of the Gospel’s composition the Matthean community had separated from Judaism or remained within it. The anti-Jewish elements in the conflict narratives are so compelling that even without the hypothetical framework of the two sources theory, Schlatter observes that there could have been bitter enmity between the Matthean/Palestinian community and Judaism.56 In a study of the structure of Matthew, Bacon also points out that Matthew targumises the Gospel into five sections, just like the Pentateuch in the Old Testament, to show that Jesus is greater than Moses.57 Kilpatrick holds that the phrase sunagwgh, auvtw/n belongs to Matthew’s redaction and may be a response to the insertion of birkath ha minim into the 18 benedictions of the synagogue liturgy. 58 Nevertheless, Kilpatrick supposes that even if the Matthean community was in conflict with Judaism, it was still within Judaism and the conflicts were intra-muros. 59 His observation on sunagwgh, auvtw/n is treated as proof by many

55

The strong Jewish feature of the Gospel of Matthew has been the consensus of New Testament scholars for almost a century. See Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus, pp. IX, X, cf., Bacon, "The Five Books of Matthew’s Gospel against the Jews", Exp 25 (1918), pp. 56-66, von Dobschütz, "Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechet", ZNW 27 (1928), pp. 343-344, Kilpatrick, Origin of Mt, p. 101. Clark, "The Gentile Bias of Matthew", JBL 66 (1947), p. 172. 56 Schlatter, Die Kirche des Matthäus, pp. 9-10, 17, 22-23. 57 Bacon, "The Five Books of Matthew against the Jews", Exp 25 (1918), pp. 56-66. 58 b.Ber 28b-29b and twelve Beracha der Schmone Esre. See also Iust. dial. 16:4., Epiph.Haer. 24. 59 Kilpatrick, Origins of Mt, pp. 101-123, especially p.109. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology Methodology

scholars for the separation of the Matthean community from Judaism, an observation 34 which he himself does not support. Redaction criticism of the Gospel of Matthew has gathered force since the middle of the twentieth century, peaking in the 1960s. The Gospels were then treated as pieces of literature, not historical accounts. Bornkamm rekindled the interest in redaction criticism in the middle of the twentieth century.60 However, he does not write directly about the conflict narratives in the Gospel of Matthew. Rather, Bornkamm, and later his students Barth and Held, use the same approach to investigate the tradition and exegesis of the Gospel of Matthew in detail.61 Their work triggered an untiring discussion of the conflict stories in the Gospel of Matthew, even though the genre “conflict story” does not emerge as a specific, single chapter in their studies. Nearly all of the following discussions of the subjects were a response to the hypotheses they propound. They hypothesise that the Matthean community was a corpus permixtum, a mixture of good and bad, Jews and Gentiles. The church was under the influence of the post-Easter experience and the Parousia of Jesus. It was waiting for the Judgment of God on the Last Day. 62 They hypothesise that the intention of the author, Matthew, is to convince the reader of the presence of Jesus in the church and thus to strengthen his authority. The disciples are people of little faith in the scene of the stilling of the storm, but they are more mature than the disciples who have no faith in the Gospel of Mark.63 They hypothesise that the Gospel served as a Catechism for the Matthean community. 64 They discuss the relationship between the Matthean community and other contemporary Christian communities. Was the Matthean community against the antinomianism represented by Paul’s followers? Was the community anti-Pauline or just un-Pauline?65 They hold that 60

In a short essay “The Stilling of the Storm in the Gospel of Matthew”, Bornkamm reiterates what the consensus reached decades earlier, i.e. the narratives in the Gospel do not refer to accounts of the historical Jesus. Rather they should be read through the lens of the early Christians’ faith in the kerygma of the risen Christ. Bornkamm, "Die Sturmstillung im Matthäusevangelium" in Studien zum Matthäus Evangelium, pp. 73-78. It was first published in Wort und Dienst, Jahrbuch der Kirchlichen Hochschule Bethel, NF, Jg 1, Bethel 1948, pp. 49-54. 61 Bornkamm, Barth, Held, Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäus Evangelium, Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins GmbH, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1965. 62 Bornkamm, "Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelium" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im MtEv, p. 17, Barth, "Das Gesetzesverständnis des Evangelisten Matthäus" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im MtEv, p. 55, pp. 110-111, Held, "Matthäus als Interpret der Wundergeschichten" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im MtEv, p. 255. 63 Barth, "Das Gesetzesverständnis des Evangelisten Matthäus" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im MtEv, p. 55, pp. 110-111. 64 Bornkamm, "Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelium" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im MtEv, p. 15. 65 Barth, "Das Gesetzesverständnis des Evangelisten Matthäus" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im MtEv, p. 69, p. 149. The idea that Matthew was fighting against the Antinomians was already suggested by Holtzmann in 1911. See Holtzmann, H.J. Neutestamentlichen Theologie I, p. 508, and also Stanton, Matthew, pp. 28-30, and p. 29, note 30. The word a,nomia is only found in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 7:23, 23:28, 24:12). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

the Matthean community was still bound up with Judaism, due to Matthew’s insertion of the conflict about the paying of temple dues (Mt 17:24-27).66 This conflict was intra- 35 muros.67 Most redaction criticism of the conflict stories forms part of other, more general, studies of the Gospel of Matthew. In contrast, Hummel devotes a complete book to this theme. His slim study unearths the rich potential for a discussion, which has lasted five decades. Later research works on the subject have mostly sifted or deepened his observations. He admits that his work is inspired by Bornkamm and that his observations support Kilpatrick’s. 68 However, he was not aware of a study by Trilling, which was published almost at the same time as his work was completed. Hummel uses redaction criticism. His main interest is the relationship between the Matthean community and Judaism at that time. Hummel holds that the way Matthew writes about the Jewish groups and their stances mirrors not only his theological concepts but also the concrete relationship between his community and the various groups in Judaism in his time, such as the rising dominance of the Pharisees after 70 AD.69 Matthew wrote the Gospel for his church not later than 85 AD. 70 His community did not take part in services in the synagogue, but was still a part of Judaism.71 The conflict narratives in particular existed to legitimise the practices of the Matthean community with the teachings of Jesus, who knew God’s will. Both its practices and interpretations of the Torah deviated from those of its contemporary Jewish counterparts.72 Matthew’s church was much nearer to Judaism than Mark’s church, but the conflicts were more severe. The church had given up all hope that its Jewish counterparts would repent. 73 Their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah cleared the way for the church’s mission to the Gentiles.74 The conflict stories reflect the problems with the Torah, the temple and its cult, the understanding of the Messiah and the spiritual heritage of Israel. The Matthean church did not need the Jewish-Pharisees’ halakha anymore. They had received their traditions from Jesus, the Messiah who fulfilled the Torah, and from Peter, to whom Jesus gave authority. The community was no longer bound by the issues that gave rise to the conflicts, such as the observance of 66

Bornkamm, "Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelium" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäus Evangelium, p. 17. However, Bornkamm holds in his later research that the Matthean community is conscious that they would soon be cut off from Judaism. See "Die Binde-und Lösegewalt in der Kirche des Matthäus" in Studien zum Matthäus-Evangelium , pp. 92-93. 67 Bornkamm, "Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelium" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im MtEv, p. 36. 68 Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, p. 9. 69 Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, pp. 12-17, 31. 70 Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, p. 32. 71 Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, p. 29. 72 Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, p. 53. 73 Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, p. 55. 74 Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, p. 142. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

Shabbat, the admittance of Gentiles to the community, the dietary laws and the ritual of hand-washing before meals.75 Hummel defines the conflicts of Matthew as intra-muros.76 36 The conflict narratives in the Gospel are ätiologische Streitgespräche.77 Nevertheless, he postulates that the Matthean church was fighting a two-fronted war with the Antinomians, represented by Paul’s school, and the legalists, represented by the Pharisees, within itself.78 The church perceived its identity through the belief that it was adhering to the original Will of God.79 After Hummel’s study of the conflict stories in the Gospel of Matthew, very few New Testament scholars have devoted their study solely to this subject. They have used not only redaction criticism, but also form and narrative criticism. As mentioned earlier, Repschinski’s method is primarily a combination of redaction and form criticism. He points out that previous scholarship shows that a clear-cut distinction between Judaism and the Matthean community is not possible. The difference between formative Judaism and the Matthean community is not clearly defined.80 His study comes to a conclusion similar to that of his predecessors. Through his analysis of the narrative function of the conflict stories in the Gospel, he concludes that the stories are placed within the framework of Jesus’ inner-Jewish ministry. The Jewish leaders are acknowledged as holding a leadership position, but their leadership is fraudulent, with no justification or approval from God.81 He also points out that the mounting conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish leaders were still relevant in the Matthean community.82 The close association of Jesus with the disciples implies that any attack on practices in the Matthean community was an attack on Jesus’ authority.83 The stories mirror the situation after 70 AD, when the Pharisees became one of the groups trying to assert their leadership over Israel. The Jewish leaders had proved themselves to be unqualified for their post, so the Matthean community could claim their right to it. He concludes that the characters in Matthew’s controversy stories seem to serve the overarching aim of establishing Jesus and his community as the rightful leaders of Israel. The community wanted to introduce a radically different form of Judaism from that of its critics.84 Gielen studies the conflict stories in Matthew’s Gospel primarily with the communication models of narrative criticism. She holds that the Gospel writers retell the stories of Jesus in a way that was

75

Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, pp. 40-49. Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, pp. 29-31,159. 77 Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, p. 55. 78 Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, pp. 56-57, pp. 64-71. 79 Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, p. 75. 80 Repschinski, Controversy, p. 341. 81 Repschinski, Controversy, p. 321. 82 Repschinski, Controversy, p. 344. 83 Repschinski, Controversy, pp. 336-337. 84 Repschinski, Controversy, pp. 327-329, p. 341, p. 346. 76

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

fruitful for the real readers or audiences of their time.85 She concludes that conflict stories in the Gospel reflect the same intra-muros conflicts between the Matthean community 37 and the Pharisees and scribes, who refused to believe in Jesus Christ. The Matthean community reflected on how the earthly Jesus dealt with the same themes of conflicts in his time, so that it could respond to the challenges posed by its counterparts.86 Some New Testament scholars study the conflict stories in Matthew as a sub-topic of Matthew’s theology. Trilling published his study on the theology of Matthew at almost the same time as Hummel. He does not handle the conflict stories as a separate theme but discusses it with the judgment against Israel. Trilling observes that there are two groups of Jewish critics to Jesus, the Pharisees and the scribes, who are against Jesus’ teachings and affect the first half of the Gospel. In the second half of the Gospel, the high priests and the elders, who represent the top of the Jewish hierarchy and who send Jesus to his crucifixion, oppose him.87 Trilling points out the anti-Jewish tendency in the structure of the whole Gospel: the beginning (Mt 2:1, not Mt 1:1) and the end of the Gospel are critical polemics against the Jews. In the middle of the Gospel, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1-7:27) and the lament against the Jewish leaders (Mt 23:1-38) form a sharp contrast. The conflict narratives are scattered between these two poles to show that the Christians are more righteous than the Pharisees.88 He holds that the Gospel may have been written for Gentile Christians. It is a witness to the emerging process of a tradition, the Jewish Christians struggling their way through a spectrum of possibilities and potentials marked by the two poles of particularity and norms. They also had to be on their guard against heresies and defend themselves against accusations of heresy.89 Strecker handles the conflict narratives of the Gospel of Matthew under the topic of Jesus’ proclamation. He is interested in the relationship between the proclamation of Jesus and the Torah. Strecker holds that Jesus respected the Torah, but was against Pharisee-ism (Pharisäismus).90 He agrees with Bornkamm that the Matthean community was a corpus permixtum under the influence of Matthew’s apocalyptic theology.91 Stanton also does not study the conflict narratives on their own merit but discusses them while studying Matthew’s theology. Stanton considers it possible, but he still has 85

Gielen examines the conflict stories in Matthew’s Gospel on three levels of communication, namely that of (i) the narrative world, (ii) the fictive narrator and the readers, (iii) the real author and the readers, Gielen, Konflikt, p. 24. 86 Gielen, Konflikt, pp. 413-414. 87 Trilling, Das wahre Israel, pp. 90-91. 88 Trilling, Das wahre Israel, pp. 93-94. 89 Trilling, Das wahre Israel, pp. 222-224. 90 Strecker, Gerechtigkeit, pp. 140-143. 91 Strecker, Gerechtigkeit, p. 218. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

reservations, that Matthew wrote his Gospel under the influence of Jamnia between 85 AD and 90 AD.92 He points out that Matthew wrote a Gospel, not a letter. Matthew’s 38 primary aim was therefore to set out the story of Jesus from a particular perspective, although it is less clear to what extent that perspective was shaped by the views and circumstances of his community.93 On the basis of his study of the more intensive and pointed anti-Jewish polemics in the Gospel, Stanton maintains that the Matthean community, as a beleaguered sect, had recently parted from Judaism after a long period of prolonged hostility. He points out that the Matthean community still felt seriously threatened by their Jewish opposition. They felt at odds with both the Jewish and Gentile worlds. He shows that Matthew reinterprets his source and sharpens the anti-Semitic polemics, not directly against the Jewish leaders but to justify the separation from Judaism.94 Stanton also reflects on the utility of redaction criticism as a single tool for studying the Gospel of Matthew. He holds that redaction criticism is very fruitful for the study of the Gospel, but has limitations, as it assumes an established source. It assumes that redaction reflects one’s theology, but under-estimates the value of material preserved, incorporated and left unchanged and also it assumes that the first circle of recipients can be reconstructed. 95 He suggests using literary criticism and sociology to supplement redaction criticism, as he does, but he also recommends critical scrutiny of all methods used. Overman writes on the Gospel of Matthew. He holds that the ways that Matthew retells Jesus’ story provides information on the issues and problems that the Matthean community faced. Overman is more inclined to use narrative criticism, as he does not try to offer a philological analysis but looks at the Gospel in terms of the sections, pericopae and structure. He concludes that the Matthean community was in crisis because formative Judaism had the upper hand over it.96 In another thesis dealing only with the relationship between the Gospel of Matthew and formative Judaism, he observes that the conflicts about the Torah reflect the same controversy between the Matthean community and formative Judaism. Matthew was interested in community formation. However, Overman holds that the Matthean community was a sect that had gained its identity from a polemic against its parent group, formative Judaism. The polemic they used against the Jewish leaders shows that they were the underdogs. 97 He also holds that formative Judaism gained popularity in Matthew’s setting and made inroads into the membership of the 92

Stanton, New People, p. 144. Stanton, New People, p. 45. 94 Stanton, New People, p. 124, pp. 154-160. 95 Stanton, New People, pp. 36-50. 96 Overman, Church and Community, p. 4, pp. 413-416. 97 Overman, Mt Gospel, p. 154, cf. Frankemölle, "Das Matthäusevangelium als Heilige Schrift und die heilige Schrift des früheren Bundes: von der zwei-Quellen zur drei Quellen Theorie" in The Synoptic Gospels, pp. 308-309, Freyne, "Matthew and Mark: the Jewish context" in Mark and Matthew I, p. 203. 93

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

Matthean community. The threat forced Matthew to concentrate on the discussion of 39 ordinary issues.98 Saldarini writes a single volume on the Matthean community. He agrees with the widely held position that the author exercises strong compositional and creative control over his sources. Matthew orders and edits the Gospel to fit the needs of his group. Jesus’ story reflects the experience of his group and their social situation. Saldarini focuses on the text as a narrative end-product and uses the sociological concepts of group and sect. He believes that the Matthean community was a fragile Jewish minority. It was regarded as defiant, but still belonged to the larger Jewish community. 99 Matthew exhibits the characteristics of a sectarian leader, trying to protect his group from the dominant social institution and from rival sects, and seeking, unsuccessfully, to reform the parent group and gain power.100 Matthew aimed to delegitimise the Jewish leaders and thus to wean the people of Israel away from these false leaders.101 Saldarini further deduces that the Gospel was written for a deviant group within the Jewish community in Greater Syria in the late first century. The community was in the intermediary phase, as Christianity emerged from Judaism. It was just one of many communities on the way to a more universal form of Christianity.102 Luz also holds that Matthew’s Gospel reflects the experience of the Matthean community. As a Jewish Christian community, it failed badly in its mission to its own people and separated from the main stream of Judaism. The Gospel is an inclusive history of this community, detailing its struggles, not the struggles of the past.103 In a study of the relationship between the church, Israel and the nations in the Gospel of Matthew, Konradt devotes two subsections to the conflict narratives in the Gospel.104 He disagrees with an interpretation of the risen Jesus’ command in Mt 28:19 that suggests a collective rejection experienced by the earthly Jesus in his ministry to Israel. The rejection is only partial. He then points out that Matthew deliberately differentiates between the crowd (o;cloj) and the religious authorities, with respect to their response to Jesus’ teachings and works. He draws out the contrasting reactions of the two groups: the crowd is positive, whereas the religious authorities are negative. The crowd has a

98

Overman, Mt Gospel, p. 156. Saldarini, Matthew, p. 196. 100 Saldarini, Matthew, pp. 46-49, pp. 196-197. 101 Saldarini, Matthew, p. 64. 102 Saldarini, Matthew, pp. 196-203. 103 Luz, Matthäus 1, p. 3, p. 37, "Geschichte/Geschichtsschreibung/Geschichtsphilosophie III" in TRE 12, 1984, pp. 597-599. 104 Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 110-150. 99

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

progressive realisation of Jesus’ role as the Son of David.105 The religious authorities hold enmity towards Jesus all the way to the crucifixion. Their attempted control of the 40 crowd forms the main thread of conflict narratives.106 The subject matter of the rivalry is the true heir to God’s will, the correct interpretation of the Torah and the corresponding halakha.107At the end of his study, he concludes that the Matthean community had not yet separated from Judaism. It had undergone a crisis of legitimate leadership, because the influence of the Pharisees’ teachings in the community could not be simply swept aside.108 Recent redactional studies of Matthew’s Gospel also focus on the problems that the Matthean community faced. However, the materials they study are not from the conflict narratives. 2.1.2 Utility of Form and Redaction Criticism

Almost all New Testament scholars find the criteria for the classification of literary forms too imprecise. The vagueness of the criteria implies that no critical, significant differences between the different forms of chrie have been found. It also shows one of the weaknesses of form criticism that cannot be overcome: in its search for how living discourse settles into literary forms, the relative stability (or fixation) of the expositional structure of the form and genre (Gattungen) is pre-supposed, without which the form cannot not be effectively classified or grouped into hierarchical or associated categories. Were all of Jesus’ logia already settled in a certain detectable literary form? The literary forms may have evolved over time. They may have been altered or adapted to specific situations in slightly different forms at the same time. Redaction criticism also has weaknesses, in particular with regard to the shakiness of sources. When an earlier source cannot be found as a basis of comparison with a later composition, it is very difficult to tell whether a certain alteration is part of the author’s redaction or is derived from further consultation of another, not yet identifiable, source. How far an alteration can be explained by the creativity and theology of the author therefore remains unclear. The case with Matthew is fortunate, as it is thought that his sources are Mark and the Q source.

105

Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 102-103. Konradt suggests that the primary motive of the conflict narrative is der Versuch der eigenmächtigen Selbstbehauptung der Autoritäten, Konradt, Matthäus, p. 111. See also p. 111, note 85. 107 Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 115-130. 108 Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 382-387. 106

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

Form and redaction criticism can be used to investigate the inner character and the author’s intention of the conflict stories, regardless of the methods’ limitations. This 41 study is not immune to the above-mentioned inherent weaknesses of the two methods. Their limitations are taken into account. Pure form criticism abstracts itself from the integrity of the whole composition. Pure redaction criticism presupposes rather boldly the fixation of the sources. The original intention of the methods in the search for the historical Jesus is respected. Their shared awareness of the deciding effect of the postEaster experience on the traditions is noted.109 This study does not use the reader-response method, which can double the risk of the hypothetical character of a study. The Gospel is not in the form of a letter and the intended readers are not explicitly mentioned in the text. The reconstruction of the first readers relies on redactional studies, whose outcomes may also be hypothetical.110 This study does not use sociological methods or group and conflict theories to detect the redactor’s intentions, as the proof collected to verify such hypotheses would also come from a redactional study of the text. It is better to return to the basics, before subjecting them to other methods of research. The above discussion shows that the ground of the conflict narratives of Matthew’s Gospel has been very thoroughly tilled. This study does not aim to find new insights regarding the subject, as the forerunners of the theme have presented many highly significant findings already. This study instead focuses on whether Matthew retells the pre-Easter conflicts in light of his post-Easter concerns. The main method used is a Synoptic comparison with Luke’s Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. Why is Acts, which falls within an entirely different literary genre, also discussed? 111 The basis of comparison is not primarily between narratives with a similar literary form, but with the 109

It is always difficult to ascertain whether the Jewish Christians in the first century truly needed the historicity of the words and deeds of Jesus to support the authority of their halakha. According to the rabbinic tradition, the historicity of the sayings from a particular figure is not regarded as the pre-requisite for their authority. In the Talmud, the rabbi also presented discussions that were not spoken by the person or God into their mouths. In this way, it is hard to judge whether a particular saying is from the historical Jesus or from the community. What is important is: What function did the text continue to have in the early Christian community. 110 The methodology of Reader-Response was initiated by Käsemann. He holds that before one asks about an author’s intention, one must first ask how the first readers might have understood the text. See Käsemann, "Zum Thema der Nichtobjektivierbarkeit" in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, p. 234. Nevertheless, the recent research on reader approach seems to place less emphasis on the reconstruction of the community through redaction criticism. The scope of readership is also a challenge to this methodology, i.e. How widely was the work circulated? How homogeneous or mixed the readership could be, e.g. its anthropological and socio-economic setting? 111 Actually, the three Gospel writers intend to write the story about Jesus in different forms; Mark intends to write a euvagge,lion (Mk 1:1). Matthew and Luke do not adopt this term; Matthew starts with a ge,nesij and imitates the five books of the Pentateuch (Mt 1:1) and Luke intends to write a dih,ghsij in two volumes (Lk 1:1, Acts 1:1). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

same themes and intentions. Luke uses two narrative forms for describing conflicts in his Gospel and Acts. In his Gospel, he follows the literary form of dispute (Streitgespräche) 42 of Mark and Q. In Acts, he uses the literary form of prose. The Gospel of Luke and Acts also reveal their shared author’s intention, i.e., the realisation of God’s plan in history, in pre-Easter and post-Easter epochs. Luke writes his work in two consecutive volumes, which may provide hints as to which events take place in which period, pre- or postEaster. Luke’s works can also indicate whether a certain theme of conflicts emerge in the pre-Easter or post-Easter epochs or across both periods. This study tests the hypothesis that Luke’s postponement of some conflict scenes to Acts was not caused purely by his literary or thematic interests but by his historical consciousness of the actual order of events. 2.1.3 Overview of the Major Research Outcomes Reached in the Study of the Unity of Luke-Acts

Like the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, Luke’s two-volume work has also been subject to critical examination.112 Although no ancient manuscripts provide evidence to support the idea that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were transmitted as one piece, New Testament scholars agree that the two books were written by the same author.113 Why did Luke write two volumes with so markedly different literary forms and how do the two volumes relate to one another? Was Luke a competent historian?114 To what extent can Acts be considered a reliable or trustworthy source for a historical study? These questions are relevant to this study. Luke was a purposeful theologian, but this should not disqualify him as a faithful heir to tradition and a reverent observer of essential chronological accounts (Lk 1:1, pra,gmata).115 Acts contains certain historical elements, but its historicity is hotly debated. 112

Brown has estimated that Luke is the author of around 33-40% verses of his Gospel, Brown, An Introduction to New Testament, p. 265. 113 The separation and independent circulation of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts is a known fact since the time of the earthly church. The two books could have been separated from each other during the compilation of the Bible. This is because the early churches placed the Gospel of Luke with the other Gospels together to provide parallel witnesses to Jesus. There is hardly any mention of Acts before Irenaeus of Lyon. The Acts was only mentioned when Irenaeus used it in his dispute with Marcion. See also Wolter, Lukas, pp. 2-6, "Die Proömien des lukanischen Doppelwerks" in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historiographie, p. 481. 114 Marguerat points out that Luke tries to merge the essence of Greek and Hebrew historical work together in Acts; the greek historian searched for what actually happened in history (Wahrhaftigkeit). The jewish historian asked how God guides the historical development. Marguerat, Lukas, Der erste christliche Historiker, pp. 41-43. 115 Baum points out that Luke inclines to write a “alttestamentliche Geschichtsschreibung.., die durchgehend anonym verfasst wurde”. See Baum, "Lk 1:1-4 zwischen antiker Historiographie und The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

In insolating the accounts there is a considerable doubt about Luke’s neutrality. Does Luke manipulate history for his own theological propaganda and if so, how much?116 43 Acts is more similar to historical fiction than history. 117 The emerging consensus reservedly asserts the historical value of Acts. Acts should not be measured by the standard of modern historicity, but should be compared with other historical writings of its time.118 The legendary features of Acts show Luke’s literary technique in stereotyping figures and events that he considers important in historical developments. Cyclical patterns of developments and breakthroughs happen simultaneously. Every history is written from a perspective and under the constraints of the historian’s temporal and cultural assumptions. Although Luke is bound by these constraints, he does not trample over the facts. He intends to write an orderly account (avnata,xasqai dih,ghsin) of what happened so that the reliability of the report (lo,goj) is well grounded. The unity of Luke’s Gospel and Acts is also a matter of dispute. The main argument against it is the marked difference in their literary genres, narrative techniques and even content. Luke’s Gospel owes its form to Mark’s Gospel, whereas Acts resembles a historical narrative in the classical period, but is treated as a theological history in its own

Fachprosa. Zum literaturgeschichtlichen Kontext des lukanischen Prologs", ZNW 100 (2009), p. 54. See also Gerhardsson, Memory, p. 209. 116 Lüdemann holds that one should not ask about the historical value of Acts itself, but the traditions which Luke uses for Acts. He thinks that history and legends were interwoven in Acts, Lüdemann, Apostelgeschichte, p. 16. Pervo thinks that Acts is a historical Roman, Pervo, Profit with Delight, pp. 115138. Marguerat suggests that Acts is an Anfangserzählung. The book tries to address the interest of the Christian congregation with regard to their origin and the grounding history of their faith, Marguerat, Lukas, Der erste christliche Historiker, pp. 65-75. It is held that the miracle stories in Acts reduce the credibility of the book. Nevertheless, in comparison with the acknowledged contemporary historical work of Josephus, who also describes visions and miracles inspired by 2 Macc and Dan, the miracle stories in Acts cannot fully displace it from the category of historical work. The miracle stories in Luke’s work only show his intention in contrasting the minor work of people with the great initiative of God. Moreover, Luke provides his own version of Israelite Salvation History in Acts 7:2-53, 13:17-25. As in other Greco-Roman historical works, long speeches in Acts also reveal the historical perspective of the author. See Berger, Formen und Gattungen, p. 423, Rothschild also points out that the use of different narrative forms is not meant to be fictional. Rather, it is because in the time of Luke, the readers’ perception of the reliability of the accounts was shaped by the way the accounts were told, e.g. historical recurrence, divine guidance, fulfillment of prophecy, Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History, pp. 96-98. 117 The preference toward symmetry in portraits of historical figures and the use of stereotyped scenes diminish the historical value of Acts. Pervos, The Making of Paul, p. 149. 118 Consensus has not been reached on the literary form of Acts as there is no literary genre parallel to Acts in its time. The nearest genre to Acts could be the historical narratives in the Old Testament, e.g. 1 and 2 King or 1 and 2 Chr. Pesch holds that Acts is a historical monography with a theological tradition. See Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1, p. 31. Wolter holds that it is an Epoch-History. See Wolter, "Das lukanische Doppelwerk als Epochengeschichte" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die Hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, pp. 258-263, "Die Proömien des lukanischen Doppelwerks" in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historiographie, pp. 476-495. Like the Gospel of Luke, Acts contains different literary forms. It is hard to categorize Acts within any single literary category. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

right.119 The former is about Jesus and the latter, the church. The main arguments for their unity are their theological and thematic coherence and their shared vocabulary and 44 stylistic unity. 120 Cadbury holds that the two are a narrative unity with a shared apologetic interest for the Christian movement. 121 Conzelmann argues along the same lines. He points out that their unity is not an arbitrary production motivated by a subjective literary taste. Rather, it represents how theology and history interact, i.e., the development of the kerygma in history. Acts is Luke’s theological reflection of a progression of the successive epochs of Israel, Jesus and the church under divine providence. The church in Acts is in the last phase of the postponed realisation of Parousia. It has given up its hope of imminent realisation and is looking for a means of sustainable development.122Although his theory of epochs was later corrected by other theologians, the supposition that the Gospel and Acts are in unity has not been disputed.123 Marguerat, writing from the perspective of narrative criticism, points out that the unity of Luke and Acts does not lie in their literary forms, but in the reading process. The spreading of the Gospel about Jesus and influence of Jesus in Acts cannot be understood other than as the work of God. The opposition of the Jews to the Gospel did not halt the history of salvation but was rather a progression towards the realisation of God’s plan in history.124 Luke assumes that the readers of Acts already know his Gospel (Acts 1:1).125 Like his predecessor, Mark, and his contemporary, Matthew, Luke did not have first-hand knowledge of Jesus but had to rely on other sources. What if Luke had only written his 119

For a brief survey on the discussion of the literary genre of Luke-Acts, see Verheyden, "The unity of Luke-Acts, What are we up to" in The Unity of Luke-Acts. pp. 46-48. For a study on the continuity of themes in some literary genres of Luke, see Lindemann, "Einheit, Vielfalt in lukanischen Doppelwerk" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 186-212. Cf. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte 1, pp. 34-36. 120 For a detailed survey on the discussion on the theological unity of Luke-Acts, see Verheyden, "The unity of Luke-Acts. What are we up to" in The Unity of Luke-Acts, pp. 3-45. For an analysis of Acts as the second book of the Luke's double work, see Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1, p. 24. 121 Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts, p. 139, p. 315. 122 Conzelmann, Apostelgeschichte, see Introduction. Wolter also thinks that Luke has a three-epoch scheme, i.e. (i) the epoch of Israel, (ii) the epoch, in which God’s salvation was proclaimed through Jesus (Lk 2:30, Acts 28:28) and (iii) it was continued through Jesus’ witnesses in the third epoch in his second volume, Wolter, "Das lukanische Doppelwerk als Epochengeschichte" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die Hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, p. 256. Haacker however raises doubts on Conzelmann's thesis and points out that Luke's two volumes have consistent "präsentische" and "futurische" eschatology. Cf. Haacker, "Der Geist und das Reich im Lukanischen Werk: Konkurrenz oder Konvergenz zwischen Pneumatologie und Eschaotologie?", NTS, vol. 59, no. 3, July 2013, pp. 325-345. 123 Luke has only two phases, i.e. promises and fulfillment. Wolter considers that Luke intends to write the sequel to the history of Israel. He provides three indicators: (i) Luke imitates the LXX in his Gospel and Acts. (ii) He points out that what happened was the fulfilment of what was already said in the Old Testament. (iii) He describes Jesus as the Messiah for whom Israel has been waiting. See Wolter, Lukas, pp. 26-27, "Das lukanische Doppelwerk als Epochengeschichte" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die Hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, p. 255. 124 Marguerat, Lukas, der erste christliche Historiker, pp. 82-100. 125 Barrett, Acts 2, xliii and lxviii. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

first volume, the Gospel? If the other Gospels can exist as independent, self-sufficient works, why did Luke write a second volume? There are two possible answers: Luke did 45 not consider the Gospel alone able to cover God’s unfolding plan in history. A twovolume work does not complete the task either but at least it goes beyond the tragic ending of the Gospel with the crucifixion of Jesus. It shows that God (and the Holy Spirit) is in control of developments. The end of Acts is not the finale, but an open future (Acts 28:28). If Luke had written only one volume, the tradition of the continuing influence of Jesus and the fulfilment of the pre-Easter promises in the post-Easter era would not have been handed down. Also, if the second volume did not exist, the themes that began in the pre-Easter era, such as the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the mission to the Gentiles, would have become latent.126 Without an account of the missions of the first Christian churches, the promises and their realisation in history would not be traced cohesively, nor would the reliability of the witnesses to the risen Christ be proven sufficiently.127 Luke chooses the literary form of history to record the unfolding of events. Both answers point to a sequential relationship of promises and fulfilment between the pre- and post-Easter periods, and between generically different but compatible works. 2.1.4 Working Hypothesis, Presuppositions and Limitations of this Study

This study discusses the conflict narratives in the Gospel of Matthew. It is not intended to be a full enquiry or an in-depth study of the conflict narratives. The aim is modest: through the study of the redactional tendencies in the conflict stories, determine whether Matthew coats the pre-Easter conflict narratives with his post-Easter concerns. None of the evangelists write their Gospels in a vacuum, but within a stream of traditions, with and for their communities. If Mark’s task is to retrospectively portray the pre-Easter earthly Jesus with his post-Easter kerygma,128 Matthew’s challenge is to stir traditions into life and to relate the words and deeds of Jesus to his community.129 A study of the conflict stories in Matthew’s Gospel must start with a synoptic comparison. Mark writes an account of Jesus’ mission and influence between two major biographical stations, the start of his mission after his baptism and the end of his mission

126

Marguerat points out that Luke uses the literary technique of elliptische Prolepsen to write the Gospel and Acts, see Marguerat, Lukas, der erste christliche Historiker, pp. 87-89. 127 See Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte 1, p. 29. 128 Wrede is the first to suggest the messianic secrets in Mark’s Gospel. He argues that the earthly Jesus’ life was not known to be messianic. Only with the post-Easter experience did the disciples gradually realize Jesus was the Messiah, Wrede, Messiasgeheimnis, p. 58, p. 60, pp. 63-70. 129 Hummel is of the opinion that the challenges Matthew faced were the treatment of (i) Tradition and Redaction and (ii) History and Eschatology. See Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, p.162. See also Strecker, Gerechtigkeit, pp. 81-85 and Trilling, Israel, pp. 220-222. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

at the crucifixion.130 Does Mark write his Gospel to guard against oblivion, to address his readers’ concerns, or both? 131 The end of his Gospel may suggest an answer. The 46 invitation to follow the risen Christ to return to Galilee (Mk 16:7) is in fact a replay of the beginning of his earthly ministry, but in the light of the kerygma of his resurrection. The conflict narratives should be read in the same light: they range from inquisitive, friendly school discussions to hostile verbal contests.132 They are used to support the authority of Jesus, whose true identity is not fully known to the disciples, and the new charter of freedom for the Gentile Christians. For example, in the conflict about Jesus and the dietary law, Mark adds a remark attributed to Jesus to declare all food clean (Mk 7:19). Mark thus merges the pre- and post-Easter periods. The conflict of the dietary laws provides one of the two pieces of explicit internal evidence of a post-Easter situation in Mark’s Gospel.133 Matthew’s Gospel is not a completely new invention. He uses Mark’s work to write a revised Gospel. Unlike Mark, Matthew writes for the Jews, not the Gentiles. The growing temporal distance between Mark’s Gospel and the next made Mark’s account less relevant for his time.134 Matthew retains the basic framework and order of accounts in Mark’s Gospel, consults Q and his Sondergut and writes a Midrash to Mark’s Gospel.135 The direction of his redaction shows that he does not only want to present Mark’s concerns afresh, but also wants to recover the intended message of Jesus. The Jewish features of Matthew’s Gospel serve to restore Jesus’ teachings to his native context and bring home to his Jewish readers the relevance of his message. Matthew substantially expands three conflict narratives: the conflict about Jesus’ exorcism, the conflict about 130

Gnilka is of the opinion that the Gospel of Mark "bewegt zwischen Keryma und Geschichte", Gnilka, Markus 1, p. 22. Westerholm points out that Mark intended his readers to hear a foundational story from the past. He wrote in the confidence that God would address his hearers through his words, so that, in receptive hearts, those words would bear fruits. See Westerholm, “Hearing the Gospels of Matthew and Mark” in Mark and Matthew II, pp. 256-257. 131 Gnilka, Markus 1, pp. 22-23. 132 The school discussions, which include questions raised by his disciples or others in the Gospel of Mark, are: Mk 2:18-22, 4:10-12, 7:17-23, 8:16-21, 9:11-13, 28-29, 33-37, 10:17-22, 26-27, 12:28-34, 13:311, 14:3-9. Matthew has changed the discussion of the greatest commandments (Mk 12:28-34, Mt 22:34-40, Lk 10:25-28) to a conflict narrative. 133 See also Mk 13:14, Mt 24:15. 134 Luz points out that both Mark's Gospel and Q inspire Matthew’s Gospel. He maintains that first and foremost Mark focuses on the narratives between Jesus and his disciples and their misunderstanding of Jesus. The conflicts between Jesus and Israel, and the Mission to the Gentiles are secondary themes for them. Nevertheless, Matthew places strong emphasis on conflicts between Jesus and Israel. The conflicts between Jesus and his disciples are greatly modified in his Gospel, Luz, Matthäus 1, pp. 26-29, 56-59, 6667, 81. See also Sim, "Matthew’s Use of Mark", NTS 57 (2011), pp. 176-192. 135 Cf. Frankemölle. He holds that the use of plhro,w in Mt 5: 17 shows that “Matthäus versteht sein Werk als heilige Schrift ...sein Evangelium als Fortsetzung, Bestätigung, Bekräftung und Besiegelung der Schrift des früheren Bundes”, cf. Frankemölle, "Das Matthäusevangelium als Heilige Schrift und die heilige Schrift des früheren Bundes: von der zwei-Quellen zur drei Quellen Theorie" in the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 281-310. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

oral traditions and the conflict in the temple in Jerusalem. His redaction is motivated by 47 the concerns of his time.136 If Matthew’s conflict narratives contain concerns about the situation that was facing his community, then our problems remain. Which conflicts that happened in Jesus’ time were still rocking the Matthean community and which conflicts belonged to the past? Pre-Easter historical accounts of the conflicts are obviously hard to recover, as all of the conflict narratives in the Gospels were written in the post-Easter era, when all were already immersed in the kerygma of the risen Christ. Redaction criticism aims to critically detect the influence of the kerygma on the text. However, redaction criticism of the Gospel of Matthew, based on synoptic comparison alone, cannot provide a clear criterion with which to accurately classify the conflicts as from the time of Jesus or the time of the Matthean community. However, if redaction criticism were extended to compare the Synoptics and Acts, it may provide a better hint at the time-span of the conflicts mentioned in the Gospels. Luke has the luxury of writing a two-volume work with a clear demarcation of the pre- and post-Easter eras, whereas Matthew has not. Is it plausible that Luke has a better tool to group the conflicts (the conflicts of Jesus and conflicts of the early Christian communities) into their respective chronological times (the era of the earthly Jesus and the era of the church under the Holy Spirit), whereas Matthew has to fit all of the conflicts into one period in his single-volume work? The utility of the suggested comparison between the Synoptics and the Acts can be tested by a study of the internal evidence of the non-Gospel writings of the Bible and a study of the external evidence of Jewish and Greco-Roman literature. The themes of the conflicts in the Matthean community detected in the study should be credible in the first century context. As the non-Gospel writings of the Bible were also written in the postEaster era, many problems and conflicts within the Christian community and between the Christians and their critics are also mentioned there.

136

Luz thinks that the stories Matthew told form an “inclusive history“. The stories about Jesus in the Gospel not only record the stories in the time of Jesus but also reflect the experience of the Matthean community. The stories are drama on two levels –the past and also the present situation, see Luz, "Geschichte/Geschichtsschreibung/Geschichtsphilosophie", TRE 12 1984, pp. 597-599. See also Avemarie, "Der Schöpferkraft Jesu Trauen - Ein Versuch über die Speisungswunder des Markusevangelium" in Kreativität Verantworten, pp. 71-73. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

2.1.4.1 Working Hypothesis The working hypothesis of this study is that the post-Easter concerns of the Matthean community are coated in the pre-Easter conflict narratives. 2.1.4.2 Criteria for the Working Hypothesis 2.1.4.2.1 Internal Evidence from the Text:

Three indicators can be used to check the anachronistic elements of the narratives. Is there any explicit statement in Matthew’s Gospel that shows the immediate relevance of the conflict narratives to his present situation? Are the conflicts induced by Jesus’ followers? Are the conflicts caused by the mission to the Gentiles?137 Matthew’s redaction of the conflict narratives is identified by a Synoptics comparison of Matthew’ sources, Mark and Q (with narratives and sayings also shared by Luke), and a comparison of Matthew’s Gospel and Luke’s Gospel and Acts. In the following chapter, source and text criticisms are first made of each of the conflict stories in the Synoptics to identify the extent of their dependence on foreign sources. The textual and literary features are then studied. For example, common expressions, symbols, metaphors and allegories are investigated to discover semantic and linguistic polyvalence.138 Attention is also given to the relationship between the conflict narratives and neighbouring text in the composition. In some chapters, conflicts with similar themes or with similar wordplay are grouped together.

137

The ministry to Gentiles could probably take wing in the post-Easter era. The earthly Jesus was a peripatetic preacher whose mission was confined to Jewish regions of Galilee. He did not found a school, or a community himself, nor did he go to Gentile regions. Moreover, the thorny issue of circumcision did not come up in the conflict narratives. It shows either that the earthly Jesus was not intensively involved in Gentile mission or he did not have any dissension with the Jews concerning the conversion of proselytes to Judaism. Also, the mission to the Gentiles gained its momentum in the post-Easter era, when attempts to convert Jews to the Christian faith met with strong resistance. See also Roloff, NT, pp. 25-26, 48-50. 138 Matthew tends to link narratives with the same keywords in a section, e.g. In Mt 9:1-8, one of the key words is avfie,nai a`marti,aj. It occurs in Mt 9:2 and 9:6. Likewise, the keywords in Mt 12:24-45 are kritai. and genea.. They appear in Mt 12:27, 36, 39, 41, 42. Similar methods will be employed in the study of shared themes of conflicts in Luke's Gospel and Acts. Nestle-Aland 27th Novum Testamentum Graece (NA27), Aland’s Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, Morgenthalter’s Statistik and Neirynck, van Segbroeck’s NT Vocabulary and Schmoller’s Handkonkordanz are used for the textual analysis in this study. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

48

Methodology

2.1.4.2.2 Internal Evidence from the Bible

Are there conflicts in the other writings of the Bible that are the same as the conflicts in Jesus’ time? The conflicts mentioned in the Bible belonged to the first and second generations of Christians. 2.1.4.2.3 External Evidence from Jewish and Greco-Roman Literature

Are there conflicts in the Gospels that are also mentioned in Jewish or Greco-Roman literature? Conflicts mentioned in external sources may offer a clear indicator of their duration and the time they appeared. 2.1.4.3 Three Presuppositions for the Study 2.1.4.3.1 Conflict Narratives as Pieces of Literature

This study presupposes that the conflict narratives are primarily literary works entailing the theologised, treasured memoirs of Jesus. It does not attempt to deal with the historicity of the conflicts nor questions about the historical Jesus. 2.1.4.3.2 Single Authorship and the Two-Source Hypothesis

Redaction criticism requires the critical discernment of sources and alterations made to a text. Two consensuses in New Testament scholarship are adhered to, the single authorship of the Gospels and the two-source hypothesis. The priority of Mark and Q are hypothetically presumed in the study of Matthew’s redaction.139 The two-source theory and Sondergut of Luke is presupposed in the study of Luke’s Gospel. In all of the cases studied, the counts and uses of rare words appearing in Matthew’s and Luke’s narratives are used to identify their dependence on foreign sources.140

139

The Two-source hypothesis is a working hypothesis only. There are also occasions where both Matthew and Luke do not have the same text as Mark (approximately 5% from Mark’s), and also the agreements between Matthew's and Luke's Gospels are striking. It shows their dependence on another common Vorlage other than Mark’s. 140 The weaknesses of the use of word counts to identify the redaction of the Gospel authors are noted in the study. Firstly, the authors could have inherited the words from the source. Also, Berger points out the use of favourite words in a Gospel may not point to the author’s hand if the root of the verbs is avoided by the author. Words that are bound to the context should not be treated as a hapax legomenon of the author. Thirdly, synonyms of the Gospels should be considered together for their usage and meanings, rather than the more general meanings supplied by lexicons, Berger, Exegese, p.213. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

49

Methodology

2.1.4.3.3 Luke’s Possession of a Better Sense and a Better Tool for Historicising Events

All traditions about Jesus are living receptions of the Christian faith. Although the three Gospel writers are equally under the influence of the kerygma,141 Luke may have a better device for chronologically ordering events. Luke can therefore use a two-volume work to group events in the pre- and post-Easter eras.142 Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels cannot be precisely dated but Luke’s can.143 A short comparison is made between how 141

Becker points out that both the Gospel of Mark and Acts have essential elements corresponding to their contemporary historiographical genre. See Becker, "Historiographical Literature in the New Testament Period" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 2, pp. 1811-1812. 142 Wolter points out that with the term prw/ton lo,gon (Acts 1:1), Acts has presupposed itself to be a sequel to the first book, and it is stressed that the work is written in correct sequence, cf. kaqexh/j in Lk 1:3, Wolter, "Proömien des lukanischen Doppelwerks" in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historiographie, p. 479. He thinks that Luke does not mention the dispute about impurity in his Gospel because he sees that the issue belongs more to the post-Easter era. Wolter, Lukas, p. 9. Pesch has similar opinion. See Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1, p. 24. Wolter also points out that Luke expands two issues in Acts, but mentions them only very briefly or ignores them in his Gospel, i.e. the hardening of the Jews’ attitude toward the Gospel (cf. Mk 4:12, Lk 8:10, Acts 7:51-54) and the rumours about Jesus’ destruction of the temple (Mk 14:58, Lk 21:6, cf. Acts 13:45, 28:19, 22). Wolter, Lukas, p. 30. 143 Luke’s locating of a particular event within history is not only a narrative technique to add weight to authenticity but his genuine attempt (parakolouqe,w Lk 1:3) to order the events chronologically. His historical awareness is shown by the following: (i) his historical sequence of events can be supported by external evidence and (ii) he retains the integrity of an individual historical event and does not conflate them into a merged narrative. These two tendencies can be shown in (a) his attempt to locate the events with dates so that they can be checked, e.g. Lk 2:1-3, 3:1. With respect to Lk 2:1-3, there is considerable reserve about its historical reliability. This is because the external evidence from Josephus suggests that a census ordered by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (kurh,nioj) for the purpose of taxation took place in 6/7 AD. (Jos. Ant 18:1, 26, 33, 20:102). To argue for the authenticity of Luke's report, it is pointed out that Luke does not mention that Jesus was born in 1 AD. Cf. Smith, "Of Jesus and Quirinius" CBQ 62 (2000), pp. 278-293, Wolter, "Erstmals unter Quirinius, zum Verständnis von Lk 2:2", BN 102 (2000) pp. 35-41. Hoehner also suggests that the census (Lk 2:2) which Luke mentions could be the first census (h` avpografh. prw,th Lk 2:2) taken by Quirinius, as he was the governor of Syria twice, once from 11/10 to 8/7 BCE, and later in 6/7 AD. The dating of the first census fits well with when Matthew dates the birth of Jesus (Mt 2:3), i.e. before the death of Herod the Great (4 BCE). See Hoehner, "The Chronology of Jesus" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 2320-2324. Luke is also correct in pointing out that at that time, Judaea belonged to Syria (Lk 2:1, cf. Jos. Ant 17:89). Also, the sequence of the reign of Quirinius (Lk 2:2), which was followed by Caesar Tiberius' (Lk 3:1), is supported by external evidence from Josephus, cf. Jos. Ant 18:2-38, Jos. Bell 2:167. (b) Luke’s sequence of chronology can be supported by external evidences, e.g. In Gamaliel’s speech (Acts 5:34-39), Luke mentions two Jewish revolts, i.e. the revolt of Qeuda/j (cf. Jos. Ant 20:97, 98) which is followed by the revolt of VIou,daj o` Galilai/oj (cf. Jos. Ant 18:4, 20:5,2, Jos. Bell 2:118, 433). Talbert points out that Luke’s sequence of revolts does not match with Josephus’. Is it possible that Luke refers to a person whose name is not mentioned by Josephus, as there were so many Jewish revolts at that time? Also, it is common for a person to have two names. Might Josephus mention one of his names and Luke mentions the other names? See Talbert, Luke-Acts, p. 200. (3) Luke’s chronology of rulers in Acts has also been supported by Josephus’, although Talbert argues against it. Talbert thinks that Luke’s scheduling the famine before the death of Herod Agrippa (Acts 11:28, 12:20-23) does not agree with Josephus. Talbert, Luke-Acts, p. 202. However, Luke does not explicitly schedule the famine after the death of Herod Agrippa (41-44 AD). He only states that the famine happened in time of Caesar Claudius (Acts 11:28) and writes in parallel what happened in the reign of Herod Agrippa and his death (Acts 12:20-23). Josephus also has the same sequence; he places the death of Herod Agrippa (Jos. Ant 19:343-350) and the famine (Jos. Ant 20:51) in the middle of the reign of Caesar Claudius (Jos. Ant The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

50

Methodology

Matthew and Luke handle the tradition of Q and their common source of Mark’s Gospel. Special attention is given to the conflicts that Luke does not report in his Gospel but that 51 he postpones to and elaborates in Acts, the post-Easter era,144 which may be caused by his historical awareness. Luke has a stronger sense of historical distance. He is careful in his use of the politically and religiously sensitive terminus technicus of proskune,w. He applies it only to the resurrected Jesus, whereas Matthew uses this term extensively to refer to the earthly Jesus. 145 Luke uses h` evkklhsi,a to designate the early Christian communities only in the post-Easter era (Acts 5:11, 7:38, 8:1, 3, 11:22, 12:1, 5, 15:4, 22). His James only refers to Jewish Christians as avdelfoi, in writing to the Gentile Christians after the Apostolic Council in Acts 15:22-23.146 Luke notes that there is a qualitative difference between pre- and post-Easter mission work (cf. Lk 9:3, Lk 22:35-38).147 He notes the role of the VIoudai/oj with respect to the history of salvation (Lk 7:3, Acts 13:17, 28:25).148 Luke tries to praise the strength of his works compared with other versions already known to his readers. Luke and his readers thus have access to a plethora of materials about Jesus, which inform but also inhibit Luke’s writing. He intends to write an orderly account, not to teach but to convince his readers of the reliability of the teaching.149

19:274-291 and Jos. Ant 20:148). (iv) Luke lists the Roman rulers (Acts 23:2, 26, 24:2,3, 24, 27, 25:13) in the same sequence as Josephus. See Jos. Ant 18:179, 182, 20:142). (v) Luke’s sequence of Paul’s conversion and his five visits to Jerusalem find considerable echo in Paul’s writings, e.g. his conversion in Acts 9:1-8 is comparable to Gal 1:16, His first visit to Jerusalem in Acts 9:26-29 is comparable to Gal 1:1819. His second to fourth visits to Jerusalem in Acts 11:27-30, 12:25; Acts 15:1-29 and Acts 18:22 are comparable to Gal 2:9. 144 See Verheyden, "Unity of Luke-Acts. What are we up to" in The Unity of Luke-Acts, pp. 17-18. 145 proskune,w –Matthew uses it extensively in Mt 8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 20:20, 14:33, 18:26, 28:9,17 extensively to describe how the people revered the earthly Jesus. The same application is not found in the parallel text in the Synoptics. In the parallel text to Mt 8:2, Mark uses gonupete,w in Mk 1:40 and Luke uses pesw.n evpi. pro,swpon in Lk 5:12. In the parallel text to Mt 9:18, Mark uses pi,ptei pro.j tou.j po,daj auvtou/ (Mk 5:22) and Luke uses pesw.n para. tou.j po,daj (Lk 8:41). Luke postpones this usage to Lk 24:52 for the risen Jesus. The verb is also used in Acts 7:43, 8:27, 10:25. How Peter reacted to Cornelius in Acts 10:26 shows clearly how cautious Luke is when he uses the verb: avna,sthqi\ kai. evgw. auvto.j a;nqrwpo,j eivmiÅ Luke’s caution reveals his historical consciousness and also political sensitivity. See also Berger, Formgeschichte, p. 211. 146 It was used to address Jewish Christians before the Apostolic Council in Acts, cf. Acts 1:16, 2:29, 37, 3:17, 6:3, 7:2, 26, 9:30, 11:1, 12, 13:15, 26, 38, 15:7, cf. Lk 8:21 147 Lührmann, "Die Logienquelle und die Leben-Jesu-Forschung" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, p. 201. 148 Rese points out that the Jews played a different role in the time of the earthly Jesus than in the time of the church. The Jews in Luke's Gospel are neutral but the Jews in Acts are hostile. The Jews in Acts stand apart from the Gospel. The change is noted by the change of possessive pronouns of “our ancestors” (Acts 13:17) to “your ancestors” (Acts 28:25) in Paul’s sermon, Rese, "The Jews in Luke-Acts" in The Unity of Luke-Acts, pp. 196-201 149 Lk 1:1-3. Wolter points out that with the phrase avnata,xasqai dih,ghsin peri. tw/n peplhroforhme,nwn evn h`mi/n pragma,twn Luke has consciously written a work of historiography, Wolter, "Die Proömien des lukanischen Doppelwerks" in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historiographie, p. 477. See also Bovon, Lukas 1, p. 19. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology

With respect to the study of the relevant texts in Acts, the priority of the Alexandrian 52 texts over Western texts is presupposed. 2.1.4.4 Four Limitations of the Methodology 2.1.4.4.1 Indeterminate Time of Authorship with Respect to the Relationship to Judaism

The study cannot determine with certainty whether the conflicts rocking the Matthean community happened before or after it split from its Jewish counterpart. The conflicts may be a record of painful, failed attempts to evangelise the Jews, not a proof of their separation. Although Joh projects the expulsion of Christians from the synagogue in the time of Jesus (John 9:22), Matthew does not entertain this idea.150 An attempt to locate the breach between the Matthean community and its Jewish counterpart chronologically, by means of Synoptics comparison and redaction criticism of the conflict narratives, would be very frustrating, as the tools used are not intended for this purpose. 2.1.4.4.2 Exact Intentio Auctoris is not Attainable with Redaction Criticism

Like all redaction and form criticism, this study’s methodology cannot produce certain findings because the mind of the author cannot be accessed (intentio auctoris). Unlike Luke’s Gospel, Matthew does not address his readers at the beginning of his Gospel, nor does he write a prologue.151 Nothing explicit is mentioned about his readers and his intentions. This study points out the observed redaction and investigates whether there are nested tendencies behind it. 2.1.4.4.3 Christology as an Anachronistic Constant

The Christian faith is an acknowledgement and confession of the Lordship of the risen Jesus. Hence, Christology remains an anachronistic constant in the pre-Easter narratives. 2.1.4.4.4. Exegetical Studies will not be Carried out on Texts where Similar Themes of Conflict are found in Non-Gospel New Testament Writings and Contemporary Writings.

As pointed out earlier, conflicts that are also mentioned in non-Gospel New Testament writings (in the post-Easter era) and contemporary Jewish and Greco-Roman writings are used to check the viability of the research method. These themes of conflict 150

9:22).

151

The acknowledgement of Jesus as the Christ is most probably a post-Easter confession (see John Matthew has copied from Mark’s Gospel a statement for the reader (Mt 24:15, cf. Mk 13:14). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Methodology Methodology

are not studied in detail and only their mentions in the pre- or post-Easter era are noted. Their historicity is presupposed, as the authors would not have mentioned them in their 53 letters if they had not actually disturbed the post-Easter community. However, this check may overlook regional differences in conflicts and their settlement in different Christian communities.

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

Chapter 3 Conflicts about Jesus’ authority (in Galilee) The source of Jesus’ authority is the most heated conflict between him and the Jewish leaders described in Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus turns the contemporary conception of an authoritative figure upside down. He is addressed as the Son of God,1 yet he ends his life on the cross, not with glory. He is addressed as a prophet, but he rivals the authority of Moses, the greatest prophet in Israel (Mt 2:15, 19:7-8). He is called Rabbi, but he is also called a glutton and a drunkard (Mt 11:16).2 He gathers his students at the cost of their families, 3 challenging the fifth commandment by his radical call for immediate and unconditional discipleship (Mt 8:22, 10:35). His claim to an authority that approximates that of God results in his being accused of blasphemy in Galilee and Jerusalem, which finally costs him his life. 4 His disciples suffer persecution for the same reasons. Nevertheless, the titles of authority applied to Jesus are just representations used by different groups to describe his significance, wherein his teachings are positively received. It is obviously only for the Jewish Christians that Jesus’ teaching and deeds are good

1

In the Gospel of Matthew, the title (o.) ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ is primarily applied to Jesus by a third party, not by Jesus himself. It is used in the context of confession by his disciples (Mt 14:33 –Matthew’s Sondergut) and by Peter (Mt 16:16 –Matthew’s Sondergut). The title is also used: by God (Mt 3:17, Mk 1:11, Lk 3:22; Mt 17:5, Mk 9:7, Lk 9:35), by Satan (Mt 4:3, 6, Lk 4:3,9 [Q]), by demons (Mt 8:29, Mk 3:11, 5:7, Lk 4:11, 8:28) and by a centurion (Mt 27:54, Mk 15:39). See also Tuckett, Christology, pp. 120-123. Nevertheless, the opponents of Jesus claim that Jesus said that he is the Son of God (Mt 26:63, Mk 14:61, Lk 22:70; Mt 27:43). It is for this reason that they sentence him. In the Qumran community, Son of God does not contain a definite article. The term refers to someone who realizes the promise of the apocalyptic era and brings peace to the earth. See 4Q 246 2:21. 2 Reitzenstein points out the resemblance of literary accounts of the lives of Egyptian prophets with great figures of early Christianity: (i) Miracle stories are used to support the authenticity of their identity. (ii) The more the teachings of an Egyptian prophet resemble those of a Greek or Roman philosopher, the more likely it is that the reception about him is a mixture of both, i.e. they are prophets and teachers. (iii) Exorcism is practised through the exorcist’s acknowledgment of the identity of demons, which causes the demons to submit themselves to the exorcists. See Reitzenstein, Wundererzählungen, pp. 36-37. 3 b.Ber 17b, Gen 49:29, 50:1,25, Tob 4:3, 6:15. 4 The blasphemy launched against Jesus is about his approximating his authority to that of God, not his claims about Messianity (Cf. Acts 5:36-37, Rev 26:28, 1 Pet 4:16). In 135 AD, Simon bar Kochba, the Jewish patriotic rebel, was not accused of blasphemy even though he claimed to be the Messiah. However, the first generation of Jesus’ disciples was called Christians –Cristiano,j. The ending with anoj is usually used to refer to anyone who belongs to any (political) party officially registered or any public association in the first century. See Karrer, Cremer, "Vereinsgeschichtliche Impulse im ersten Christentum" in LogosLogik-Lyrik, pp. 34-36. The Christians first being named so was caused by their claim of Jesus’ Messianity (Christ is the Greek translation of Messiah, see Acts 5:40-42, 11:26, 26:28), not his approximation to God, cf. 1 Cor 6:11, Acts 2:38, Mt 28:19 where Jesus and the Holy Spirit are put together, but not God. Lührmann points out that in the Q tradition there is not any record about Christ. Jesus as Christ is only a reflection made by the early Christian community. Lührmann, Markus, pp. 146-147. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

54

Authority

enough to prove his status as the Messiah and his approximation to God.5 For those who do not believe in him, his teachings and miraculous acts do not distinguish him 55 qualitatively from his contemporaries. His teaching does not make him greater than any other rabbi. His miracles cannot differentiate him from any magician.6 Even exorcism, as he himself points out, is also practised by the Pharisees. This chapter includes a study of two conflict stories in Galilee about Jesus’ authority. The conflicts share the words blasfhme,w (Mt 9:3, 12:31) and avfi,hmi (Mt 9:6, 12:31-32). The issue involved is Jesus’ immediate threat to the existing order of religious authority, in which the institutionalised cult of forgiving sins is monopolised by the temple leaders and the established practice of exorcism is exercised by the Pharisees. 3.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 9:1-8 3.1.1 Mt 9:1-8

3.1.1.1 Source and Text Criticism Mt 9:1-8 is an abridged version of Mk 2:1-12.7 All of the rare words in Mt 9:1-8 are found in Mark’s text. 8 Matthew follows Mark’s story flow and use of words. 9 His redaction includes: the introductory verse in Mt 9:1 (cf. Mt 8:28), the change of the place of healing from a house to somewhere along the way,10 the removal of the reason why the scribes think Jesus is blaspheming – only God can forgive sin (Mk 2:7 and Lk 5:21) – and the remark about the delegation of evxousi,a to the people in Mt 9:8. Some words seldom used by Matthew are qarse,w (Mt 9:2) and the use of fobe,w to describe the

5

The Jews in Jesus’ time live in expectation of the coming of the Messiah. For the expectation of Messiah: 1 QS 9:11 in CD 12:23-13:1, 1 QSa 2:12, 14, 20. For the expectation of Messiah of Davidic origin: 4 Esra 12:32, 4Q 252 5:3. For inclusion of the coming of the Messiah in prayers, see the fourteen Berakha. Holtzmann, Berakot, pp. 10-27, Schürer, History II, pp. 456-461. 6 b.San 13a. 7 In Mark’s version, the healing of the paralytic takes place when Jesus is in a house in Capernaum. Moreover, Matthew removes the following points from Mark’s text: (i) the effort that the friends make to bring the paralytic to Jesus, i.e. breaking the roof of the house where Jesus is staying. (ii) The ground for blasphemy which both Mark and Luke retain, i.e. only God can forgive sin (cf. Mk 2:7, Lk 5:17). Even though the text has some minor agreements with Luke’s text, it does not contain enough evidence to constitute Q as their source. The minor agreements between Matthew’s and Luke’s texts include: the use of ivdou. at the start of the scene (Mt 9:2a and Lk 5:18a), evpi. kli,nhj in Mt 9:2a and Lk 5:18a, eivj to.n oi=kon auvtou/ in Mt 9:7 and Lk 5:25c. Both remove tw/| paralutikw/| and kai. a=ron to.n kra,batto,n sou in Mk 2:9. 8 In Mt 9:4 –eu;kopoj, Mt (2). 9 Even though Matthew’s text is an abridged version of Mark’s, 62% of Matthew’s words and their sequence is still the same as Mark’s. See Morgenthaler, statistische Synopse, p 35, p. 239. 10 Cf. Gnilka, Matthäus 1, p. 325. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

astonishment of the crowd at the miracle of healing.11 It is controversial whether Jesus’ logion on the Son of Man in Mt 9:6 (whose source is Mk 2:10a) is genuinely a logion.12 56 However, if Matthew retains Mark’s redaction in his text, it is assumed that Matthew finds this logion agreeable to his own conception of the Son of Man. Although there are no significant textual variants in Mt 9:1-8, there is one place in which this study prefers the choice of verb in the Nestle-Aland (NA) 25th version (NA25). In Mt 9:7, e;geire (the first or second singular present imperative form) from NA25 is preferred to evgerqei.j (the third person masculine singular aorist passive participle form) from NA27, as it fits Jesus’ command better. This should be similar to the other commands in the same grammatical form (u[page in Mt 9:6, which does not have any textual variants).13 Codices C and L imply that the crowd does not regard the healing incident to be an epiphany. The crowd’s reaction can also be explained by the subjunctive form of the verb avfi,hmi.14 3.1.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mt 9:1-8 is the first healing miracle that Jesus performs on the way to his home town.15 It is also the first of the conflict stories between Jesus and the Jewish authorities. The theme is healing through avfie,nai a`marti,aj, which appears three times in the narrative (Mt 9:2, 5, 6). The theme of healing may also have an extra dimension. The four conflict stories following Mt 9:1-8 are about the contemporary halakha on table fellowship (Mt 9:9-13), fasting (Mt 9:14-17), Shabbat rest (Mt 12:1-14) and washing 11

In Mt 9:2 –qarse,w, Mt (3). Matthew reserves the use of the verb only for Jesus (Mt 9:2, 22, 14:27). He removes the comforting word when it is spoken by people (Mk 10:49, cf. Mt 20:31). Cf. Luz, Matthäus 2, p. 36. Gnilka points out that the verb is often used with God’s promise of salvation in the Old Testament (Exod 14:3, Joel 2:21, Zech 8:15). Gnilka, Matthäus 1, p. 326. fobe,w is usually used in view of the epiphany (Mt 14:27, 17:6, 27:54, 28:5). The ususal reaction Matthew’s crowd to a healing miracle is qauma,zw (Mt 9:33, 15:31). 12 Cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew II, pp. 93-94. 13 In Mt 9:6, Codices B, D supply evgeire (a present, imperative form) instead of evgerqei.j (a masculine singular, aorist, passive, participle form). Luz prefers evgerqei.j as this form is supported by better textual witnesses, Luz, Matthäus 2, p.35. 14 The major textual variants in Mt 9:1-8 are: (i) the difference in the tenses employed for the same verb in the text, eg. In Mt 9:2, Codices C, L, W supply avfi,wntai, (a present subjunctive passive form) instead of avfi,entai, (a third peson plural present indicative passive form), which indicates a potential. (ii) The reaction of the crowd to the miracle. In Mt 9:8, Codice C, L supply evqau,masan instead of evfobh,qhsan. It shows a milder reaction by the crowd to the healing scene. With respect to the different tense forms of avfi,hmi, Davies & Allison suggest that the subjunctive form should be translated as imperfect tense, while the present form should be translated as the historical present, Davies & Allsion, Matthew II, p. 89, note 62. 15 Mk 2:1-8 and Lk 5:17-26 do not locate this miracle in Jesus’ hometown. Mark identifies Jesus as Jesus of Nazareth (Mk 1:6, 24). It is still unclear whether Jesus’ home town refers to Nazareth (Mt 2:23, Lk 4:16-24) or Capernaum (Mt 4:13). Davies and Allison quote from Chrysostom, Hom. on Mt 29:1, which suggests that Jesus’ home town is Capernaum. See Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 87, note 62. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

hands before meals (Mt 15:1-20). The healing of a paralytic hints at Jesus’ attitude towards the crippling effect of the contemporary halakha ($lh), as the word means 57 “walk” in Hebrew.16 Mt 9:1-8 has a chiastic structure within a ring composition. 17 The narrative starts with a verse whose semantic construction resembles the introductory verse of the stilling of the storm (Mt 8:23).18 Unlike the disciples’ inadequate faith in the storm (Mt 8:26), this miracle is kindled by people’s faith. Like other seekers for healing, they bring a paralytic to Jesus (cf. Mt 8:16).19 The development of the narrative is driven by ivdou,, which is used four times, each introducing a turn of perspective in the narrative (Mt 9:2, 3, 4, 8). For example, seeing their faith, Jesus offers forgiveness of sin to the paralytic, without the latter’s confession of sin (Mt 9:2, cf. 1 Sam 15:24, 2 Sam 12:13).20 His bold statement stirs the unspoken disapproval of the scribes, who are among the onlookers. They suspect that Jesus’ logion could be an act of blasphemy, or blasfhme,w. 21 Jesus provides his defence in a rhetorical question introduced by eivpei/n…( h' eivpei/n (Mt 9:5). The healing then occurs when Jesus presents the healed (i[na in Mt 9:6) to his critics as an objectively verifiable proof. His healing confirms the suspicion of the scribes, as the divinum passivum of avfi,hmi in Mt 9:2 becomes the verb, whose subject is the Son of Man, i.e., Jesus, in Mt 9:6.22 16

Halakha provides legal guidance for the Israelites to walk (to live) according to God's way. Different Jewish schools may have different halakha. 17 Luz, Matthäus 1, p. 23. 18 kai. evmba,nti auvtw/| eivj to. ploi/on in Mt 8:23 versus kai. evmba.j eivj ploi/on in Mt 9:1. 19 Jesus’ healing is often effected when the people bring the sick to him. Only in the case of Peter’s mother-in-law does Jesus take the initiative to heal, without her or Peter asking him (Mt 8:14). 20 The two significant transitions in the scenes are marked by evxousi,a (Mt 9:6,8), which is accompanied by ivdou, (Mt 9:6,8); evxousi,a is possessed by the Son of Man, and is later given to men. 21 Only God can forgive sin. See Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, pp. 293-296. In Job 33:19-30, an Angel is acted as a mediator to help the sick repent and be forgiven by God. 22 Matthew uses this title Son of Man twenty-six timres more frequently than either Mark or Luke. Most of these belong to his sources –both Mark and Q use the title with strong allusion to Dan 7:13. According to Matthew, the title “Son of Man” has the following meanings: (i) It refers to the earthly Jesus: Mt 8:20, Lk 9:58 [Q]; Mt 11:19, Lk 7:34 [Q]; Mt 13:37 (Matthew’s redaction). (ii) It refers to the earthly Jesus but with authority comparable to God's: Mt 8:20, Lk 9:58 [Q]; Mt 12:8, par Mk 2:28, Lk 6:5. (iii) It refers to the earthly Jesus in the Passion narrative: Mt 17:9, 12, par Mk 9:9, 12; Mt 17: 22, par Mk 9:31, Lk 9:44; Mt 20:18, par Mk 10:33, Lk 18:31; Mt 26:2 (Matthew’s redaction), Mt 26:24 (Matthew’s redaction), Mt 26:45 (Matthew’s redaction). (iv) It has an apocalyptic overtone: Mt 10:23 (Matthew’s redaction); Mt 13:41 (Matthew’s redaction); Mt 16:27-28, par Mk 8:38, Lk 9:26, Mt 19:28 (Matthew’s redaction on Son of Man, but the saying is from Lk 22:30 [Q]); Mt 24:27, Lk 17:24 [Q]; Mt 24: 30 (Matthew’s redaction, based on Dan 7:13); Mt 24: 37, 39, Lk 17:26, 30 [Q]; Mt 24:44, Lk 12:40 [Q], Mt 25:31 par Mk 8:38, Lk 9:26. In Matthew’s own redaction, the title has two aspects: (i) Jesus’ teachings: The Son of Man is the sower of the good seeds (Mt 13:37) –a reference to himself. (ii) The emphasis on judgment by the Son of Man in the apocalyptic era (Mt 10:23, Mt 13:41). Both may reflect the situation the Matthean community is facing: (i) Jesus is the source of legitimate teaching. (ii) The Matthean community is waiting until the Judgment at the End of the Day to distinguish the good from the evil. They might also be suffering persecution from their Jewish and Roman counterparts. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

Mt 9:1-8 is the first occasion on which Jesus’ critics accuse him of blasphemy.23 Blasphemy brackets the negative opinions of the Jewish authorities towards Jesus across 58 the whole Gospel of Matthew (Mt 9:1-8, Mt 26:65, cf. Mk 2:1-12, 14:61-64). In the passion narrative, blasphemy is the major indictment used by the Sanhedrin to sentence Jesus to crucifixion. (In Mt 26:65, blasfhme,w appears twice). It seems that Matthew’s Jesus accuses his critics of the same offense.24 Blasphemy is also mentioned at the end of the seven vices, which Matthew’s Jesus condemns as uncleanliness springing from the heart (Mt 15:19). 3.1.2 Mk 2:1-12

3.1.2.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 2:1-12 is a combination of a conflict story and a healing miracle. It is extremely likely that Mk 2:1-12 contains two pre-Markan traditions, the healing of the paralytic in Mk 2:1-5 and Mk 2:11-12 and the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish authorities in Mk 2:6-10.25 However, it is difficult to determine whether the two traditions were already combined in their present form in the pre-Markan tradition. Mk 2:1-12 contains some rare words of Mark’s, which are all found in the description of how the four friends lower the paralytic from the roof to be healed by Jesus. 26 paralutiko,j appears five times in the Gospel of Mark, all in this single narrative.

Forgiving sin does not belong to the portfolio of the Messiah. Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 90. The function of forgiving sin in Mt 26:28 (Matthew’s redaction) is probably a post-Easter insertion. Together with Mt 1:21 (also Matthew’s redaction), the two verses may reflect Matthew’s emphasis on Jesus’ (and his community’s) authority to forgive sin. 23 Blasphemy means dishonouring God or his holy people (2 Kings 19:4, 2 Macc 15:24, Jos. Apion 1:59, 223, 279). According to rabbinic literature, blasphemy refers only to those who mention the name of God directly. See b.San 56. Philo is of the opinion that claiming to be divine or in possession of divine power is also blasphemy. See Philo decal 93, Mose 2:206. However, this interpretation could have evolved later than the time of Jesus. As in his source Mark's (Mk 2:5, 7, 9, 10) and his parallel text in Luke's Gospels (Lk 5:20, 21, 23, 24), blasphemy is also a theme of the first conflict between Jesus and his opponents. 24 If Jesus is truly sent by God, what the Jewish opponents hold against him is also blasphemy. 25 Davies and Allison point out that the pa/j in Mk 2:12 could not possibly include the scribes in Mk 2:6, who do not agree with Jesus’ logion on forgiveness of sin. Also, the people are amazed by what they have seen (the healing), not what they have heard (what Jesus says about forgiveness of sin). See Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 86. 26 In Mk 2:4 –avpostega,zw, Mk (1); ste,gh, Mk (1); evxoru,ssw, Mk (1); cala,w, Mk (1). In Mk 2:9 – eu;kopoj, Mk (2). However the description of the posture of a paralytic, who is lying on a pallet, is typical of Mark's style (cf. Mk 2:4, 6:55). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

There are many textual variants in Mk 2:1-12.27 A number of manuscripts supply avfi,hmi in the present conjunctive passive form, not the present indicative passive form. 59 However, these variants are deemed unimportant for detailed discussion. 3.1.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mk 2:1-12 is the first conflict between Jesus and the Jewish authorities. The conflict is on avfie,nai a`marti,aj, which appears four times in the text (Mk 2:5, 7, 9, 10). It is the first of the two places in Mark’s Gospel in which Jesus himself lays claim to a status comparable to that of God (Mk 2:10, 28). 28 It is one of Jesus’ healing miracles in 27

The major textual variants are as follow: in Mk 2:2, Codices A, C, D supply euvqe,wj before sunh,cqhsan. In Mk 2:3, Codex W supplies the reading ivdou, a;ndrej e;rcontai pro.j auvto.n basta,zontej evn krebattw(!) (kra,battw?) paralutiko.n aivro,menon which describes in detail how the friends carry the paralytic on his bed to Jesus. In Mk 2:4, Codices A, C, D supply proseggi,sai instead of prosene,gkai, and Codex W supplies prose,lqein. All variants provide readings which are not so remote from the meaning of prosfe,rw. In Mk 2:5, Papyrus 88, Codices a, A, C, D, L, W supply avfewntai, (the third person plural subjunctive present passive form) instead of avfi,entai, (the third person plural indicative present passive form). In Mk 2:7, Codices A, C, W supply an additional blasfhmi,aj after lalei/./ In Mk 2:9, Codices A, C, L, W supply again avfewntai, (the third person plural subjunctive present passive form) instead of avfi,entai, (the third person plural indicative present passive form). Also Papyrus 88, Codices a, L supply u[page, and Codex D supplies u[page eivj to.n oi=ko,n sou instead of peripa,tei, which corresponds to u[page eivj to.n oi=ko,n sou in Mk 2:11. 28 The title “Son of Man” does not appear as a title in the time of the earthly Jesus in his Aramaicspeaking environment. See Ratzinger, Jesus I, p. 375, Vermes, "The use of vn rb or avn rb in Jewish Aramaic" in Studies in Jewish Legal History, pp. 310-313. The title of Son of Man is not known to Paul. None of his writing mentions this title. 1 Thess 4:15-17 mentions the earthly Jesus’ logion about his coming, but not in the form of a judge. Its source is independent of the Gospels and Dan 7:13-14 (i.e. unlike Mk 13:24-27, Mt 24:29-31, Lk 21:25-28, 4 Esra 5:41, which are all influenced by the interpretation of Dan 7:13-14). With respect to Jesus’ reference to himself as the Son of Man, the term could refer to one individual human out of many, as Mark uses the same phrase to refer to other people as well (Mk 3:28, cf. Ps 8:4, Job 16:21). Matthew and Luke, however, reserve the term only for Jesus. Davies and Allison quote E. Schweizer that Jesus may quote this term from the tradition of Ezekiel, who calls himself Son of Man 85 times to show his serving God in humbleness and lowliness. However, it is noted that already in the first century the title Son of Man carried a strong apocalyptical overtone of messianic significance, which denotes eschatological judgement, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, pp. 43-52, pp. 214-216. For the discussion about Son of Man, see also a summary by Lührmann, Markus, p. 148. In the Gospel of Mark, the term “Son of Man” appears thirteen times. Its appearance increases drastically after Peter’s confession (Mk 8:27-30): The title is mentioned only twice before Peter’s confession (Mk 2:10, 28) but eleven times after it. Before Peter’s confession, the term is used with an authority approximating to that of God (Mk 2:10, 28). After Peter’s confession of Jesus as Christ, Jesus forbids Peter to use the title Christ to address him (Mk 8:30) and starts referring to himself consistently as Son of Man, but no longer with the dimension of authority, but with humility; it is used predominantly for his suffering and being betrayed in the Passion (Mk 8:31, 9:9, 12, 31, 10:33, 45, 14:21, 41). The term is used three times for an apocalyptic context (Mk 8:38, 13:26, 14:62) but all may not refer to Jesus himself, e.g. Mk 13:26 is quoted from Dan 7:13-4. The Son of Man in Mk 13:26 may not refer to Jesus himself (Mt 12:32 hints that the Son and the Son of Man could be two different figures). Likewise, the Son of Man and Jesus in Mk 8:38 could be two different figures. The apocalyptic tradition holds that the righteous will stand before the Son of Man for judgment at the End of the Day (1 Hen 1:7, 45:5-6, 46: 3-4, 93:1-2). Mk The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

Capernaum (cf. Mk 1:21). It is unique because it holds Mark’s meticulous description of how the paralytics’ four friends overcome all of the hindrances in their path to place their 60 sick friend near to Jesus (Mk 2:4-5). Their active help is in deep solidarity with the sick man’s helpless paralysis. It is their faith that moves Jesus to forgive and heal. dialogi,zomai appears three times (Mk 2:6, 8) in the text. The theme of the Jewish leaders’ fear of the crowd and how they conceal their criticism of Jesus re-emerges in Mk 11:18 and 12:12. 3.1.3 Lk 5:17-26

3.1.3.1 Source and Text Criticism Lk 5:17-26 has its source in Mk 2:1-12.29 It does not contain words or phrases special to Luke, except in the scene where the people approach Jesus for him to heal the paralytic. 30 Luke follows Mark’s form and sequence of events, but expands Mark’s narrative substantially. His redaction includes the introductory scene and the prelude to the healing scene.31 There are many textual variants in Lk 5:17-26, especially the variant readings provided by Codex D. 32 However, these variants do not significantly alter the interpretation of the text. 3.1.3.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Lk 5:17-26 is a conflict story enclosed in a healing miracle.33 It is the first conflict between Jesus and an assembly of Jewish leaders of or from Galilee, Judaea and Jerusalem (Lk 5:17). Like his source, Mark, the theme is avfie,nai a`marti,aj, which 8:38 may describe how Jesus, as the righteous one, will stand before the Son of Man, the judge, at the Judgment Day. Those who are against the righteous, i.e., against Jesus as a righteous person, will be treated accordingly on the Day of Judgment (1 Hen 48:7-8, 38:1-2, 4-6, 63:5-7). Cf. Hooker, "The Son of Man and the Synoptic Problem" in The Four Gospels, pp. 189-202. 29 37% of Luke’s words and their sequence follow Mark’s text. Most of them are in Jesus’ logia (65%). 30 In Lk 5:18 –kli,nh, Lk (3), of which two emerge in this narrative). In Lk 5:19 –dw/ma, Lk (3); ke,ramoj, Lk (1). In Lk 5:23 –eu;kopoj, Lk (3). 31 The syntactic construction of the introductory verse is in Luke’s style: The construction "kai. evge,neto plus evn (temporal information) plus kai," imitates the Hebrew syntax. This form is often used by Luke. See also Wolter, Lukas, p. 220. 32 Major variants include: In Lk 5:17, Codex D supplies auvtou/ dida,skontoj su,nelqein tou.j farisai/ouj kai. nomodida,skaloj. h=san de, sunevlhluqo,tej, Syriac texts supply auvtou/ dida,skontoj kai. h=san. In Lk 5:19, Codex D supplies avnebh,san evpi. to. dw/ma kai. avvposte,gasantej tou.j kera,mouj o[pou h=n kaqh/kan to.n kra,batton su.n tw/| paralutikw|. In both cases, Codex D does not differ from what is described in NA27. In Lk 5:21, Codex D supplies the extra phrase evn tai/j kardi,aij auvtw/n before le,gontej. 33 Cf. Bovon, Lukas 1, p. 245. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

appears four times in the narrative (Lk 5:20, 21, 23, 24). Luke brackets the narrative with kai. du,namij kuri,ou h=n eivj to. ivas/ qai auvto,n and doxa,zwn to.n qeo,n (Lk 4:14, 5:25-26). 61 He underlines the prevailing will of God in the healing scene and his power in Jesus (Lk 5:17, cf. Lk 4:14).34 The scene ends with the construction doxa,zwn to.n qeo,n by both the healed man and the bystanders (Lk 5:25-26). The conflict on Jesus’ forgiveness of sin, which is in the middle of the narrative, serves as a morphological contrast to both God’s will and man’s praise. In Lk 5:17-26, Luke tries to build a parallel between the start of the missions of John and Jesus to assert their divinely given authority. Both receive inspiration from God or the Spirit before they start their assignments (Lk 3:2, 4:14, 5:17). The teachings of both attract crowds (Lk 3:3, 7, 5:17). This not only confirms what John foretells about the one coming after him (Lk 3:16), but also stresses their common source of authority and their shared influence. The narrative is also the first instance in which the earthly Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. 35 The application of this title to Jesus is significantly reduced in Acts, the post-Easter era.36 3.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 9:1-8

Matthew makes two redactions in Mt 9:1-8. In the first, the response of the crowd to Jesus’ healing includes the crowd’s excitement at the sight of the miracle and the reason for their excitement (Mt 9:8): evdo,xasan to.n qeo.n to.n do,nta evxousi,an toiau,thn toi/j avnqrw,poij (Mt 9:8). The reaction is an ironical parallel to their opinion about Jesus on his second visit to his home town (Mt 13:53);37 they are amazed at his deeds on his first visit and at his teaching on his second visit, but they cannot accept that Jesus is more than just a human being. They feel that he is just one of them. This reaction underlines the divisive potential of different opinions on the authority of Jesus.

34

Cf. Wolter, Lukas, p. 224. Nearly all applications of Son of Man in Luke’s Gospel have parallels in Mark’s and Matthew’s: (i) The title refers to the earthly Jesus with an authority comparable to that of God: Lk 5:24, 6:5, (ii) the title refers to the earthly Jesus only: Lk 7:34, 9:58, 11:30, 19:10, (iii) the title refers to the earthly Jesus in the Passion narrative: Lk 9:44, (iv) the title refers to the one who will come in the apocalyptic era: Lk 9:26, 12:8, 12:40, 17:24, 26, 30, 18:8. The only place where Luke replaces Jesus’ name with Son of Man is in Lk 19:10, where Luke’s Jesus says that he comes to seek and save the lost. Cf. Ratzinger, Jesus I, p. 378. 36 Only in Stephen’s martyrdom in Acts 7:56 is the title “Son of Man” used to imply Jesus. There could be a parallelism between the suffering of Jesus in his Passion (Mk 8:31, par Mt 16:21-23, Lk 9:22; Mk 9:31, par Mt 17:22, Lk 9:43; Mk 10:33, par Mt 20:17-19, Lk 18:31-33) and Stephen’s martyrdom. See also Tuckett, Christology, p. 146. 37 Only Matthew stresses that the healed paralytic and his fellow townsmen with their deriding comments are both from his home town (cf. Mk 6:1-6a, Lk 4:16-30). 35

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

Second, through evxousi,a authority is given to human beings. What authority and to whom is it given? The kind of authority could refer to the authority to forgive sin (cf. Mt 62 28:19): avfi,hmi is changed from divinum passivum (Mt 9:2, 5, par Mk 2:5, 9, Lk 5:20, 23) to an active form (Mt 9:6, par Mk 2:10, Lk 5:24). Matthew removes that which drives the Jewish critics to regard Jesus’ words as blasphemy, i.e., only God can forgive sin (Mk 2:7, Lk 5:21). Matthew holds that this authority was delegated to the Matthean community, however radical this claim sounds to its Jewish counterparts. 38 The kind of authority could also refer to the authority to make the paralysed man walk again (cf. Heb 12:13). In the narrative, the paralysed man cannot get close to Jesus, the Son of God. However, Jesus proclaims that his sin is forgiven, without his meeting the prerequisite for atonement of confessing his sin and repenting. Jesus permits the paralytic to get close to him. Only after one sin is forgiven can one have access to God. Who did he sin against and what sin did he commit? No direct answer is provided in the narrative. The claim that the paralysed man has sinned could be an opinion held by himself and his contemporaries.39 Paralytic means unable to walk. The inability to walk could mean an inability to walk in the halakha ($lh, walk) of the Pharisees (cf. Exod 15:26), indicating ineligibility to meet God.40 Jesus’ subsequent four debates with the Pharisees are almost all about their halakha, such as table fellowship (Mt 9:9-13), the practice of fasting (Mt 9:14-17), work forbidden on the Shabbat (Mt 12:1-14) and the custom of washing hands before meals (Mt 15:1-20). Can a faith paralysed by halakha walk again? The healing of the paralytic may be analogous to the liberation of the people from the Pharisees’ halakha.41 The authority may have been given to the disciples (Mt 16:19, cf. Mt 28:19) or the Matthean community. 42 According to the Jewish tradition, the atonement for and forgiveness of sin were cults institutionalised in the temple in Jerusalem. The offices 38

The claim that the authority of forgiving sin is given to the Matthean community is highly radical. Cf. TestLev 18:9. Even the high priest appointed by God after in the apocalyptic time does not have the mandate to forgive sins. However, during his time, all sins will cease. See also Kellermann, Ulrich, "Wer kann Sünden vergeben ausser Elia, in der prophetischen Verkündigung" in Gottes Recht als Lebensraum, pp.165-178. 39 qarse,w appears three times in the Gospel of Mathew (Mt 9:2, 22, 14:27). In Mt 9:22, 14:37 it is set against a false or wrong opinion and each time, Jesus calls for one's faith in him. It is plausible that the claim that the paralyptic has sinned is another false opinion that Jesus would like to correct. 40 In the Old Testament tradition, sickness is often associated with the failure to observe God´s commandment. See Exod 15:26. 41 See also 1 QS 3:6-9. The text shows a similar literary motive: Through the true counsel of God, the inquities of man are atoned. 42 Davies & Allison interpret it as the giving of authority (to forgive sin) to the disciples, cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 96, Gnilka is of the opinion that it is given to the community (Gemeinde), Matthäus 1, p. 327. However, nowhere in the story nor in the Gospel of Matthew is there any hint that with this authority transferred to the disciples, they can act the same as Jesus from then onward. Hence, it is highly likely that this logion of Jesus was constructed in the post-Easter era and refers to the situation of the Matthean community. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

were monopolised by the Levite priests. When the temple was destroyed, a vacuum was left. The early Christian community must have faced great hindrance in filling the 63 vacuum, as even its access to the vacuum was denied by its Jewish counterparts. 43 evdo,xasan to.n qeo.n to.n do,nta evxousi,an toiau,thn toi/j avnqrw,poij (Mt 9:6-9) may hint at a self-justification by the Matthean community, as it makes its authority to challenge the Pharisees’ halakha the norm. People experience the forgiveness of sin when they are given the true counsel of God.44 Jesus’ disciples and the Matthean community took up the intercessory function of the priest after the temple was destroyed and the office of the priesthood was abolished.45 This narrative is the only incident in Matthew’s Gospel in which Jesus, assuming the role of the Son of Man, explicitly and radically forgives the sin of an individual, as the angel suggests in the meaning of his name (Mt 1:21, 26:28). Forgiveness of sin takes place while Jesus is teaching on the way, not only in the temple. 3.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 12:22-45 3.2.1 Mt 12:22-45

3.2.1.1 Source and Text Criticism Mt 12:22-45 contains a mixture of literary forms, such as sayings, proverbs and verdicts.46 It is based on both Mk 3:22-30 and Q. The introduction (Mt 12:22-24), which goes on to describe how Jesus sees through the minds of his critics and cites the deeds of the Pharisee exorcists (Mt 12:25-28), is from Q (cf. Lk 11:17-20).47 The parable of the strong man (Mt 12:29) has its source in Mk 3:27. The uncompromising attitude of Jesus towards those with or not with him (Mt 12:30) is again from Q (cf. Lk 11:23). The logion about blasphemy (Mt 12:31-32) is from Mark’s text (Mk 3:28-29). The metaphor of the tree (cf. Mt 3:7, 7:17), the sign of Jonah (Mt 12:38-42) and the return of the unclean spirit (Mt 12:43-45) are from Q (cf. Lk 6:43-5, 11:16, 11:29-32, 11:24-26). The announced judgment on careless words in Mt 12:36-37 is Matthew’s own redaction. The intertwining of Q’s material three times and of Mark’s two times successively shows that Matthew wants to enrich this theme with as much available material as possible.

43

See also Bovon, Lukas 1, pp. 249-251. 1QS 3:6-9. 45 Mt 8:4 (par Mk 1:43, Lk 5:14) also reports Jesus asking the healed leper to show himself to the priest, but with the purpose of being “a proof to the people”. Otherwise, the priest does not have a role to play. The cleansing has already been effected by Jesus’ healing. 46 Gnilka, Matthäus 1, p. 455. 47 The interchanging usage of the synonyms Beelzebou,l (Mt 12:24, 27) and Satana/j (Mt 12:26) does not provide strong hints to different traditions. Cf. Piper, "Jesus and the Conflict of Powers in Q" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, p. 335. 44

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

Mt 12:22-45 contains many words that are rare to Matthew and which appear in each verse except Mt 12:31-33, 35-36 and 38.48 The wide distribution of the rare words in the 64 narrative suggests that most of the material is from foreign sources, except the criticism of careless words on Judgment Day (Mt 12:33-37) and the transition scene (Mt 12:38). The two are Matthew’s own redaction. blasfhmi,a is one of the words found often in Q. Matthew substantially expands the Q tradition about the theme in his own Gospel (Mt 9:3, 12:31-32, 15:19, 26:65, 27:39).49 The text of Mt 12:22-45 contains many minor textual variants.50 However, none of them are significant and or well-grounded enough to alter the interpretation of the text.51 3.2.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mt 12:22-45 is a continuation of Jesus’ healing activities (cf. evqera,peusen auvtou.j pa,ntaj in Mt 12:15, versus the similar construction evqera,peusen auvto,n in Mt 12:22). It is sandwiched between Jesus’ healing miracles and Jesus’ logion about his true family. Again, Jesus’ fame cannot be contained. His warning to the people not to make him 48

In Mt 12:23 –evxi,sthmi, Mt (1). In Mt 12:24 –Beelzebou,l, Mt (3). In Mt 12:25 –evnqu,mhsij, Mt (2); meri,zw, Mt (3); evrhmo,w, Mt (1); meri,zw, Mt (3). In Mt 12:27 –krith,j, Mt (3). In Mt 12:28 –fqa,nw, Mt (1). in Mt 12:29 –skeu/oj, Mt (1); a`rpa,zw, Mt (3). In Mt 12:30 –skorpi,zw, Mt (1). In Mt 12:34 –peri,sseuma, Mt (1). In Mt 12:37 –dikaio,w, Mt (2); katadika,zw, Mt (2). In Mt 12:39 –moicali,j, Mt (2); evpizhte,w, Mt (3). In Mt 12:40 –koili,a, Mt (3); kh/toj, Mt (1). In Mt 12:41 –kh,rugma, Mt (1). In Mt 12:42 –basi,lissa, Mt (1); no,toj, Mt (1); pe,raj, Mt (1); sofi,a, Mt (3). In Mt 12:43 –avka,qartoj, Mt (2); die,rcomai, Mt (1); a;nudroj, Mt (1); avna,pausij, Mt (1). In Mt 12:44 –scola,zw, Mt (1); saro,w, Mt (1); kosme,w, Mt (3). 49 blasfhmi,a, as a noun: Mt (4), Mk (3), Lk (1). It is found in the Synoptics only. As both a noun and a verb it has a higher frequency of usage in Matthew’s than in Mark’s Gospel, and has only very few appearances in Luke’s Gospel: Mt (7), Mk (4), Lk (2). 50 The following are some of the interesting textual variants to Mt 12:22-45: In Mt 12:22, Codices L, W, D, Q supply tuflo.n kai. kwfo,n and Codex C provides the reverse kwfo,n kai. tuflo.n, instead of to.n kwfo.n. The variation could be an attempt to harmonize Mt 12:22a and 12:22b. In Mt 12:24, Codices a, B supply the name Beezebou.l instead of Beelzebou.l. As the Pharisees provide the meaning of the name in Mt 12:24, i.e. the prince, it is more likely that the name is Beelzebou.l because the name is a combination of bl, which means Lord, and bzl, which means prince (cf. Herrmann, Baal Zebub in DDD, pp. 294-295). Nevertheless, both Beezebou.l and Beelzebou.l could refer to the same name (in Hebrew bwbz l[b) with the slight difference of transcription from oral tradition. In Mt 12:31 Codex B, f have an extra u`mi/n before toi/j avnqrw,poij, which indicate that the Pharisees and their group are the target audience of the logia in the narrative. In Mt 12:32, Codex B* supplies ouvk avfeqh,setai auvtw/|, Codex a* supplies ou mh avfeqh,setai auvtw and Codex B supplies ouv mh. avfeqh instead of avfeqh,setai auvtw/|, which shows that some early Christian communities believe that blasphemy against the Son of Man is as equally unforgivable as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. However, the expression o]j dV in Mt 12:31b shows that 12:31a and 32b should be in contrast. 51 In Mt 12:30, Codex a, Manuscript 33 provides the missing accusative object me for the verb skorpi,zw. However, this accusative object does not fit with the parallelismus memborum in Mt 12:30, where e.gw, is used with a preposition, not as an object. It is unlikely that me is the missing object of the verb skorpi,zw. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

known (Mt 12:16) fails again. People wonder and ask if he is the Son of David (Mt 12:23).52 The question is answered by the Jewish authorities with a prompt denial and a 65 clarification: the origin of Jesus’ exorcism is demonic (cf. Mt 3:8-9, Lk 4:5-6).53 Their accusation sets off one of Jesus’ longest speeches against his critics in Matthew’s Gospel. Mt 12:22-45 is a composite piece of five independent traditions with relatively weak transitions between the sections (Mt 12:22-24, 25-30, 31-37, 38-42, 43-45). 54 The passage is bracketed by the theme of exorcism, through Jesus’ healing of the demonpossessed (Mt 12:22) and his warning on the consequences for a healed person who experiences exorcism but stays idle, i.e., without any defence (Mt 12:43-45). The theme of judgment emerges gradually in the narrative and dominates half of it. The first two sections provide the prelude to the judgment. The third and fourth sections elaborate on the grounds for the judgment and warnings about it. kri,sij appears in different forms in Mt 12:27, 36 and 41, as does katadika,zw (Mt 12:37, 41, 42). All except the first section (exordium) have a closely knitted syntactic parallelism and word-pairs of morphological contrast within themselves: the narrative begins with the Jewish leaders deprecating Jesus’ exorcism as demonic (Mt 12:24).55 The second scene describes the absurdity of the Pharisees’ accusation against Jesus (Mt 12:27),56 which is argued with two syntactic and 52

Both Hummel and Sand point out that the Beelzebul conflict is set under the theme of Jesus as the Messiah, Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, p. 119, Sand, Matthäus, p. 260. Duling points out that the title of Son of David is associated primarily with a figure to whom the people addressed, when they needed exorcism and healing. See Duling, "Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David" in HThR 68 (1975), p. 235, especially p. 246. See also Berger, who also points out that the healing and exorcism tradition come from Solomon, Berger, "Die Königlichen Messiastradtionen des Neuen Testaments", NTS 20 (1974), pp. 6-8. 53 Matthew and Luke has already indicated in the temptation story that Jesus declines any authority from Satan. daimo,nion e;cei is also used to attack John the Baptist (Mt 11:18), b.San 67a. 54 Mt 12:22-24 is linked with Mt 12:25-29 by evkba,llw (Mt 12:24, 26, 28), Beelzebou,l (Mt 12:24, 27), daimo,nion (Mt 12:22, 28). Mt 12:25-30 is linked with Mt 12:31-37 by evkba,llw (Mt 12:26, 28, 35). Mt 12:28-42 is linked with the former texts by krith,j (Mt 12:27, 36, 41, 42) and Mt 12:43-45 is linked to the former text by recalling the house oivki,a (Mt 12:29, 44) and genea, (Mt 12:42, 45). In the last section, not even the demon in Mt 12:22, 27, 28 is used, but to. avka,qarton pneu/ma. 55 Matthew often uses qerapeu,w in Jesus’ exorcism (Mt 4:23, 17:18). In Mt 8:16 he uses both (qerapeu,w, evkba,llw). In Mt 9:31 he uses evkba,llw. The Pharisees use evkba,llw consistently to focus on the problem of the power hierarchy (Mt 9:32, 12:23). 56 Cf. Acts 19:13, Jos. Ant 8:45, Jos. Bell 7:185. Davies and Allison point out that ironically, the early church fathers used the same arguments as the Pharisees in this narrative to account for the success of nonChristian exorcists. See Ius, 1 Apol 54-58, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 338. Davies & Allison have summarized 7 positions about the interpretation of Mt 12:27-28: (i) the juxtaposition of Mt 12:27-28 is simply illogical. If the exorcisms of Jesus prove the coming of the Kingdom of God, then so do the exorcisms of others. Thus either Mt 12:27-28 is not said by Jesus or it is said by him on different occasions and from different perspectives. (ii) At least the Q community could have understood the kingdom of God to have come in the activities of non-Christian exorcists. (iii) Jesus exorcisms are different because they alone are the work of the Spirit of God, and therefore only his exorcisms can be linked to the coming of the kingdom. (iv) The verse is interested only in convicting Jesus' opponents of hyprocrisy. (v) The verse implies Jesus’ exorcism is qualitatively superior. (vi) Jesus accepts the miracles of others but holds his own to be more important because of his identity. (vii) The verse fits in The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

phonetic parallels, the threat to the lasting unity of any congregation, from large to small, in descending order from nation and town to household (Mt 12:25-26)57 versus the threat 66 to the lasting security of an individual, the strong man in his house (Mt 12:29). The threats in the two parables are identified as an “internal threat versus inner division” towards the congregation and an “external threat versus an alien, stronger one” towards the individual. The unforgivable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:32) is elaborated through phonetic parallels and word-pairs of morphological contrast, such as avfi,hmi versus ouvk avfi,hmi (Mt 12:31-32). The latter may carry a very strong post-Easter sentiment.58 The theme of blasphemy is further illustrated by the parable of a tree (Mt 12:33) and the proverb about good and bad people (Mt 12:35).59 Both are presented with strong phonetic parallels and a morphological contrast between good and bad. This section ends with a warning about the future judgment of careless words (Mt 12:34-37). The sign of Jonah is the only answer to the request for a sign (Mt 12:39).60 The theme of judgment re-emerges with two syntactic parallels: on the Day of Judgment, the men of

nicely with one of the most fundamental of Matthew’s themes: the coming of Jesus inaugurates the fulfillment of eschatology, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, pp. 340-341. 57 Town belongs to Matthew’s redaction. Gnilka supposes that Matthean community lived in a town. Gnilka, Matthäus 1, p. 458. The metaphor of a strong man who is overpowered by another strong man (Mt 12:29, Lk 11: 22[Q]) in his house has no direct reference to Jesus. 58 Sand quotes Satake’s interpretation and points out that words against the earthly Jesus are still forgivable. This is because one is ignorant about his resurrection (Acts 3:14-15, 17-18). See also Tuckett, "The son of man and Daniel 7: Q and Jesus" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, p. 374. However, words against the risen Jesus who led the Christian community with the guidance of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. See Satake, Die Gemeindeordnung in der Johannesapokalypse, pp. 172-175, Sand, Matthäus, p. 263. Gnilka points out that Mt 12:32 is the advancing of the post-Easter situation to a preEaster narrative, Matthäus I, p. 460. Cf. Did 11:7-8: it supplies another understanding of the verse, which is not necessarily linked with the post-Easter reflection. It is about the respect paid to any prophets who speak under the influence of the Holy Spirit. They should not be examined nor be judged. The sin of examining and judging the guidance of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. 59 See IgnEph 14:2. 60 This request for a sign as a proof of divinely inspired or originated words or deeds is a fairly legitimate one. According to the Old Testament tradition, a sign is a proof of God’s genuine will or of genuine prophets, 1 Sam 10:1, 1 Kings 13:3, 2 Kings 19:19, Deut 13:1, Isa 7:1-11. Matthew has explained the meaning of the sign of Jonah by inserting Mt 12:40, which compares Jonah’s three-day and three-night ordeal to the time of Jesus’ stay in the tomb (Mt 27:62, 28:1). The interpretation of Jonah’s other experiences as signs is unclear. One is not certain whether the miraculous saving of Jonah from the fish’s stomach, which is analogous to Jesus’ resurrection, (Genitivus Appositivus or Epexegeticus) or whether Jonah's preaching (Genitivus Subjectivius) to Nineveh, which is the shortest sermon in tradition and does not entail Jonah’s saving miracle, is a sign to the generation (Mt 12:39-40, 41, Lk 11:29-30, 32 [Q]), cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew II, pp. 355-6. Stendahl proposes that Mt 12:40 is a post-Matthew interpolation. He lists the reasons: (i) The quotation is purely LXX. (ii) Justin does not cite Mt 12:40 when he is expected to do so. (iii) The text flow is better without Mt 12:40. (vi) The addition of “the prophet” at the end of Mt 12:39 indicates that Matthew is focussing on Jonah’s prophetic preaching, not being saved from the fish's mouth, Stendahl, School, pp. 132-133. Nevertheless, it is noted that Justin does cite Jonah (Mt 12:40) in Ius Dial 107:1-2, 108:1, although he does not use it in support of Jesus’ resurrection, but as an urge to the generation to repent. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

Nineveh and the Queen of the South will appear aga inst this generation (Mt 12:41-42).61 The repetition of the construction plei/on … w-de is used here to add weight to the 67 conclusion.62 An unoccupied house, tidied and swept clean, is likened to someone who has just been healed by exorcism but stays unengaged and undefended (Mt 12:44). The return of the old spirit with seven more evil spirits shows the severity of recurring bouts of demonic possession (Mt 12:45).63 The last section ends with a warning to the evil, unfaithful generation, which targets the Jewish leaders (Mt 12:38-39. See also Mt 16:4).64 The negative description of the generation brackets the last two sections in an inclusio (Mt 12:39, 45). The house metaphor is used three times in Jesus’ self-defence, which is probably a word-play on the name Beelzebul, which can mean Lord of many rooms.65 Although the narrative has strong proverbial features of syntactic and phonetic parallelisms, two insertions, in Mt 12:3066 and Mt 12:34, disrupt the monotony of the syntactic parallels in the neighbouring verses. Both are directed against the Pharisees. They reveal Matthew’s strong intention to use different sources to weave his self-defence 61

Konradt points out that this generation refers not to Israel collectively, but only to the Jewish authorities (Mt 11:16-19, 12:38-45, 16:1-4, 23:34-36). See Konradt, Matthäus, p. 262, p. 283. See also 1 Clem 7:7. 62 plei/on (neuter, singular, normative) refers to the whole of Jesus' teachings, deeds and eventually, his resurrection: Jesus' resurrection is more than Jonah's stay in the fish's belly. Jesus' victory over the Satan is more than Solomon's effective exorcism, through which the evil spirit wont return to the person (Jos. Ant 18:45). 63 Cf. Gnilka, Matthäus 1, p. 467. 64 Gnilka is of the opinion that the return of the more wicked spirit to the healed man shows the difference between the effect of the exorcism exercised by the Jews and by Jesus. Jesus’ exorcism will bring in the Holy Spirit, who protects the healed person, Gnilka, Matthäus 1, p. 467. Davies & Allison hold that Jesus exorcisms alone are truly efficacious: when others cast out demons, the demons return, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 360. 65 The exact meaning of the name Beelzebul is hard to determine. The name could be a variant form of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron (2 Kings 1:2-16). See Jos. Ant 9:2, Pope, Baal Worship, EJ, vol. 3, pp. 9-13. According to Hermann, the name Beelzebul may carry a meaning of lofty dwellings (cf. Deut 26:15, Isa 63:15, Ps 68:6) or it might refer to Akka zabal, residence or lofty house. He quotes Albright (1936), who construes that in Ugarit, zbl is the passive participle of zabul (zbl), which was known in Akkadian and Arabic prince or the elevated one. Hermann, Baal zabul in DDD, pp. 295-296. The meaning fits with the frequent occurrence of zbl as a title for gods. This interpretation fits well with the metaphor of the house in Jesus’ self defence. Another possible interpretation of the name Baal zabul is found in the Ugarit text of the Baal Cycle (cf. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, p. 106), where the name, in the separated unvocalised form of zbl bcl appears (sid.zbl.bcl/ars –waits on the Prince Lord of the earth). The words mean prince (zbl), Lord (baal) and is referred to Baal, the Ugarit God of weather (storms, lightning) in Old Testament times (cf. the literal translation of the name in Mk 3:22, Lk 11:15). The meaning of this name can also be inferred from a narrative about Christians overpowering Satan in Lk 10:28. Satan is described as falling like lightning. The description matches with Baal’s portfolio as a weather God, but in an ironical way, which mocks his defeat. Davies & Allison point out that there was a widespread opinion in Jesus’ time that a dark power reigned over a kingdom, cf. 4Q 286 7:2:1-3, where reference is made to the dominion of Belial and his lot. See Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 336, see also 4Q 534:2. 66. Cf. Piper, "Jesus and the Conflict of Power in Q" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus p. 340 and footnote 78. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

against the Pharisees. Mt 12:30 may be a hermeneutical key to the interpretation of the act of exorcism by the Pharisees. If the Pharisees do not identify their act of exorcism 68 with that of Jesus (as is the case in Mt 12:22-45), they oppose Jesus’ ministry of gathering those who are lost and split the community.67 They will have to face judgment at the end of time.68 Furthermore, the Pharisees are a brood of vipers (Mt 12:34, cf. Mt 3:7). Their careless words will be subject to judgment. The threat of judgment on the Pharisees and their generation obviously prevails over the whole text, temporally, from Judgment Day (Mt 12:36, 41, 42) to the immediate consequences (Mt 12:45), and spatially, from this world to the next (Mt 12:33). This may be a literary strategy to coerce the less rigid, neutral Pharisees to become followers of Jesus. 3.2.2 Mk 3:22-30 and 8:11-12

3.2.2.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 3:22-30 may come from an earlier tradition that already combined the comments of the scribes from Jerusalem on Jesus’ exorcism and Jesus’ self-defence (in two parables). Mk 3:22-30 and 8:11-12 contain many rare words not usually found in Mark’s Gospel.69 Jesus’ logion on blasphemy in Mk 3:28 is probably appended by Mark to form a conclusion to Jesus’ self-defence. a`ma,rthma appears twice in the Gospel but both times are in Mk 3:28. Mk 3:22-30 and 8:11-12 have some minor textual variants.70 However, none of them leads to significant alteration in the meaning of the text.

67

Jesus gathering the twelve scribes (i.e. all Israelites) could be a sign of the end of time or a restoration or renewal of the covenantal relationship with God. 68 Kai. in Mt 12:30 should be viewed as kai. epexegeticum. o` mh. w'n metV evmou/ katV evmou/ evstin in Mt 12:30a is a tautology to ai. o` mh. suna,gwn metV evmou/ and skorpi,zw in Mt 12:30b. When Jesus defines that what is with him is gathering, and against him is scattering (the sentence does not have an accusative object. It leaves room for many interpretations), he may be referring to the Old Testament tradition of the contrast between a competent shepherd, who gathers the dispersed sheep, and an incompetent one, who loses and scatters the herds (Jer 23:1-3, Ezek 28:25, 34:11-13, cf. Mt 23:37). The verse involves a differentiation between Jesus’ camp and other camps. metV evmou is an ellipse in suna,gw. Hence, the saying may imply that an act is per se neutral. The impact of the act does not lie with what one does but with whom the actor stands; if the actor is not with Jesus, even if his act is intended to suna,gw it will in effect result in skorpi,zw. For another interpretation of these verses. See Luz, who holds that it is a call for decision, no neutrality is allowed, Luz, Matthäus 2, p. 262, and also Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 343. 69 In Mk 3:27 –ivscuro,j, Mk (3); skeu/oj, Mk (2). In Mk 3:28 –a`ma,rthma, Mk (2); blasfhmi,a, Mk (3). In Mk 3:29 –a;fesij, Mk (2); e;nocoj, (2); a`ma,rthma, (2). In Mk 8:12 –avnastena,zw, (1). 70 In Mk 3:22, Codex B supplies Beezebou.l instead of Beelzebou.l. The reason why Beelzebou.l is followed in explained in the discussion on the text in Matthew’s Gospel. In Mk 3:25, there are many variants of the tense forms, e.g. in an active form of the medium verb i[sthmi, which includes sth/nai (from Codices B, L), esta/nai (by Codex D). As the main verb for the house The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

3.2.2.2 Texts, Immediate Textual Contexts and Literary Features Mk 3:22-30 is about the origin of Jesus’ authority of exorcism, not just his healing of the sick.71 The narrative is sandwiched between the two visits by Jesus’ relatives to see him (Mk 3:21 and Mk 3:31).72 The effect of the first visit of Jesus’ relatives is disruptive. Their negative evaluation of Jesus’ deeds (Mk 3:21) is later used by the scribes from Jerusalem to conclude that Jesus is possessed by Beelzebul (Mk 3:22).73 The effect of the second visit is integrative. It leads to Jesus extending a familial relationship to those who do the will of God (Mk 3:35). This principle forms the basis of lasting unity in a new family. Mk 3:22-30 is a logically well-structured piece with three sub-units: the scribes’ accusation (Mk 3:22), Jesus’ refutation (Mk 3:23-27) and Jesus’ warning against the unforgivable sin of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (Mk 3:28-30).74 The narrative is bracketed by a synonymous construction of Beelzebou.l e;cei in Mk 3:22 and pneu/ma avka,qarton e;cei in Mk 3:30. The three sub-units have a strong inner unity of shared phrases, syntactic and phonetic parallels and morphological contrasts. Two subjunctive insertions halt the harmony of the parallels in the last two sub-units, avlla. te,loj e;cei in Mk 3:26 and avlla. e;noco,j evstin aivwni,ou a`marth,matoj in Mk 3:29. The eventual end of in Mk 3:25 is in passive form and the verse is formed as a parallelism, it is supposed that a medium form of i[sthmi fits the parallelism better. Hence, NA27 is preferred. In Mk 3:29, Codices D, W and Q do not supply eivj to.n aivw/na. It is very difficult to decide whether the phrase belongs to an earlier tradition. It shows that the Christian communities have different opinions about the severity of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is clear that the text names it a sin that is unforgivable, but is it unforgivable for eternity? In Mk 8:12, Papyrus supplies a more polite verb aivte,i and Codice A and W supply epizhtei/ instead of zhtei/ shmei/on. 71 According to Guttenberger, Mark distinguishes clearly Jesus´ healing of the sick and his exorcism. Being possessed by demon is not the same as being sick. See Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, pp. 250-251. Guttenberger holds that Mark combines the literary motives of Jesus´ exorcism and his authority of teaching together. He maintains that “Nicht die Exorzismus sind der Hauptzweck des Kommens Jesu..er ist gekommen, um Menschen zu lehren.“ See Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, pp. 260-262. 72 The visit of a relative to Jesus in Mk 3:20 belongs to a pre-Mark tradition, not redaction. Cf. Pesch, Markus 1, p. 210. However, the pericopes of the two visits may not belong to the same tradition: This is because the crowd in Mk 3:20 is with an article while in Mk 3:32 crowd is without an article. See the textual variants supplied by Codice A and D. Both of them supply an article for the crowd in Mk 3:20 but no article for the crowd in Mk 3:22. 73 The group represents the delegation from the Sanhedrin, Pesch, Markus 1, p. 213. Gnilka suggests that they represent "superlative der Gegner", Gnilka, Markus 1, p. 148. 74 Gnilka points out that Mk 3:28-29 should be earlier than what Mt 12:32 and Lk 12:10 supply. His verses about the categories of forgivable and unforgivable sin refer more to the severity of different categories of sin in the time of Jesus, not to division between pre- and post-Easter periods, i.e. sin against the earthly Jesus is forgivable, but against the Holy Spirit, who leads the post-Easter Christian community, is unforgivable. Gnilka, Markus 1, pp. 146-147. Klostermann holds however that Mk 3:28-29 also hints at the two eras, pre-Easter and post-Easter, in terms of forgiveness of sin, Klostermann, Markus, p. 38. See also Did 11:7. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

69

Authority Authority

the internally divided congregation and the eternal sin of a blasphemer show two severities in the narrative, the severity of the absurdity of the accusation against Jesus and 70 the severity of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It should be noted that Mark’s Jesus knows about other groups’ exorcisms. He is tolerant and he welcomes exorcisms practised by others outside his circle (Mk 10:38). Mk 8:11-12 is placed right after Jesus performs the second miracle to feed 4,000 people (Mk 8:1-10). The Pharisees request a heavenly sign during their discussion with Jesus to test him (peira,zw, Mk 8:11). The textual context of Mk 8:11-12 shows that the request for the sign and the debate on exorcism do not belong to the same tradition. 3.2.3 Lk 11:14-26, 29-32, 12:10 and 6:43-5

3.2.3.1 Sources and Text Criticism Lk 11:14-26, 29-32, 12:10 and 6:43-45 contain many rare words that are not usually used in Luke’s Gospel. 75 The syntactic construction and semantics are so near to the parallel text in the Gospel of Matthew that one can suppose that they stem from a common source, Q.76 The texts in Lk 11:14-26, 29-32, 12:10 and 6:43-45 do not contain textual variants that are significant enough to change the meaning of the text.77

75

In Lk 11:15 –Beelzebou,l, Lk (3). In Lk 11:16 –peira,zw, Lk (2). In Lk 11:17 –diano,hma, Lk (1); evrhmo,w, Lk (1). In Lk 11:18 –Beelzebou,l, Lk (3). In Lk 11:19 –Beelzebou,l, Lk (3). In Lk 11:20 –da,ktuloj, Lk (3); fqa,nw, Lk (1). In Lk 11:21–auvlh,, Lk (2). In Lk 11:22 –evpe,rcomai, Lk (3); nika,w, Lk (1); panopli,a, Lk (1); diadi,dwmi, Lk (2). In Lk 11:23 –skorpi,zw, Lk (1). In Lk 11:24 –a;nudroj, Lk (1); avna,pausij, Lk (1). In Lk 11:25 –saro,w, Lk (2); kosme,w, Lk (2). In Lk 11: 26 –katoike,w, Lk (2); kako,j, Lk (2). In Lk 11:29 – evpaqroi,zomai, Lk (1). In Lk 11:30 –Nineui,thj, Lk (2). In Lk 11:31 –no,toj, Lk (3); katakri,nw, Lk (2); sofi,a, Lk (1); Solomw,n, Lk (3). In Lk 11:32 –katakri,nw, Lk (2); kh,rugma, Lk (1); polu,j, Lk (1). In Lk 6:43 – sapro,j, Lk (2); pa,lin, Lk (3); sapro,j, Lk (2). In Lk 6:44 –sulle,gw, Lk (2); su/kon, Lk (1); ba,toj, Lk (1); stafulh,, Lk (1); truga,w, Lk (1). In Lk 12:10 –blasfhme,w, Lk (3). 76 Bovon, Lukas 2, pp. 166-167. 77 In Lk 11:14, Papyri 45 and 75 Codice a, B, L supply only daimo,nion kwfo,n, whose construction is very similar to Mt 9:32, 12:22, although Matthew’s version is not based on the two Papyri. The variant does not have any impact on the theme of the text, as the demon-possessed person is never mentioned in the narrative after the healing. In Lk 11:15, Papyrus 45 supplies elalh/san o;curoi le,gontej, indicating that the comment is from the crowd. Codice a, B supply the name Beezebou.l instead of Beelzebou.l. Codices A, D supply an extra verse o` de. avpokriqei.j pw/j du,natai satana/j satana/n evkba,lleinÈ at the end of Lk 11:15, which is a harmonization with Mk 3:23. In Lk 11:20, Papyrus 45, Codice a*, A,W supply evgw, before evkba,llw. In Lk 11:23, Codex a, Manuscript 33 provide the missing accusative object me to the verb skorpi,zw. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

3.2.3.2 Texts, Immediate Textual Contexts and Literary Features Lk 11:14-32 is sandwiched between Jesus’ teaching on prayer (Lk 11:1-13) and his second parable about the lamp (Lk 11:33-36, cf. Lk 8:16). The narrative has no obvious semantic or thematic links with the preceding and following texts. However, Luke arranges the units in a similar way to the preceding units, in which Jesus teaches the disciples in parables (Lk 8:4-21). Jesus’ correction of a woman’s outburst (Lk 11:27-28) and the parable of the lamp (Lk 11:33-36) are a dublette of Lk 8:16-19, in the reverse order. The aim of Luke’s redaction is clear. Jesus gives the same challenge to those who hear this episode as he gives the disciples earlier: hear, keep and practise the words of God and be a lamp. Lk 11:14-32 entails three blocks, of which the first block can be further divided into three sub-units. The three blocks are the conflict on exorcism (Lk 11:14-26), the bridging scene (Lk 11:27-28) and the conflict on the request for a sign (Lk 11:29-32). The text flow and content of the first and last blocks are almost exactly like Matthew’s text. The order of the return of the unclean spirit and the sign of Jonah are a reversal of Matthew’s version (Lk 11:24-26, 29-32, cf. Mt 12:38-45). Luke makes a clear demarcation between accusers and inquirers and the issues that concern them. Jesus’ response to them is also different. The structure of the narrative is as follows. The conflict on exorcism (Lk 11:14-26) begins with a prelude (Lk 11:14-16), in which Jesus drives out a dumb devil from a possessed man. The reactions of the people are divided. The response comes from two groups. A group of amazed bystanders (Lk 11:14) 78 attribute the source of Jesus’ exorcism to demons (Lk 11:15). Their position is relatively fixed. A group with reasonable doubts asks for a heavenly sign as proof of the legitimacy of Jesus’ source of authority (Lk 11:16). Their position is relatively neutral and open. Jesus responds to the In Lk 11:25, Codice a2, B, C, L supply an extra scola,zonta, which is probably a harmonization with Mt 12:44. In Lk 11:30, Codice A, C, W, Q supply an extra tou/ profh,tou before VIwna/j. Codex D supplies an extra kai. kaqw,j VIwna/j evn th/| koili,a| tou/ kh,touj evge,neto trei/j h`me,raj kai. trei/j nu,ktaj( ou[twj kai. o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou evn th/| gh/ , which is probably a harmonization with Mt 12:40. In Lk 11:31, Papyrus 45 and Codex D do not supply evn th/| kri,sei since the verses themselves presuppose the context of the judgement. Hence, the omission of the phrase does not affect the meaning of the text. Codex D does not supply Lk 11:32. Since only Codex D omits this verse, Lk 11:32 is still considered to be part of the text. In Lk 12:10, Codex D supplies a more severe punishment for the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. eivj to. a[gion pneu/ma blasfhmh,santi auvtw/| ou;te evn tou,tw| tw/| aivw/ni ou;te evn tw/| me,llonti auvtw/| ouvk avfeqh,setai, which is a harmonization with Mt 12:32b. 78 The source external to the Bible shows that Jesus is regarded as a magician, Jos.Ant 18:63, b.San 43a, SB, Kommentar I, p. 631. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

71

Authority

two groups with two teachings of unequal length. Three allegories are provided by Jesus to refute the accusation (Lk 11:17-22). The parables of the kingdom and the house are set 72 in an asymmetric syntactic parallel (Lk 11:17c). The third parable of the strong man is instilled with a warlike tone (cf. Isa 49:24-26). 79 The two rhetorical questions in Lk 11:18b and 19b are almost the same as Matthew’s. Luke differs from Matthew in saying that it is through the finger of God, not the Spirit of God, that Jesus performs his exorcism (Lk 11:20, Mt 12:28). As in Matthew’s Gospel, the refutation is concluded by Jesus’ logion about the uncompromising solidarity of his group. His logion features syntactic, morphological and phonetic parallelisms (Lk 11:23).80 The definite return of the unclean spirit to the healed man is described from the perspective of the unclean spirit (Lk 11:24-25). The condition of the house is described in morphological and phonetic parallels of sesarwme,non kai. kekosmhme,non (Lk 11:25). A comparison with Luke’s text shows that Matthew inserts scola,zonta to describe the condition of the house (cf. Mt 12:44, Lk 11:25). In the bridging scene (Lk 11:27-28), the outburst of praise from a woman (Lk 11:27-28, cf. Gen 49:25) is inserted as an interruption to Jesus’ logion (Lk 11:27). Lk 11:27-28 could also be a bridge between the units. Jesus’ response, menou/n maka,rioi oi` avkou,ontej to.n lo,gon tou/ qeou/ kai. fula,ssontej, in Lk 11:28 is a dublette of Lk 8:21 (cf. Mk 3:35, Mt 2:29).81 Those listening to the logion are the two groups of bystanders and those joining the crowd on the site (Lk 11:27, 29). The observance and practice of the word of God, rather than a familial bond, qualifies the blessed. In the conflict on the request for a sign (Lk 11:29-32), Jesus directs his urge for repentance to those asking for a sign (Lk 11:29) before the Day of Judgment comes. He addresses both those who ask for the sign (Lk 11:16) and the anonymous “evil generation” (Lk 11:29, cf. Lk 11:16).82 Luke presents the syntactic and morphological parallels of the Queen of the South and the men of Niniveh in reverse order to Matthew. His arrangement corresponds to the order of the books in the Old Testament, in which the narrative about the Queen of the South (I King 10:1) comes before the men of Niniveh (Jonah 3:5). Matthew’s order 79

Luke differs from Matthew in the third parable in the sense that Matthew’s text refers to an individual house-owner whose house is broken into by a robber (Mt 12:29). Luke’s text is more warlike. He refers more to one who guards his mansion with weapons against the invasion of the enemy (Lk 11:21-22). Luke’s parable of a guarded mansion is nearer to the meaning of the name Beelzebul. 80 Wolter is of the opinion that "ihre Entscheidung für oder gegen Jesus eine Entscheidung für oder gegen das Heil Israels ist". Wolter, Lukas, p. 420. Schürmann points out that the literary motive of solidarity is important for the wandering Christian preachers who gather the scattered Christians in house churches. Schürmann, Lukas II, p. 248. 81 Jesus’ logion on the true bond of the family in Lk 8:19-20 belongs to part of his teaching to the disciples. It is placed after the parable of the lamp (Lk 8:16-18). Both the logion and the parable are dublette. They appear again in Lk 11:27-36 but in reverse order: Jesus’ correction to the woman’s outburst of praise (i.e. the observance of God’s words is the true blessedness in Lk 11:28) precedes the parable of the light (Lk 11:33-36). Also, the audience is different: accusers and the neutral inquirers (Lk 11:15-16) and the growing crowd (Lk 8:4, see also Lk 11:29). Cf. Bovon, Lukas 2, pp. 185-187, Wolter, Lukas, pp. 421-422. 82 See Labahn, "The Dark Side of Power" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 4, p. 2925. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

provides a more focused grouping of Jonah’s narratives in one place, but overlooks that the sign of Jonah has nothing to do with the conversion of the men of Niniveh.83 They 73 convert due to Jonah’s sermon, not his stay of three days and nights in the fish! Otherwise, the texts and the structure of this unit are almost the same in the two Gospels. Two of Jesus’ teachings about “something (in neuter singular normative form) greater than Solomon and Jonah” are the same as in Matthew's text (Lk 11:31-32, Mt 12:4142).84 Lk 12:10 [Q] is about blasphemy against the Son of Man and the Holy Spirit. The verse could be a modification of the logion about judgment on those who do not believe in the earthly Jesus in Lk 12:8-9.85 Unlike Mt 12:31-32 (cf. Mk 3:28-29),86 the logion itself is not connected to the context of exorcism. Rather, it is sandwiched between a text on eschatological judgment (Lk 12:9) and a persecution situation, in which the help of the Holy Spirit is available. Lk 6:43-45 consists of two proverbs with syntactic, morphological and phonetic parallels. It is placed in Jesus’ sayings on ethnic integrity for the disciples. It shows that the proverbs about trees and their fruit, and men and their words, are not embedded in the narrative of exorcism, as they are in Matthew’s version. 3.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 12:22-45

Matthew merges Mark and Q to form one of his strongest criticisms of the Jewish leaders. Only exorcism provides the necessary context for Jesus’ criticism of and warnings to his critics.87 A comparison with Luke’s narrative and its source (Q) shows that the parables on trees and words of man (Mt 12:33-37) and Jesus’ logion about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:31) may not be embedded in an earlier version on exorcism. Matthew’s major redactions in Mt 12:22-45 include bracketing together five narrative motives within the context of exorcism (Mt 12:22, 12:43-45). They are the 83

Matthew and Luke have a reverse arrangement of Nineveh and the Queen of the South, Jonah and Solomon. Bovon points out that it is probable that Luke follows the Old Testament tradition where the Queen of the South is always mentioned before Nineveh, but Matthew follows the Jewish liturgic tradition where Jonah is always mentioned before Solomon, Bovon, Lukas 2, pp. 196-197. 84 The Q tradition sets the pleion in neuter, not masculine. Is it suggesting something other than Jesus himself in the original tradition? Cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 358. 85 Cf. Tuckett, "The son of man and Daniel 7: Q and Jesus" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, p. 385. 86 In Mk 3:28-29 toi/j ui`oi/j tw/n avnqrw,pwn is the dativus commodi of avfi,hmi. Only the Holy Spirit, not the Son of Man, is the accusative object of blasfhme,w. 87 For Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels, the conflict about Jesus’ exorcism (Mk 3:22-30, Mt 12:22-45) is placed in the middle of the ministry of exorcism (cf. Mk 1:23-28, Mk 5:1-17, Mt 8:28-34; Mk 9:14-29, Mt 17:14-21). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

source of Jesus’ exorcism, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, judgment of the careless words of the Pharisees, reproach for the request for a sign and the idleness of the healed 74 man and its consequence. His grouping of the five themes shows that he gathers the harshest warnings about judgment from the sources available (both Mark and Q) and adds his own to the narrative. He escalates the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees about Jesus’ exorcism. Also, he directs his criticism and the warnings bracketed by the issue of exorcism primarily at the scribes and Pharisees, who are representative of the evil and unfaithful generation (Mt 12:39). Lk 11:14-26 is placed at the end of Jesus’ ministry of exorcism. 88 It summarises Jesus’ position concerning it. Luke has a clear demarcation between accusers who say that Jesus’ exorcism is demonic and neutral inquirers who ask for signs as proof. Neither group is identified as Jewish leaders. Jesus’ response to them is also different. He reproaches the accusers with regard to the absurdity of their logic and urges for solidarity with his group. He warns the neutral inquirers that their requests make them obtuse to the Gentiles, who will stand against them on the Day of Judgment, as the Queen of the South and the men of Nineveh did not asked for an extra sign before repenting. However, through the insertion of the dublette negating the privilege of familial bonds (Lk 11:27-28) and the parable of the lamp in reverse order (Lk 11:33-36, cf. Lk 8:16-21, Lk 6:47, Mt 7:24 [Q]), Jesus poses the same challenge to them as he did to his disciples in Lk 8:4-21: hear, keep and practise the word of God and be a lamp. Luke’s text is more edifying than Matthew’s. A tone of warning and judgment prevails in Matthew’s text; not a single word of encouragement is found in his narrative. 3.3. Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts on Jesus’ Authority in Galilee 3.3.1 Matthean Community’s Ministry of Exorcism

The episode in Mt 12:22-45 owes most of its traditions to Mark and Q. Both traditions presuppose that Jesus works under an authority and does not exercise his own (Mk 3:22, Mt 12:24, 12:28, Lk 11:15, 11:20 [Q]).89 Q also records similar criticism of John the Baptist: both John and Jesus are possessed (cf. Mt 11:18, Lk 7:33 [Q], Mt 9:32, 12:24, Lk 11:15 [Q]). Only Matthew treats Jesus’ exorcism and the resultant accusations in an escalating manner.90 There must be a reason why Matthew formulates one of the 26. 324.

88

The episodes about Jesus’ exorcism (Lk 4:31-37, 8:26-39, 9:37-43) are all placed before Lk 11:14-

89

Cf. Piper, "Jesus and the Conflict of Power in Q" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus p.

90

Mt 9:32 describes Jesus’ healing of a dumb demoniac. Mt 12:22a describes Jesus’ healing of a dumb and blind demoniac, although in Mt 12:22b he is named only as a dumb man (cf. Mt 9:32). The crowd in Mt 9:32 reacts with an amazing remark, while the Pharisees hold that Jesus drives out the devil through the The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

longest defences against such accusations. Exorcism is part of the ministry of Jesus (Mt 8:28-34, 9:32-33, 17:14-21) and is one of the core assignments of the 12 disciples (Mt 75 10:1, cf. Mk 6:7, 3:13, Lk 9:1). However, the disciples are not always competent exorcists. Jesus’ exorcism is more effective than theirs (Mt 17:16, 20).91 The source of their authority to heal, like that of Jesus, is accused of being demonic (cf. Mt 10:25, Matthew’s Sondergut). This accusation, together with the competing exorcism of the group of the Pharisees, must have disturbed the Matthean community. Exorcism, a healing ministry (see Acts 10:38), must have been important for the Matthean community. The community may have been under the same abusive attack because of its engagement in it (Mt 10:25). The Synoptics have many stories of demon possession. 92 Demonic possession was perceived in Jesus’ time as the overwhelming control of a man by a foreign, evil power. As has been stated, both healing and exorcism are associated with the pronouncement of the Kingdom of God (Mt 4:23-24, 10:7, Lk 10:9-12 [Q]). However, exorcism has a much stronger liberating and victorious effect than healing.93 It is a demonstration of victory over the evil one,94 foretelling the eventual victory of the Kingdom of God over the Kingdom of Satan.95 Exorcism per se should have been welcomed within the Jewish context (Mk 9:38-40). However, Matthew and Luke try to differentiate the exorcisms of Jesus (and his circle) from those of contemporary Jewish exorcists On the one hand, they admit that the exorcisms of the Pharisees also do not have a demonic origin.96 On the other hand, they downplay the exorcisms of the opposite camp. The logion of Mark’s Jesus, o]j ga.r ouvk e;stin kaqV h`mw/n( u`pe.r h`mw/n evstin (Mk 9:40), is inverted, o` mh. w'n metV evmou/ katV evmou/ evstin (Mt prince of devils. The crowd asks a further question about Jesus’ identity (i.e. the source of the exorcism) in Mt 12:23. The Pharisees hold that Jesus drives out evil through Beelzebul, the chief of the demons, not just a prince of them (Mt 12:24). 91 Mt 17:14-20 (Mk 9:14-29, Lk 9:37-43) may refer to the return of the evil spirit to the person who was once possessed by a demon. It may reflect a background of house, not wandering ministry. It is because the latter wont be possibly told of the failure in the exorcism, when the wandering preachers healed people on the way and did not stay with the congregation. 92 Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, pp. 250-251. 93 According to Q, healing could also be seen as exerting authority over the power which makes people sick. See Mt 8:9, Lk 7:8 [Q]) and also Piper, "Jesus and the Conflict of powers in Q" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus p. 322. Räisänen sees the Q tradition of exorcism (Q 11:20) as being a postEaster creation. See Räisänen, "Exorcisms and the Kingdom" in Symbols and Strata, p. 135. 94 See Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, pp. 259-260. 95 Cf. T. Dan 5:10-12, Jub 23:29. Mark uses evpitima,w often to describe Jesus’ exorcism, which could be an allusion to r[g (Zech 3:2). Cf. Kee, "The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories", NTS 14 (1967/68), pp. 240-242. Matthew uses fqa,nw to describe that the Kingdom of God is already present in Jesus’ exorcism (Mt 12:28, Lk 11:20 [Q]). The verb appears only in this Q logion. 96 Both Mt 12:28b and Lk 11:20 show that they avoid saying directly that the Jewish exorcism has its source from God or the Holy Spirit. Both shift the implied conclusion of the question they raise in Mt 12:27 and Lk 11:19 to the theme of the emergence of the Kingdom of God. The exorcists not directly authorized by the Jerusalem-based early church are also reproached by Peter and John as not originating from God, Acts 8:9-25. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority Authority

12:30, Lk 11:23 [Q]). Matthew even removes the positive statement about the unknown exorcists in his Gospel (cf. Mt 7:15-23, Mk 9:38-41, Lk 9:49-50). Why? Successful 76 exorcism reflects a close relationship with God (Mk 9:29).97 The Jewish camp cannot rival Jesus in this respect. The exorcism performed by Jesus indicates that the Kingdom of God is with the people (Mt 12:28, Lk 11:20 [Q]). Luke also says in Acts that the exorcism performed by the non-Jesus group is ineffective (Acts 19:14-17), although he is quick to correct the disciples’ conception that successful exorcism alone should be a reason for celebration. Instead, one should rejoice when one’s name is written in heaven (Lk 10:17-20).98 It is plausible that exorcism epitomised the competition for hegemony between Jesus’ ministry and those of his rivals in the Matthean and Lukan communities. It is highly probable that the healing and exorcism ministry of Jesus’ group caused potential upheaval to the existing political (Mk 5:9, Lk 8:30), social (Mk 5:18, Lk 8:38), economic (Mk 5:13, Mt 8:32, Lk 8:33-34) and religious order. 99 Luke is particularly aware of this effect. He mentions the economic implications of exorcism in the name of Jesus in Acts (Acts 16:16-20). 3.3.2 Matthew’s Reflection on the Limitations of Miracles

Why is a request for a sign (miracle) from the critics so offensive when such a request was regarded by contemporary Jews as legitimate and necessary?100 Why is asking for a sign so reproachable, when Matthew knows that a sign is proof that something is of divine origin (Mt 12:31-42, cf. Mt 24:3)?101 Jesus’ disciples also ask for signs of the Last 97

Vogel, "Das Böse ist böse genug", ZNT, Heft 28, 14 Jahrgang (2011), p. 50. See also Berger, Formen und Gattungen, p.147. Satan falling like lightning may also imply the presence of Baal tradition behind the logion, as Baal is the God of lightning. Also, treading on serpents and scorpions may have Acts 28:3-6 as its background. The early Christians criticized exorcism exercised by other camp. See also Ius. dial, l51: 24. 99 The longest episode of Jesus’ exorcism tells how the traditions perceive the implication of Jesus’ exorcism (Mk 5:1-20, Mt 8:28-34, Lk 8:26-39), which may have a strong overtone of political liberation from foreign occupation: Both Mark’s and Luke’s texts stress that Jesus’ exorcism has an impact on the political and economic status quo: (i) With respect to the political impact, the name of the demon-possessed man is Legew.n, which is a loan Latin word from legio, a unit of 4200-6000 soliders. It may hint at the stationing of the Roman troops in their colony. (ii) With respect to the economic impact, the drowning of a large herd of pigs means a huge loss of property for the Gentile inhabitants. Matthew detracted the political impact of Jesus’ exorcism. He may not hold that the name implies the Roman occupation (cf. Mt 26:53). Cf. Schreiber, "Der gefährliche Andere" in Welt und Umwelt der Bibel, 2/2012, pp. 37-41. 100 Cf. John 6:30, 2 Thes 2:9, 2 Cor 12:12, Heb 2:4, Philo Moses 1:76-77, 1:82-83, 90:91, Jos. Ant 2:274, 2:276. 13:281-283, 18:211. See also the false prophets in Jos. Bell 2:259, 262, Jos. Ant 18:85-87, 20:97-99. Also, contemporary Jewish understanding holds that there is danger from exorcisms practised by illegitimate sources. It is necessary for them to make a sharp distinction between legitimate and illegitimate exorcisms. This is because the exorcism from an illegitimate source will anger the evil spirits and make their presence more obvious. The more evil spirits are driven out, the more they appear in the human realm. See Jub 8:2-3, b.San 90a,b, 98a. 101 Cf. Exod 4:30-31. God gives Moses and Aaron signs to strengthen the faith of the Israelites. 98

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

Days (cf. Mk 13:4, Mt 24:3-4, Lk 21:7-8). Lk 11:29-32 is not the first time that Luke mentions a sign being proof of God’s genuine will. Signs are given to reveal God’s will 77 in times of crisis or in times with a clear expectation of the apocalyptic era.102 The signs (miracles) are proof of the authority of the disciples in Acts (Acts 3:5-6, 8:17-20, 28:36).103 Both Matthew and Luke are well aware of the danger and limitations of miracles for their generation.104 When miracles are requested as credentials to one’s claim, how many miracles would the Matthean community have been required to supply to satisfy their critics’ curiosity? The immediate fervent excitement about the miracle, but the lack of will to keep the logia in their hearts, would be an obstacle to faith.105 This concern is expressed in the scenario of the return of the evil spirit; it is considered self-evident that an expelled spirit needs to seek a residence (cf. Mk 5:12, Mt 8:31, Lk 8:32). If a man is unguarded, the evil spirit will have a chance to return (Lk 11:21), as he does not keep the word of God (cf. Lk 11:28).106 In another narrative in which exorcism is mentioned, Luke suggests that the healed person serves Jesus (Lk 4:30, 8:2-3).107 He uses the parable of the lamp to challenge all hearers of the debate (the accusers of Jesus’ exorcism and the neutral inquirers for a sign) with the same task as given to the disciples (Lk 8:16-18, 11:33-36). Matthew, however, puts this warning at the end of his narrative on exorcism. It is a warning to those who experience healing by exorcism and the generation who asks for a sign. Matthew’s Jesus adds an additional participial adjective on the state of the house, which may invite more wicked unclean spirits to occupy it, scola,zonta.108 It is an 102

shmei/on: Lk (11), Acts (13). The narrative about the giving of signs as a proof of God’s will can be found in Lk 1:5, 36, 2:34. See also Mk 13:4, Lk 21:7, Acts 2:22, 2:43, 4:30, 5:12, 6:8, 7:36, 15:12. 103 Luke’s Jesus, however, refuses to provide signs during his trial by Herod (Lk 23:8). 104 See Labahn, "The Dark side of Power" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 4, p. 2926. Both Q and Mark have similar negative criticism of this generation. Cf. Mk 7:12, 9:19, 8:38. For Q, see Mt 11:16, Lk 7:31[Q], Mt 12:39, Lk 11:29[Q], Mt 23:39, Lk 11:50 [Q]. 105 Mk 3:22-30 does not mention the return of the unclean spirit, but Mt 12:43-46 and Lk 11:24-26 [Q] do. Rabbis contemporary to Jesus accept that a divine revelation (a sign or a miracle) may settle differences in halakha. Nevertheless, as time goes by, the rabbis adopt a more reserved attitude to miracles and signs, especially when the miracles and signs are used to support halakha and doctrinal issues. See Gerhardsson, Memory, p. 213, note 8. 106 Cf. Jos.Ant. 8:47. Luke uses o[tan in both Lk 11:21, and Lk 11:24, which sets a distant parallel between the two situations. In either case, the one possessing the room is overpowered by a stronger one. The coming of the devil –e;rcetai o` dia,boloj can be found in Lk 8:12. Perhaps the return of the unclean spirit after exorcism simply shows the difference of perspectives between wandering ministry and house ministry: the ineffective healing could not be noted by wandering preachers, who travelled from place to place. Nevertheless, it would be noticed by house fellowship. 107 Luke depicts the high fever of Peter's mother-in-law as a demon possession –h=n sunecome,nh puretw/| mega,lw|. 108 Luke uses two adjectives sesarwme,non kai. kekosmhme,non to describe the state of the house (Lk 11:25), while Matthew uses three adjectives scola,zonta, sesarwme,non kai. kekosmhme,non. The three participles can be used both in the description of a house (i.e. empty, cleaned and decorated) as well as the The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority Authority

active participle, in contrast with the other two participles, which are in passive form. It implies that each person has a responsibility for their idleness, which in Matthew’s 78 terminology is not bearing fruit (Mt 3:9-10) and not practising the word of God (Mt 8:21, 24-27).109 Matthew and Luke have the same motive but they express their concern in different literary structures and arrangements. 3.3.3 Christological Debate with the Jewish Counterparts

Both Matthew and Luke know that Jesus’ exorcism cannot qualify him for the status of the Messiah in the eyes of the Jewish community (Mt 12:20, Lk 11:20, [Q]), although both stress that exorcism has a strong Christological implication (Mt 12:38-42, Lk 11:2932). However, Matthew reacts very strongly to the critics’ disqualifying Jesus’ authority for exorcism. He stresses that Jesus is greater than the greatest exorcist in Israelites’ history, King Solomon (Mt 12:37). Through Jesus’ exorcisms, the people begin to realise his identity and authority. The same may have happened in the Matthean community. However, the people’s budding realisation in the narrative is crushed by the Pharisees’ correction. Matthew needs to reinstate the true identity of Jesus in his debates with his Jewish counterparts.110 Against a widespread streetwise opinion that Jesus is just a man (Mt 9:8, 13:55-56), Matthew points out that he is the Son of David and more than Solomon (Mt 12:42), the greatest healer of the sons of David. Jesus’ greatness does not lie only in his healing power.111 He uses this title to bracket the healing ministry of the earthly Jesus and backs it up with a healing miracle each time the title appears in his earthly ministry. 112 The description of a man (disoriented, cleansed and in good order). scola,zonta is Matthew’s redaction as it is different from the other adjectives as it is in an active participle form while the other two are in the form of passive participle. sesarwme,non kai. kekosmhme,non may imply divinum passivum in restoring a person to a proper state upon their repentance, while scola,zonta may mean one must make his decision, i.e. leading a fruit-bearing life. 109 Bohak points out that in the rabbinic literature, a rabbi's virtues and proximity to God can enable him to defend himself against the intrusion of demons. Hence, the observance of the rabbi’s halakhic injunctions is a mean to keeps demons away. See Bohak, "Jewish exorcism before and after the destruction of the second Temple" in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History, pp. 294-298. 110 The removal of the narrative of Jesus’ first miracle of exorcism in Capernaum and the recognition by the unclean spirit of Jesus’ identity (Mk 1:21-28) can be explained by Matthew’s intention to stage the dispute in the earthly and not the spiritual domain. For another explanation of the removal of the narrative, see Rese, "Jesus und die Dämonen im Matthäusevangelium" in Dämonen, pp. 467-479. 111 Jesus' disciples never address Jesus as the Son of David. Only those who seek healing from Jesus address him with this title. Cf. Fuchs, Beelzebulkontroverse, p. 133, note 273. Lohse, "Der Sohn Davids als Helfer und Retter" in Logos-Logik-Lyrik, pp. 303-304. Cf. Duling, "Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of Daviv" in HThR 78, (1975), pp. 246-247, especially note 44 of p. 247. Konradt points out that the longing for a Messiah from the house of David is one of the major prayers of the Jews in Jesus' time, Konradt, Matthäus, p. 18, note 5 and p. 19, p. 22. 112 The only exceptions are Mt 1:1 and Mt 22:42, which form a bracket to Jesus’ whole ministry. For the association between the use of the title followed by a healing miracle, see Mt 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30, The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

crowd first asks if Jesus is the Son of David (the Messiah) after they see for the second time how Jesus exercises his power of healing on a demon-possessed man (Mt 12:23);113 79 the demon-possessed man suffers the severest problem of all of the needy and sick in Matthew’s Gospel. He is demon-possessed and doubly handicapped: daimonizo,menoj tuflo.j kai. kwfo,j. Blind and dumb also suggests being incapable of understanding the mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 13:13-16, cf. Isa 43:8-12). The healing itself may lead them to realise Jesus’ Messianic authority and to become part of Jesus’ circle (Mt 13:16).114 Jesus’ successful exorcism (and healing) is mightily reflected on.115 The crowd approaches a progressively correct but fragile understanding about Jesus, but it is soon shattered by the Pharisees.116 Matthew’s Jesus then launches one of the longest defences against the Pharisees.117 As the spiritual leaders and the teachers of halakha at the time, the Pharisees are in effect blocking people’s path to faith (cf. Mt 23:13-14). In Mt 12:3336, the two metaphors of the tree bearing bad fruits and the evil overflowing from where it is stored in the heart are Matthew’s favourite dublette. They always target Jewish critics.118 Matthew elaborates the theme of blasphemy in the debate. Matthew does not link the debate about exorcism with the dispute on blasphemy without cause. As carrying out an exorcism requires the use of the name of God in its incantation, the Jews were careful to differentiate their words from the exorcisms of their Hellenistic neighbours, to avoid infringing the third commandment (Exod 20:7).119 Matthew’s redaction may be prompted by the contemporary association of blasphemy with the use of God’s name arbitrarily.120 He has to defend against the accusation of Jesus’ critics, who hold that Jesus’ blasphemy lies with his own claim of a close and immediate association with God.121 Matthew also

20:31, 21:9. Cf. Fuchs, Beelzebulkontroverse, pp. 132-140. For a detailed discussion on Matthew's redaction on Son of David, and its relationship with Son of God in the Gospel, see Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 18-52, especially p. 32. 113 Karrer points out that the merged traditions of exorcism and the Son of David is found only in Solomon. See Karrer, Gesalbte, pp. 271-280. 114 See Fuchs, Beelzebulkontroverse, p. 144, note 305. 115 See also Fuchs, Beelzebulkontroverse, pp. 135-140. 116 Similar opinion is also held by Konradt, Matthäus, p. 102, p. 123, p. 147. 117 mh,ti in h,ti ou-to,j evstin o` ui`o.j Daui,dÈ (Mt 12:23) expects a negative answer to the question. See Mt 7:16, Mt 12:23, Mt 26:22. The only exception is Mt 26:25. Jesus’ positive answer to Judas’ question is a surprise to Judas, who may not expect Jesus to know about his betrayal (Mt 16:25). Cf. Fuchs, Beelzebulkontroverse, p. 141. 118 Cf. Mt 8:16-20, 15:11. 119 Kollmann, "Jesus and Magic: the Question of the Miracles" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 4, p. 3066. 120 b.Shab 75a. 121 Blasphemy could refer to one’s claim or status or privilege near to God, cf . b.Hag. 14a, b.San 38b. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

deliberately suppresses any link between the acknowledgement of Jesus’ identity and the 80 unclean spirit in his Gospel because his Jesus is not a magician.122 3.3.4 Matthean Community is Given Authority

In the narrative, the Matthean community is given the authority (evxousi,a in Mt 9:8) to forgive sin and enable the paralytic to walk again, i.e., to challenge the Pharisees who hold their halakha ($lh, or walk) to be absolute norms. Matthew’s Jesus attempts to abandon the priestly function of being an intermediary between God and man, in terms of forgiving sin.123 He takes up the role himself. He furthers his healing ministry of the Kingdom of God, which overrides the spatial boundary between the sacred and profane; forgiveness of sin does not exclusively happen in the temple. Matthew elucidates this point in the following ways: Jesus’ genealogy after exile includes at least one priest, Zerubbabel (Mt 1:12, cf. Neh 12:1, 1 Chr 3:17).124 Jesus’ place of residence is Nazareth, whose name has a strong allusion to the temple cult.125 Jesus’ name is destined to have this implication (Mt 1:21). Jesus’ interpretation of his death alludes to the same (Mt 26:28). Following the healing of the paralytic, Jesus holds a number of debates with the Pharisees. The themes are almost all on the Pharisees’ halakha ($lh, halakha), such as 122

Jesus is regarded as a magician in his time, Ius dial 69, Barn 4:14. Jesus (known as Ben Stada by the Rabbi, cf. b.San 67a) is considered to be using the power of God illegally by stealing the secret of God’s name. Mark and Luke record that the first miracle done by Jesus is the healing of a demon possessed man in a synagogue (Mk 1:23-28, Lk 4:33-37). The narrative is used to support his authority in teaching with deeds. The narrative reports that the unclean spirit recognizes that Jesus is the Holy One of God (Mk 1:24, Lk 4:34). Matthew removes it and subsumes it under a summary statement of Jesus’ impact and his healings in Mt 4:23-24. (ii) Matthew’s Jesus has distanced himself from the unclean spirit. In Mt 8:28-34, Matthew shortens significantly his source's dialogues between Jesus and the unclean spirit (Mk 5:1-13). He commands the unclean spirits to leave the two men with an imperative u`pa,gete only (Mt 8:32). Nevertheless, he doubles one unclean spirit (Mk 5:2) to two to stress the severity. Neirynck suggests that the doubling of the demonaic in Mt 8:28 compensates for Matthew’s omission of the first exorcism in the synagogue, Neirynck, "The reconstruction of Q" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, p. 76, note 71. 123 Matthew’s Jesus is given the title Jesus Christ in Mt 1:1, where Christ is the Greek translation of Messiah, the anointed one. According to the Old Testament tradition, a priest is also called the anointed from God (Lev 4:3, cf. Zech 3:8, 6:10-13), i.e. a messiah. The application of the anointed one is expanded to include anyone who is appointed to fulfill the tasks assigned by God in later tradition, which includes the four functions emerging from the four letters in Messiah in Hebrew: $lm the King, jpf the judge, !hk the priest and aybn the prophet. Predominant theology maintains that there is no saviour for Israel except God himself (Hos 13:9-10, Amos 5:1,4). The messiah is only a righteous king who fulfils an assignment from God. (Zep 3:12-16, Zech 8:7, 9:9-10). 124 Ostmeyer, "Der Stammbaum des Verheissenen: Theologische Implikationen der Namen und Zahlen in Mt 1:1-17", NTS 46 (2000), pp. 182-185. Gnilka suggests that Jesus' genealogy could be a protest against the Hasmonean's rule. See Gnilka Matthäus 1, p. 10, Konradt, Matthäus, p. 28. 125 rzn means consecrate. See Amphoux, "Three questions about the life of Jesus" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 3380-3382. Cf. Pesch´s analysis on the wordplay between VIhsou/ Nazarhne, and o` a[gioj tou/ qeou/ in Mk 1:24, Pesch, Markus 1, p. 122, note 20. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

table fellowship (Mt 9:9-13), the practice of fasting (Mt 9:14-17), work forbidden on the Shabbat (Mt 12:1-14) and the custom of washing hands before meals (Mt 15:1-20). The 81 Pharisees’ halakha could make many people exhausted because they are unable to follow them in their lives. Jesus challenges the Pharisees’ holding of their halakha as absolute norms for daily life. He promises the exhausted rest and a lighter yoke, his cross and teaching (Mt 11:29). Matthew’s Jesus delegates the authority to forgive sin to his disciples. Why? After the destruction of the temple (70 AD), the cult of making offerings as one of the conditions for forgiveness of sin was no longer possible. However, forgiving sin was important for sustaining a corpus permixtum and for furthering ministry to the Gentiles. Matthew’s community was a corpus permixtum not only in terms of the ethnicity of the Christians, but also the phase of maturity of faith of the Christians: good and evil co-existed in the community (Mt 13:29-30).126 All were on the way to perfection (Mt 5:48). The authority to forgive sin was given to the community, so that in cases of church discipline (Mt 18:15-18), those who sinned were still under the umbrella of forgiveness (Mt 18:15, 2122, cf. Lk 17:3-4[Q], Mt 18:23-35, cf. Mt 16:18-20). 127 Those who sinned were like 126

Cf. Goldhahn-Müller, Die Grenze der Gemeinde, pp. 163-196. rsa / arv is a usual expression in rabbinic teaching to denote the discretion made by the head of household, the sage or the rabbi with respect to uplifting or upholding their teachings and laws for their followers or abrogating vows made by Jews, when such vows are made inadvertently. In the first century, this patrichial function is replaced by a democratic trend, in which two or three lay persons together can be considered competent enough to perform the same function. This corresponds to Mt 18:18-20, where the gathering of two or three persons is already regarded as a Christian community which can have a representative function and decide about imposition or removal. See b.Ned 26a, b, 27a, Sifre Num 30:3, b.Ned 78b, b.BB 121a. According to Gnilka, the terms de,w and lu,w have at least four interpretations in New Testament exegesis (i) withholding or implementing church discipline (Gnilka, Strack, Billerbeck, Bornkamm), (ii) retaining or expelling one from church membership, (iii) setting free or binding one to a certain oath, (iv) applying or withholding halakha or interpretation of laws (Bauer). Gnilka, Matthäus 2, p. 66, pp. 126-138. See also Bornkamm, "Die Binde-und Lösegewalt in der Kirche des Matthäus" in Studien zum MatthäusEvangelium, pp. 80-81, Kraus, "Zur Ekklesiologie des Matthäusevangeliums" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, p. 231. SB, Kommentar I, pp. 792-793. In fact, the meanings are all related to one another, as the identity of a group and the eligibility to join its membership depends much on common practices supported by their teachings and traditions. The upholding or relaxing of teaching or practices and the subsequent result on the inclusion and exclusion of membership (cf. Jos.Bell 1:111) are causally and sequentially related to one another. The meaning of disciplining the members of the congregation is preferred here. It is because (i) the contrast of pi. th/j gh/j and evn ouvranw/|( in Mt 18:18. evn ouvranw/|( can mean both spatially and temporally. It means something that exists both in this world (earthly time) and in heaven (heavenly time). As the halakha do not exist at all in heaven (or heavenly time), it is unlikely that the verse refers to teachings. Hence, it may refer to a person whose soul still exists in heaven. This verse refers to the authority of discipline in the community only, but its implementation is constrained and restrained by the context wherein it is placed, in which the call for forgiveness and acceptance exceeds the normal limit and boundary: Mt 18:15-18 is set within the section warning against those who cause the mikro,j –teachable to stumble (Mt 18:6-10), the will of the Father to find the strayed and the lost (Mt 18:1214) and unlimited forgiveness (Mt 18:21-22). All sections are written for the weak and the uneducated and are sandwiched between sections on protecting the weak and forgiveness (i.e. tolerance). See also 127

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

Gentiles and tax collectors (Mt 18:17). The latter were Jesus’ reason for coming and the object of his search (Mt 9:13). 128 The Matthean community was involved in Gentile 82 ministry. The Pharisees’ halakha may have posed unnecessary hurdles to the ministry. The authority to heal paralytics and make them walk again could refer to the authority to override contemporary halakha and relativise some teachings in the Torah concerning the ministry to the Gentiles. Luke’s position on the earthly Jesus’ authority to forgive sin is stated only in his Gospel. It is mentioned twice in the divine passive (Lk 5:24, 7:47-50). However, the onlookers in the scene attribute the subject of forgiveness of sin to Jesus in their remark.129 Luke restates the point more explicitly in Peter’s post-Easter sermon in Acts, when Jesus is risen and sitting at the right hand of God (Acts 3:19, 7:60). Luke does not try to expand the disciples’ ministry of calling for repentance and forgiving sin until after Jesus rises from death (Acts 22:16). The problem that remains unsolved in this study is whether the Jewish critics who shattered the faith of the shaky members in the Matthean community were part of the community (an internal conflict), or outsiders (an external conflict, aiming to define their identity). Could the Matthean community tolerate different standpoints within it, although with shattering effects, or does Matthew refer to a unified community? It should be noted that in the Jewish community there is a long-held tradition that different schools, even with conflicting doctrinal views in their school debates, can co-exist peacefully. Their shared religious heritage of the covenant of God holds this diversity together. It is probable that the Matthean community had worked hard, but frustratingly in vain, to convince its Jewish counterparts. Matthew’s two insertions warning of judgment are found after Jesus performs many miracles (deeds) and after he completes long discussions (teachings) with the learned Jews (Mt 11:20, 23:33-35). Even the most unlikely alliance, the Pharisees and Sadducees, come together to challenge Jesus’ authority. The eagerness in asking for a sign as proof of the source of Jesus’ words and Grundeken, "Community Formation in Matthew: A Study of Matthew 18,15-18" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 458-460. (ii) The interpretation of “oath” does not fit the context either. The reference to the Gentiles and the tax collectors means that the wrong-doers are more like a group that needs their forgiveness and acceptance, like an uneducated but teachable group. It is also noted that in Matthew’s Gospel, a.matavein appears more often in contexts of John’s and Jesus’ ministry. When it is used as a wrong done in a community, Matthew calls more often for forgiveness. (Codice D, L, W, Q supply the reading of a`marth,sh| eivj se,, specifying that it is a wrong done to a brother in the Christian community). 128 Goldhahn-Müller points out that given the change in the number of subjects between Mt 18:15-17 and Mt 18:17-18, Mt 18:18 is secondary to Mt 18:15-17. Mt 18:15-17 is extended from Lk 17:3-4 [Q]. See Goldhahn-Müller, Die Grenze der Gemeinde, p. 171. 129 Lk 7:47, avfi,hmi is often used in divinum passivum. See also Lk 11:4, 12:10, 23:34, with the exception of Lk 5:24, when Jesus mentions the authority of the son of man to forgive sin. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Authority

deeds may reflect how heated the debate is. Although the request for a sign for the sake of verification and proof that someone has been divinely sent is legitimate (Exod 3:12, 83 4:19, Jud 6:17, 1 Sam 10:1, 7, Isa 38:7-8), Matthew knows only too well that reliance on a sign poses a danger to the community. He stresses the importance of active involvement with Jesus’ logia. Given Matthew’s eagerness to stage the longest self-defence possible while pledging the practice of forgiving sin, it is probable that the opposition came from within his own community. During the long fight in the co-existence of good and evil, Matthew calls for a life that bears fruit.130 He calls on God to be the judge in his conflicts with his Jewish counterparts, to judge from the fruits of his life.

130

Alkier is of the opinion that a fruit bearing life in the Gospel of Matthew means a concrete transformation of one's behaviour corresponding to one's change in thinking. See Alkier, "Frucht bringen oder Gewinnmaximierung? Überlegungen zur Gestaltung des Lebens und des Wirtschaftens im Anschluss an das Matthäusevangelium". ZNT, heft 31, 16. Jahrgang (2013), pp. 17-20. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

Chapter 4 Conflicts on Table Fellowship Having a meal together symbolises fellowship. 1 There are 20 narratives about meal gatherings in the Synoptics, six of them in the Gospel of Matthew. They are told in the form of conflict narratives, parables, miracles and even liturgy. Not all of them represent an archetype of fellowship. Rather, many of them reveal an inner longing for fellowship or discord because of the lack of it. This chapter studies one of the pre-Easter criticisms of Jesus, whose unconventional attitude towards table fellowship earns him the nickname of “glutton and drunkard”.2 Jesus’ association with Jewish outcasts provides an impulse to cross social, ethnic and religious boundaries. His table fellowship with outcasts symbolises a foretaste of the eschatological banquet for all nations.3 However, it is still unclear whether the immediate eyewitnesses to the table fellowship grasp its implications for the Gentile ministry. The earthly Jesus does not initiate any mission to the Gentiles; only the risen Christ does. His table fellowship with the outcasts is occasional. Peter and Paul do not quote it as a defence when they face a backlash against the budding but still unofficial Gentile mission. This narrative is also not quoted explicitly in other canonised writings of the New Testament to legitimise the same fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. Nevertheless, does Matthew decipher the potential of the text for his community? Did the earwitnesses to the conflict narrative perceive it differently? 4.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 9:9-13 4.1.1 Mt 9:9-13

4.1.1.1 Source and Text Criticism The literary form of the conflict narrative of Jesus’ table fellowship (Mt 9:9-13, Mk 2:13-17, Lk 5:27-32) is unique. The narrative resists any attempt to classify it squarely under any single literary genre. The episode is staged at a meal, but it does not resemble the Greek sumpo,sion.4 Its climax lies in Jesus’ logion but it does not fit a rabbinic school 1

Outsiders of Essenes are not admitted to their common meal (Jos. Bell 2:139). Same rule is found in the Qumran community (1QS 5:13). 2 Mt 11:19, Lk 7:34 [Q], cf. Jeremias, NT Theologie, p. 123. 3 According to Jeremias, "table fellowship" may mean Lebensgemeinschaft in the Old Testament tradition. Cf. 2 King 25:27-30. In the New Testament, "table fellowship" is an expression for a foretaste of the eschatological banquet at the end of time (Mt 8:11 par). See Jeremias, NT Theologie, p.117. See also Berger, Formen und Gattungen, p. 147. 4 The table fellowship is framed in a δει/πνον. Similar examples include Mk 14:3-8, Mk 14:18-26 par. For sumpo,si/on, see Plut.mor 612 onward. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

84

Table Fellowship

debate.5 It is a hybrid of a Jewish school debate and a Greek chrie or apophthegma.6 The narrative development is driven by a short question from a critic. It provides a frame for 85 interpreting Jesus’ logion, which otherwise could function equally well in a non-meal setting.7 Mt 9:9-13 is a modified version of Mk 2:13-17. It follows Mark’s structure, sequence and vocabulary. 8 The syntax of a statement of mission with h=lqon is often found in Matthew’s Gospel.9 No major thematic controversies are found among the variant readings. Minor variants include: (i) (ii)

The tenses of the verbs supplied.10 The Pharisees’ addressing Jesus as o, dida,skaloj.11

5

Cf. Midrash Rabbah Gen 46:27. The attempts to identify the literary genre of the narrative Mt 9:9-13a include: "Chrie und Apophthegma". See Berger, Formen und Gattungen, p. 140. "Streitgespräch", Bultmann, Geschichte, p. 51, "Objection Story". See Davies and Allison, Matthew II, p. 96, "Streitgespräch mit apophthegmatischem Character", see Gnilka, Matthäus 1, p. 329. 7 Jesus’ table fellowship with the outcasts may have a background of segregation between rbx and [rah ~[ in the Jewish society. The two groups are often used as a contrast or an antithesis to each other. This is because rbx has a strong awareness about purity rules but [rah ~[ do not. [rah ~[‘s ignorance about Torah and their inobservance of the purity rules keep them off the temple. Their offerings (the tithe and heave offerings) are equally disqualified, cf. Tos. Dem. 2:2,3, b.Hag. 25a. Their impurity is contagious. Cf. b.Ber. 47b, Tos.Dem. 3:6, Toh. 7:6. Their entrance into other people’s houses makes the whole house unclean (Tos. Dem. 2:2, 17, 3:4, 6, 7, 8, 8:4, b.San 25b). Although the Pharisees in the Gospels are depicted as a group who strictly observe the norms of purity in a table fellowship, there is very little rabbinic literature which supports to the direct association between tax collectors and [rah ~[ and between Pharisees and rbx, cf. b.Hag. 2:7. rbx and [rah ~[ could be used as a group stigma to represent Pharisees and tax collectors respectively, cf. Wilk, "Synoptischen Evangelien als Quelle für die Geschichte des Pharisäers" in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, p. 100, note 84. See Waubke, "Die talmudische Haberim-Halacha und die Pharisäer" in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, pp. 108-112, 127-130, Rivkin, A hidden Revolution, pp. 27-28, Schäfer, "Vorrabbinsiche Pharisäismus" in Paulus und das antike Judentum, p. 131, Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 363-364. 8 Three reasons support the idea that Mt 9:9-13 is a modified version of Mk 2:13-17: (i) the word sequence: Mark’s text has one hundred and nine words. Matthew’s text has eighty-three words that follow the same sequence as Mark’s. (ii) Matthew uses parallelism instead of repetition; Matthew does not retain Mark’s repetition (Mk 2:16) here. See also Mt 5:29-30, Mt 18:8-9, and Mk 9:43-47. (iii) The shared vocabulary between Matthew and Mark: in Mt 9:9 –ka,qhmai, Mt (19), Mk (11); avkolouqe,w, Mt (25), Mk (18). In Mt 9:10 –avna,keimai, Mt (5), Mk (3); telw,nhj, Mt (8), Mk (3).; a`martwlo,j, Mt (5), Mk (6); sunana,keimai, Mt (2), Mk (2). In Mt 9:11 –evsqi,w, Mt (11), Mk (11). In Mt 9:12 –ivscu,w, Mt (4), Mk (4). 9 The construction of ouvk h=lqon…avlla… appears also in Mt 5:17 and 10:34. The construction of the mission statement of h=lqon appears seven times in Matthew's Gospel: Mt 5:17a,b, 9:13b, 10:34a,b, 10:35, 20:28. di,kaioj is Matthew’s favourite word: Mt (17), Mk (2), Lk (11). 10 In Mt 9:9, Codex a and Codex D supply the imperfect form of hvkolouθ, ει, instead of the aorist supplied by NA 27. In Mt 9:11b, Codex D, Codex θ, etc supply the aorist ei/pon, instead of the imperfect supplied by Codices a, B, C, L, W. 6

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

(iii) (iv)

The expression of table fellowship.12 The inclusion of eivj meta,noian in Mt 9:13.13 4.1.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features

Mt 9:9-13 belongs to one episode of Jesus’ ministry bracketed by ivdw.n de. tou.j o;clouj (Mt 5:1 to Mt 9:36). The construction instils an overtone of God’s faithfulness and compassion for his people in Jesus’ ministry (cf. Exod 3:7, Jud 3:9). In view of the mounting load of people’s needs, Jesus furthers the ministry by appointing the 12 disciples (Mt 10:1-16). Mt 9:9-13 is placed after Jesus’ healing of the paralytic (Mt 9:1-8). A latent motive of the two conflict stories (Mt 9:1-8, 9-13) can be detected by the verbs of progressive movement, paralutiko,j, u`pa,gw and avkolouqe,w. Can a paralysed faith walk again and follow Jesus? The paralytic whose sin has been forgiven can now walk (Mt 9:1-8). The tax collectors and the sinners, who cannot walk (like the paralytic) according to the Pharisees’ halakha, can follow Jesus and join him in table fellowship.14 Matthew further sharpens the tension between the two camps and suggests that a tax collector becomes one of the 12 disciples (Mt 10:3), Jesus’ closest circle. 15 11

In Mt 9:11, one single Old Latin text does not supply the phrase o` dida,skaloj u`mw/n. o` dida,skaloj is also used by those who do not belong to Jesus’ circle, e.g. the Pharisees, scribes, people outside Jesus’s circle (Mt 8:19, 12:38, 17:24, 19:16, 22:16, 22:36), and Jesus himself (Mt 26:18). The disciples and those who trust in Jesus address him as ku,rie (Mt 8:2, 6,14:28). 12 Sinaitic Syriac supplies evsqi,ete kai. pi,nete instead of evsqi,ei, while M565 and some middle Egyptian manuscripts supply evsqi,ei kai. pi,nei. Sinaitic Syriac’s phrase is the same as Lk 5:30 while M565 and the other witnesses provide the masculine singular form of the same expression. Matthew uses evsqi,w kai. pi,nw in many places, where no textual variant is found. Cf. Mt 6:31, 11:18-19, 24:29. The places where eating is used alone are Mt 15:2 and 15:17, where the halakha of washing hand before meal is discussed. 13 In Mt 9:13, Codices C, L, θ etc. supply the additional phrase of eivj meta,noian. meta,noia is found five times in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 3:2, 4:17, 11:20, 21, 12:41). This phrase can be a harmonization with Luke’s text. 14 The exclusion of tax collectors from table fellowship is a halakah. Halakha comes from $lh, which means “walk”. 15 See also b.San 43a. “telw,nhj–skwm–publicanus” has many possible translations, e.g. tax/poll/revenue/levy/custom collector/gatherer/agent/farmer/contractor, see Herrenbrück, Zöllner, p. 3, p. 11, note 38, and pp. 14-15. For a very thorough study on tax collectors before and in the time of Jesus, see Herrenbrück, Zöllner, especially pp. 20-21, 23, 107, 189, 191. In this study, the term “tax collector” will be used because of its widespread usage in the English Bible, despite its inexact connotation. The tax collectors were not unanimously notorious in the Palestine of Jesus’ time. During the Ptolemic period (between 315 and 204 BCE), the tax collectors in Palestine could come from reputable Jewish priestly families, who won the trust of the Egyptian government, e.g. Joseph ben Tobiah, a son of the high priest’s sister was appointed by the Egyptian government as a tax farmer for all Palestine and in Egyptianpossessed parts of Syria in about 240 BCE. Cf. Jos. Ant 12:175-177. The reluctance to pay tax is universal (Jos. Ant 17:205). So is the dislike of tax collectors. The tax collectors in Jesus’ time were regarded as having unjust, though legitimate way of farming money (Jos.Ant 17:308). Also, the adverse economic situation (Jos. Ant 17:20), coupled with the heavy tax demands (which are used as a means of deterring the Jewish uprisings. See Jos. Bell 2:96) in the time of Jesus made tax The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

86

Table Fellowship

Mt 9:9-13 has a tripartite structure that resembles Mk 2:15-17.16 Jesus’ two refutations are set in two syntactic parallels and two morphological contrasts between oi` ivscu,ontej 87 versus oi` kakw/j e;contej (Mt 9:12) and dikai,ouj versus a`martwlou,j (Mt 9:13). 17 The citation of Hos 6:6 in Mt 9:13 is an insertion that links the two syntactic parallels in Mt 9:12-13. Matthew accentuates the Semitic elements in the text,18 implying that the first audience was Jewish. 4.1.2 Mk 2:13-17

4.1.2.1 Source and Text Criticism The narrative of Mk 2:13-17 is classified as a conflict story.19 It consists of two preMarkan traditions, a school dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees about his table fellowship with the tax collectors and sinners (Mk 2:15-16) and Jesus’ logion (Mk 2:1617).20 telw,nion is a rare word in Mark’s Gospel.21 Jesus’ logion (Mk 2:17) is also found collectors’ assignments even more difficult (Jos. Ant 17:308). See also Suet.Dom 12:2, Herrenbrück, Zöllner, p. 17, b.Shab 33b. 16 The tripartite structure includes an introduction (i.e. a setting), a conflict and a riposte. Daube identifies a similar structure in the literary genre of the conflict story: (i) an action of Jesus, (ii) a protest by opponents and (iii) a pronouncement of Jesus that silences the critics, Daube, The New Testament & Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 171-175. 17 The morphological contrast between the sinners and the righteous is a popular theme in the Old Testament: Ps 33:16-7, Ps 36:17, Ps 146:8-9, Prov 13:21, PsSal 3:11, PsSal 9:7. 18 The Semitic features of the text include: (i) The syntactic construction; (i-1) the introductory phrase kai. evge,neto in Mt 9:10a could be a translation of the hyhw, a terminus technicus for scene transition. It may also hint that God’s will is driving the event. Matthew prefers kai. evge,neto o[te when he refers to the change in time or scenes (Mt 7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 19:1 and 26:1). He uses evge,neto to hint at God’s exercising of his will in nature or events, cf. Mt 8:24, 8:26, 27:45 and 28:21. The usage of evge,neto carries a similar meaning in Mt 9:10. See Jenni, Lehrbuch, pp. 105-107. BDR, Grammatik, p. 370. (i-2) Matthew uses the imperfect tense in Greek to reconstruct the “perfect consecutivum” in Hebrew (plus Genitivus Absolutus) in Mt 9:10. All main verbs from Mt 9:10 to Mt 9:11 are in the aorist and are introduced by kai,,. This feature resembles the syntactic feature of perfect consecutivum. It stresses a continuous flow of events with present relevance. (ii) poreuqe,ntej de. ma,qete (dwmlw acy) in Mt 9:13 is a typical rabbinic derisive rhetoric against another party. See SB, Kommentar, p. 499, Haubeck, von Siebenthal, Schlüssel, p. 48. Other expressions include dwml and ygt, see Midrash Rabbah Gen 46:27. ivscu,j carries a connotation of “strong”, not just “healthy”. Also, the inclusion of an Old Testament verse and its interpretation as the climax are typical features of the rabbinic debate. (iii) kai. ivdou. in Mt 9:10b imitates !nhw. 19 Bultmann, Synoptische Tradition, p. 51, Roloff, NT, p. 46, Pesch, Markus 1, p. 164. 20 Gnilka is of the opinion that Mk 2:17 could predate the meal scene, Gnilka, Markus 1, p. 104. The first saying of Jesus resembles a saying from Diogenes o/ti ou,de oi,, i,atroi. e,fh para. toi/j u`giai,ousin, o[pou de. oi. nosu/ntej. See Plut. mor 230F. However, both Mark and Matthew replace u`γιh,ς and noshro,j with oi` ivscu,ontej and kakw/j e;contej respectively. It remains uncertain whether the h=lqon logion in Mk 2:17c comes from (i) the historical Jesus or (ii) from an insertion from the post-Easter early church. Both have strong arguments: (i) The earthly Jesus has a strong conviction that his mission has a divine origin. The h=lqon logion confirms this conviction (cf. Lk 19:10, Lk 9:56 in Codices K, d, Q). (ii) The construction h=lqon plus infinitive is found in letters in the postEaster era, cf. 1 Tim 1:15, see also Did 4:10, Barn 5:9, 2 Clem 2:4, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 97, p. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

in P.Oxy 1224, 22 which suggests that Jesus’ logion is not an isolated saying but was 88 already embedded in the same literary strata of table fellowship. The narrative consists of two main sections: the conversion of the tax collector (cf. Mk 1:16-20)23 and the conflict on table fellowship and Jesus’ logion. Mark’s emphasis is on the table fellowship. The introductory phrase kai. gi,netai in Mk 2:15 resembles the Aramaic and Hebrew introductory clause yhyw. It shows that although Mark views the narrative as containing two parts, the conversion of the tax collector and the table fellowship, his emphasis is on the latter. The most frequently used tense is the present tense. However, the imperfect tense is found in the people’s coming to Jesus in Mk 2:13b and in Jesus’ followers joining the table fellowship in Mk 2:15. It invites the readers to take a closer look at the scene that causes the conflict.24 It is the first and only time that the tax collectors and sinners are mentioned as one group in Mark’s Gospel.25 Jesus’ logion is similar in content to a saying from Diogenes, but not in syntax and semantics, as Mark uses oi` ivscu,ontej and kakw/j e;contej instead of u`gih,j and noshro,j. The saying about ivatro,ς does not match Mark’s deprecating remark about doctors in Mk 5:26. a`martwlo,j may belong to the same literary strata of telw,nhj.26

106, Bovon, Lukas 1, p. 259. Nevertheless, this construction is also found in Jewish texts relating to the coming of the Messiah or in the mouth of anyone who engages in mission related to the End of Time. 21 In Mk 2:14 –telw,nion, Mk (1); telw,nhj, Mk (3). In Mk 2:15 –katakei/sqai, Mk (4), sunanakei/sqai, Mk (2). In Mk 2:17 –ivscu,j, Mk (2); ivatro,j, Mk (2); kakw/j, Mk (4); kale,w, Mk (4); di,kaioj, Mk (2); a`martwlo,j, Mk (6)Å kaqh,menon evpi. is a hapax legomenon. It may be a reconstruction of l[ bvy, cf. 1 Kings 1:48, 22:19, 2 Chr 18:18 and Isa 6:1 in MT. 22 In P. Oxy 1224, the priest objects to Jesus’ table fellowship with the sinners and the tax collectors, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 97. 23 The way Jesus called his disciples is different from his contemporaries. According to the Jewish tradition, it is the students who seek their teacher, not vice versa, cf. John 1:37-38. The conversion of Levi is modelled on the conversion naratives of the first three disciples, cf. Mk 1:16. Davies & Allison point out that Jesus’ calling of disciples reflects Elia's tradition (1 Kings 19:19-21). See Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 96. 24 Ulrich, "Der Wechsel der Tempora in griechischen erzählenden Texten mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Apostelgeschichte" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, pp. 38-48. 25 Herrenbrück considers that both tax collectors and sinners are stigmatised by the Pharisees as a religiously incompetent group, and wrong before God, Herrenbrück, "Zum Vorwurf der Kollaboration des Zöllners mit Rom", ZNW 78 (1987), pp. 196-199. 26 Twelve witnesses give support to this view, i.e., sinners do not appear together with the tax collectors. They are minuscules 28 (the first hand), 69, 228, 275, 501(the first hand), 554, 579, 763 (the first hand), 829, 1216, 1279 and 1561. The earliest witness to this variant (minuscules 28) is noted to have 63.6% agreement, in term of tested variants, with P45, which is dated in the third century. Very unfortunately, the text under study is torn in P45. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

There are some major textual variations in Mk 2:13-17: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

The identity of the tax collector called by Jesus and his relationship to the 12.27 The identity of the critics of Jesus.28 The relationship between Jesus’ critics and his group.29 The intention of the critics’ challenges.30 The alternative expression, of having a meal together with the outcasts.31

27

Codices a (first handed), A, Г and ∆ supply Leui.. The readings of Codices D, θ, Family 13, Manuscript 565, a few Latin texts supply ,Ιa,kwbon, who is also one of the twelve disciples of Jesus and is known as the son of Alphaeus in the Synoptics (Lk 6:15, Mk 3:18, Mt 10:3, Acts 1:13). The NA27 follows revised Codex a (revised) and chose Leui.n. The different forms of the name Levi could be explained by the transliteration of Hebrew names to Greek. Cf. BDR, Grammatik, p. 42, 44. Leui. is found in Lk 3:24, Rev 7:7 and Heb 7:9. In LXX, the same form is also found in accusative form in Deut 10:8, Num 1:49, 3:6, 17:23, 1 Chr 21:6. Fourteen textual witnesses supply ,Ιa,kwbon and the earliest of them is Codex D. This variant is probably an attempt to identity the tax collector as one of the twelve disciples (cf. Mk 3:18, Acts 1:13), cf. Jeremias, NT Theologie, p. 118, p. 223. The question why some manuscripts supply Levi while the others have James or Matthew is still unsolved. Some authors hold that Levi and Matthew are alternative names of the same person, France, Mark, p.131, Haubeck, von Siebenthal, Schlüssel, p. 219. However, Jeremias maintains that the alternative name is possible only for those whose names are the same in the list of disciples. Jeremias, NT Theologie p. 118. Luz also points out that Matthew usually introduces a second name with o, lego,menoj with an article (Mt 1:16, 4:18) or without an article (cf. Mt 2:23, 26:36, 27:16, 33). See Luz, Matthäus 2, p. 42. Pesch also questions why the alternative name of Levi was not stated in Mt 4:18, 10:2, Pesch, "LeviMatthäus, ein Beitrag zur Lösung eines alten Problems", ZNW 59 (1968), p. 41. The variant shows that some early Christian communities, as archived as in the 5th century, have a strong interest to identify the converted tax collector with one of Jesus’ closest circle. 28 Ηere is the only place in Mark where the scribes and Pharisees are grouped together in a single group or scribes of the Pharisees appear as a group. Codices A, C, Θ, Manuscripts of Family 13 supply scribes AND Pharisees, instead of the scribes OF the Pharisees. Most of the Byzantine texts (1575) supply the reading oi` grammatei/j kai. Farisai/oi where the two groups share one definite article, indicating that they are on the same front. France holds that the scribes and the Pharisees are a later correction, France, Mark, p. 130. Lührmann points out that scribes, not the Pharisees, are the major opponents to Jesus in Mark’s Gospel. He maintains that the scribes are against Jesus’ evxousi,a, while the Pharisees argued with Jesus on issues of “jüdischen Lebensweisen”, Lührmann, "Die Pharisäer und die Schriftgelehrten im Markusevangelium", NZW 78 (1987), pp. 172-185. 29 Codices a, L, ∆, Manuscripts 33, 2427, a few Boharic traditions and a total of 1575 Byzantine texts provide the reading kai. hvkolou,qoun auvtw/| kai. oi` grammatei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi. They show that the scribes and the Pharisees are subjects of the verb hvkolou,qoun in Mk 2:15-16, because of the absence of a full stop between verses 15 and 16. This reading puts the scribes and the Pharisees on the same footing as the tax collector and the others in the table fellowship with Jesus. Codex A treats the scribes of the Pharisees as the outsiders in the table fellowship. Haubeck & von Siebental hold this reading as “weniger sinnvoll”, Haubeck & von Siebental, Schlüssel, p. 219. France doubts if hvkolou,qoun auvtw/| in Mk 2:15 carries the basic Markan meaning of discipleship, France, Mark, p. 130. 30 Codex A and Family 1 and 13 and most of the Byzantine manuscripts (1573) supply ti. o[ti, instead of o[ti in Mk 2:16. Codex Θ supplies τι,, and Codex a, Codex D, and Codex W supply dia. ti,. The phrase o[ti is a contraction of ti. o[ti. The usage is often found in LXX. Cf. BDR, Grammatik, 300:2. Menge-Güthling, Wörterbuch, p. 416, France holds that these are later corrections to o[ti, France, Mark p. 130, p. 134. Jeremias sees enmity in the question, Jeremias, Jerusalem, p.120. o[ti here is interrogative. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

89

Table Fellowship

Two main textual variants are found in Mk 2:13-17. They give rise to two questions. Is the converted tax collector one of the twelve disciples? Contemporary Jewish tradition 90 disqualified tax collectors and women from acting as witnesses in the Sanhedrin or in legal processes.32 However, they were the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry and the women were “witnesses” to his resurrection. This study follows NA27 and takes Levi, son of Alphaeus, as the name of the tax collector, as this reading is supported by the major better-quality manuscripts. If Levi is in the earlier version of the narrative and if this name has a priestly origin, i.e., a faithful adherence to Jewish purity rules, it may suggest that Jesus’ followers included some “fallen” priests who had taken up profane and ritually unclean professions under the Romans. 33 No-one, not even the priests, could totally avoid contact with the Gentiles when the Israelites were under foreign rule or in the diaspora. These people were refused fellowship by their pious, learned contemporaries (the Pharisees and scribes), but were accepted by Jesus. Does the conflict on table fellowship take place within Jesus’ circle? This study follows the reading of kai. hvkolou,qoun auvtw/| kai. oi` grammatei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi instead of NA27, with the full stop before kai,. The scribes and Pharisees are also in contact with Jesus’ circle. Some must be followers of Jesus, although not in the same sense as the 12 disciples, otherwise their awkward presence in the table fellowship with Jesus would require an explanation.34 31

Papyrus 88, Codex A and a total of 1515 of the Byzantine manuscripts supply evsqi,ei kai. pi,nei in Mk 2:16. It is likely that the reading is a harmonization with Lk 5:30, as this is the only place in Mark's Gospel which supplies the construction “eat and drink”, cf. Mk 1:6, 3:20, 5:13, 11:14, 14:18. 32 The tax collectors are excluded from all honourable offices. They are disqualified as witnesses. Other unworthy witnesses to monetary disputes include Samaritans, gamblers and relatives of either the lenders or borrowers of the case in question. Tos. Dem 3:4, b.San 3:3. Equally ineligible to be a witness are women (Jos. Ant 4:219). Nevertheless, Mark reports unqualified witnesses to the Gospel and resurrection of Jesus, Mk 16:8 (the shorter reading), Mk 16:11 (the longer reading). In Matthew’s Gospel, the risen Jesus has to appear to the disciples (who are men) again after the women’s report of his resurrection (Mt 28:9, Lk 24:11)? 33 It is not uncommon even for the priests in Roman Empire to make use of their office to accumulate their own material wealth. The priests of Artemis took the property of the temple and sold them to the public in auction. See "Edikt des Paullus Fabius Persicus" of 44 AD in Die Inschriften von Ephesos, Teil 1a, No. 16-19. Viviano suggests that Mark uses the term Leui.n to refer to a Levite wrongly. His mistake is corrected by Luke, who inserts ovno,mati to Lk 5:27. If Leui.n in Mark refer to a Levite who possessed scribal skills, and if Matthew is taken as the nameless Leviten, he should have priestly connections and scribal abilities. See Viviano, “Who Wrote Q” in Mark and Matthew II, p. 83. 34 Bovon points out that according to form analysis, the narratives of calling Levi (Mk 2:13-14) and the table fellowship (Mk 2:15-17) may not belong to each other. Given that the name Levi does not appear again in Mk 2:15-17, it is possible that evn th/| oivki,a| auvtou/ means Jesus' house (Mk 2:15). Bovon, Lukas 1, p. 254. See also Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 99-100, Klostermann, Markus, p. 24, Malbon, "Mark 2:15 in Context", NTS Vol. XXXI (1985) pp. 282-320. According to the Jewish practices of hosting a meal, the guests are invited to a dining room upstairs and lie around the table in the order of seniority. Cf. Tos.Ber 4:8, 9, 5:5, Acts 20:7-12, Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft, p. 63, In this way, it is unlikely that the meal took place in the tax collector’s home. Otherwise the scribes and Pharisees would not be present in the meal upstairs. See also Viviano, “Who wrote Q” in Mark and Matthew II, p. 84. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

4.1.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mk 2:13-17 is placed within Jesus’ second ministry trip to Capernaum (Mk 2:1-22), which has the opposite sequence of events to the first trip (Mk 1:16-39). The motives shared by the two trips are the calling of the disciples, the forgiveness of sin and the public unrest stirred up by Jesus’ new teachings.35 It is the first open conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders of his time. The choice of the name Levi for a tax collector may reflect a certain historicity at that time; the Roman government collected taxes through the priests or their agents.36 Levi’s lifestyle and occupation are in ironic contrast to what his name may suggest. However, his later decision to follow Jesus restores him to what his name could mean.37 4.1.3 Lk 5:27-32

4.1.3.1 Source and Text Criticism One of the sources of Lk 5:27-32 is Mk 2:13-17. Luke follows Mark’s scene development sequence but also uses many of his favourite words.38 Traces of sources other than Mark can be found. For example, kata,keimai and goggu,zw are not words favoured by Luke or Mark.39 Although Jesus’ logion in Lk 5:32 is the same as Mark’s, France holds that the house belongs to the tax collector because Mark does not refer to any house in Capernaum as Jesus’ house, France, Mark, p. 133. See also Bolyki, Tischgemeinschaften, p.107, Gnilka, Markus 1, p. 103, p. 106. Wilk however suggests that Jesus was invited by Pharisees to a meal. Jesus has to defend his association with the ritually unclean tax collectors, Wilk, "Die synoptischen Evangelien als Quellen für die Geschichte des Pharisäer", in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, p. 106. However, could Jesus, in the capacity of a guest and not a host, invite other guests like the tax collectors and the sinners to the meal hosted by the Pharisees? 35 The first ministry in Galilee adopts the following sequence: (i) The calling of the disciples (Mk 1:1620). (ii) The healing (Exorcism) and the teaching (Mk 1:21-28) in Capernaum, which are followed by Jesus’ fellowship with those healed (Mk 1:31). (iii) A disputation against Jesus’ ministry (Mk 1:35-39). The second ministry in Capernaum has the following sequence: (i) The healing and the teaching (Mk 2:112) in Capernaum. (ii) The calling of a disciple (Mk 2:13-14) and Jesus’ fellowship with those called (Mk 2:15-17). (iii) A disputation against fasting (Mk 2:18-22). The shared words between the first two pericopes include avkolouqe,w (Mk 1:18, 2:14), kaino,ς (Mk 1:27, 2:21, 22 ), evxousi,a (Mk 1:27, 2:10), a`marti,a (Mk 2:5, 7, 9, 10, 2:16, 17). 36 At least one tax collector in Palestine came from a reputable Jewish priestly family. See Jos. Ant 12: 175-177. 37 Levi (ywl) is the name of the priestly tribe. See also Schwartz, "Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites: Who are the Scribes in the New Testament" in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, p. 95 notes 32 and 33. The root form (hwl) means accompany, in a way of being a servant. It is however noted that Levi does not appear in the list of names of Jesus’ disciples. 38 In Lk 5:28 –katalei,pw, Lk (4). In Lk 5:29 –doch,, Lk (16); me,gaj, Lk (20); telw,nhj, Lk (10). In Lk 5:32 –meta,noia, Lk (9). 39 In Lk 5:29 –kata,keimai, Lk (3). In Lk 5:30 –goggu,zw, Lk (1). Bovon however considers that goggu,zw is Luke’s redaction. (cf. Lk 15:2, Lk 19:7). See Bovon, Lukas 1, p. 254. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

91

Table Fellowship

Luke tries to bring Lk 5:31 nearer to Diogenes’ saying by writing oi` u`giai,nontej instead 92 of oi` ivscu,ontej.40 The rare word go,gguzon in Lk 5:30 may be an allusion to Isa 29:24.41 There is one major textual variants in Lk 5:27-32, the apposition or insertion of an equivalent group to a.μαρτωλo,j.42 The reading provided by another textual witness in Lk 5:29 reflects the same interest as Mk 2:16-18: which contemporary group is allied with (or equivalent to) the tax collectors in the table fellowship with Jesus? The reading does not supply “sinners”, which may be an earlier tradition.43 The insertion of “sinners” suggests a harmonisation with Luke’s other texts or a need to find a morphologic parallel to the tax collectors (i.e., the outcasts) so that the Gentiles could understand the question of Jesus’ critics. eivj meta,noian (Lk 5:32) shows that Luke’s Jesus shares the same wish as the conservative wing of the early Christian community, which includes the Pharisees (Acts 15:5).44 4.1.3.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Lk 5:27-32 is the second of three conflict episodes (Lk 5:17-39).45 oi` u`giai,nontej in Lk 5:31 provides a link with the preceding healing narrative (Lk 5:17-25). Nevertheless, Most of the key words in the first sayings do not belong to Luke’s favourite word list. In Lk 5:31 – crei,a, Lk (7); u`giai,nw, Lk (3); ivatro,j, Lk (2); kakw/j, Lk (2). \ 41 Cf. Isa 29:24. diagoggu,zw is found also in Lk 15:2 and 19:7, where it is used as a response by the conservative Jews to Jesus’ companionship with the tax collectors. The verb is also found in verses which describe the grumbling of the Israelites in the desert, e.g. Exod 15:24, 16:2, 7-9, 12, 17:3, Num 11:1, 14:2, 27, 29, 36. 42 In Lk 5:29b, Codices N, W and Manuscripts 1424 and the Bohairic manuscripts supply kai. a`martwlw/n. Codices a* and q omit a;llwn, thus leaving the tax collectors as a single group which has table fellowship with Jesus (and his disciples). The same can be seen in Lk 5:30 where kai. a`martwlw/n is omitted by Codex C* and Codex D. In a similar way, Codex a* supplies avse,beij in place of a`martwlo,j in Lk 5:32. However, avse,beij does not appear in the Gospels. It is also rarely used by Paul (avsebh,j (3), avse,be,w (0), avse,beia (4). avsebh,j and a`martwlo,j appear together only in 1 Pet 4:18, for which the earliest available textual witness (in a different word order) is P72. The reading with a`martwlo,j could be a harmonization with the other texts in Luke's or with those of Mark's and Matthew's texts. The morphologic parallel “tax collector and sinners” comes mainly from Q (Mt 11:19, Lk 7:34 [Q]. See also Lk 15:1). 43 In Luke’s Sondergut, the tax collectors as sinners is not only a social opinion but also a self perception (Lk 18:13, Lk 19:7). So does Q (Mt 11:19, Lk 7:34[Q]). Some hold that tax collectors and sinners are synonyms, Herrenbrück, Zöllner, p. 5, note 11, pp. 229230, Klostermann, Markus, p. 25. Likewise, some hold that the expression with kai, has the function of epexegeticum, BDR, Grammatik, p. 368. Wolter thinks however that the grouping combines two different categories of people; the tax collector belongs to a social-economic category, while the sinner belongs to a religious category, see Wolter, Lukas, p. 228. Davies and Allison consider that the “sinner“ is almost the functional equivalent of Gentile (cf. Mt 5:47, Lk 6:33, Ps 9:17, 1 Macc 2:48, Tob 13:6, Jub 23:23-24, PsSal 2:1-2). See Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p.100. 44 Wolter, Lukas, p. 229. 45 Luke uses Vege,neto de.. to group his narratives into different sub-units (Lk 1:8, 2:1, 2:6, 3:21, 5:1, 6:1, 6:6, 6:12 etc). The motives joining the narratives include “healing” and “forgiveness of sin” (Lk 5:17-25, 40

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

kai. meta. tau/ta in Lk 5:27 shows that Luke wants to start a new section.46 The conflict on table fellowship has a closer affinity with the subsequent narrative on fasting (Lk 93 5:33-35).47 The text is also the first of the two dispute episodes, in which Jesus defends his disciples’ meal practices before the Pharisees (Lk 5:27-37), i.e., with whom they share meals and when they should fast and refrain from sharing a meal.48 The lesson underpinning the two dispute scenes is the incompatibility of the old and the new.49 The content and flow of the narrative of Lk 5:27-32 is like Mark’s and Matthew’s texts. The narrative shows very clear marks of Luke’s redaction:50 Luke retains Levi as the name of the tax collector, as the early Christian communities included many priests (Acts 6:7). Levi holds a feast for Jesus. This is contradictory to the previous verse, which describes his giving up all of his material goods to follow Jesus (Lk 5:28, 29).51 The meal takes place in Levi’s house. This provides a reason for the Pharisees’ question.52 Luke adds the scribes and the Pharisees to the critics of Jesus (Lk 5:30). Luke uses the periphrastic imperfect tense in Lk 5:29 to suggest the durative implication of the table fellowship.53 Luke’s Pharisees complain to Jesus’ disciples, not only to Jesus.54 He uses versus Lk 5:27-32), “eating and drinking” (Lk 5:27-32 vs Lk 5: 33-39). The shared phrases between the narratives in the sub unit include ka,qhmai (Lk 5:17, 27), iva,omai (Lk 5:17, 31), a`marti,a (Lk 5:20, 21, 23, 24, 30, 33), kata,keimai (Lk 5:25, 29), evsqi,w kai. pi,nw (Lk 5:30, 33). 46 meta. tau/ta is often used in historical books or chronological development of events in LXX. It means “after these” or it describes retrospectively a reflection on the whole developments of events one has gone through. Cf. Robertson, Grammar, p. 612. Luke uses the phrase in Lk 5:27, 12:4 and Lk 17:8. 47 See Wolter, Lukas, p. 226. 48 Lk 5:27-37 consists of three separate traditions: P.Oxy 1224 has a similar saying to Lk 5:30-31. EvThom 47 and 107 contain two separate sayings of Jesus which resemble Lk 5:36-39 and Lk 5:33-35 respectively. They provide proof of the original independence of the three narratives. 49 Wolter, Lukas, p. 226. 50 The expressions shared by the three Gospel writers include: kaqh,menon evpi. to. telw,nion,, avkolou,qei moi, avnasta.j hvkolou,qhsen auvtw (Luke uses hvkolou,qei), the question raised by the critics (Luke uses evsqi,ete kai. pi,nete, and Jesus’ logion (Luke uses u`giai,nontej and evlh,luqa). However, in places where Mark or Matthew have the same expressions, which also belong to Luke’s common usage, Luke does not follow them, e.g. Luke does not use ei=den –o`ra,w (Mt (70), Mk (50), Lk (81)) but uses evqea,sato –qea,omai (Mt (4), Mk (3), Lk (2)) in Lk 5:27. Also, Luke does not use gi,nomai in this narrative although the word is also one of his favourites (Mt (75), Mk (55), Lk (129)). 51 The holding of a feast in Lk 5:29 resembles the same for the return of the prodigal son (Lk 15:11-24). The repentance of a sinner is a joyful event in the eyes of Luke (Lk 15:7), which should be celebrated with a feast (Lk 15:22). 52 Luke, like Matthew, reports that his Jesus has nowhere to lay his head (Mt 8:22, Lk 9:58 [Q]). The homeless Jesus is always the guest of the learned Jews. 53 All responses of the called tax collector and his colleagues and others, including those following Jesus and having meal with him, are in the imperfect tense. h=san metV auvtw/n katakei,menoi (Lk 5:29) is the only periphrastic imperfect tense in the narrative and the root verb kei/mai is a defective verb which can only take the form of present and imperfect tenses, Robertson, Grammar, p. 316. While the imperfect tense in Greek has an emphasis on the durative impact of the scene involved, it is not formulated in a periphrastic form. Luke however uses this periphrastic imperfect tense more frequently than Mark and Matthew: Mk (10), Lk (31), Acts (28) but all the seventeen occurrences of the periphrastic imperfect tense in Acts are found in chapters 1 to 12, which are known to have Aramaic influence. Cf. Robertson, Grammar, p. 888. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

the perfect tense to describe Jesus’ coming to search for sinners, stressing the lasting influence of Jesus’ mission. 55 Mark and Matthew use ivscu,ω, whereas Luke uses 94 υ`giai,nousin. Luke may therefore have known Diogenes’ sayings.56 Luke has more accounts of Jesus’ table fellowship than the other synoptic Gospels. The table fellowship of Jesus is recorded both before and after his resurrection, with the learned as well as the outcasts.57 Through these accounts, Luke stages an ironic rebuke of the critics’ accusation of Jesus as a glutton, a drunkard and a friend of sinners (Lk 7:34). Luke’s Jesus is invited to meals three times by the Pharisees (Lk 7:36, 11:37, 14:1) and each time, he delivers an opening discourse before the meal. There are two accounts of Jesus’ table fellowship with tax collectors (Lk 5:27-32, 19:1-10). Lk 19:7 may be an expansion of Lk 5:27-32.58 The two texts share a common theme: Jesus’ table fellowship with the more ready to repent tax collectors (or sinners) causes complaints, rather than It is rather untypical for Luke to start nearly every sentence (with the exception of Lk 5:27f and Lk 5:30c) with kai,, given his usual sophisticated style of writing. Luke is known to imitate the LXX style in writing his narratives. See Alexander, "Septuaginta Fachprosa, Imitatio: Albert Wifstrand and the Language of Luke-Acts" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, pp. 14-15. The periphrastic imperfect tense in Lk 5:29 may be influenced by Aramaic. The Aramaic hwh with a participle is often translated into periphrastic imperfect tense in koine Greek. See further examples in Erza 4:24 (aljb twhw –h=n avrgou/n), Erza 5:11 (hnb awh –h=n wv|kodomhme,noj) in LXX. Cf. Robertson, Grammar, p. 888, Rosenthal, Aramaic, p. 59. 54 In Lk 5: 30 –goggu,zw, Lk (1). diago,gguzw is found in Lk 15:2, 19:7. The verb appears once in Acts 6:1, where the Hellenists were discontent with Jewish Christians who discriminated against their widows in their ministry. The verb is used to describe the discontent of the Israelites in the desert in LXX. See also Wolter, Lukas, p. 228. Luke uses a second person plural form of eating and drinking in Lk 5:30 (i.e. the question is directed to the disciples), while Matthew and Mark use the third person singular form in Mk 2:16, Mt 9:11 (i.e. the question is directed to Jesus). In the subsequent questions of the Pharisees directed to Jesus about the fasting practice of the disciples, the verbs “eat” and “drink” are in the third person plural form. 55 The verb in the perfect tense is evlh,luqa. The self revelatory statement (not in the aorist tense as in Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels) is also found in Lk 19:10, which shares the same theme as Lk 5:29-32 and is Luke’s Sondergut. See Bovon, Lukas 1, pp. 255-259. 56 In Lk 5:31, Luke uses u`giai,nontej rather than ivscu,ontej, although the latter is used more frequently in Luke’s Gospel. u`giai,nw, Lk (3); ivscu,j, Lk (8). It may show that Luke follows more closely the tradition he has in hand. 57 The episodes of table fellowship of the earthly Jesus in Luke’s Gospel with the outcasts: Lk 5:27-32, 19:1-10; with non-outcasts: Lk 10:38-42, 7:36-50, 11:37-44, 14:1-6, 22:14-19; feasts in parables Lk 14:711, 14:12-14, 14:16-23, 15:23, and table fellowship with the risen Jesus: Lk 24:30-31, 24:41-43, cf. Acts 1:4. 58 Lk 19:1-9 shows a heightened and intensified theme of Jesus’ table fellowship with the outcasts: geographically, from the area of Lake of Gennesaret (Lk 5:1) to Jericho (Lk 19:1). With respect to protagonist: tax collector (Lk 5:27) to senior tax collector (Lk 19:2). Jesus sees Levi at the tax office (Lk 5:27) versus Zacchaeus wants to see Jesus but also lets himself be seen (Lk 19:4). Lk 19:8 shows that Zacchaeus did fourfold more than he was required to. avpo,llumi in Lk 19:10 is found five times in the parables (Lk 15:4, 6, 8, 24, 32) which were told by Jesus in the presence of Pharisees and the tax collectors and sinners in Lk 15:1. The motives of meta,noia in the second saying of Jesus in Lk 5:32 appear also in the concluding statement of the two parables in Lk 15:7, 10, Lk 15:1-2 and Lk 19:1-7. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

joy, from the learned Jewish group. 59 They refuse unconditional solidarity with the outcasts who are ready to repent. 60 telw,nhj also appears in Lk 7:29. It is the only 95 occasion in the New Testament in which God is the object (passive voice) of justification. The tax collectors’ reaction to the Gospel reveals a reciprocal justification between God and man. God’s promise needs those ready to repent to make it a reality. Likewise, those ready to repent need God’s promise to motivate them to repent.61 The tax collector is justified by his act of repentance (Lk 18:14). 4.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 9:9-13

Matthew makes some major redaction in Mt 9:9-13. He places the narrative in the section of Jesus’ ministry bracketed by ivdw.n de. tou.j o;clouj (Mt 5:1, Mt 9:36). The construction is strongly reminiscent of God’s compassion for his people (cf. Exod 3:7, Jud 3:9). He changes the name of the tax collector from Levi to Matthew (Mt 9:9, cf. Mk 2:14, Lk 5:27). He also makes this eponymous character, the tax collector, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus (Mt 10:3, cf. Mk 3:16, Lk 6:13-15). Matthew, unlike Mark and Luke, consistently uses avna,keisθαι to describe table fellowship between Jesus and outcasts. The verb avna,keisθαι does not require a place attribute, but Matthew inserts “a house” after it. Matthew also adds strong Jewish syntactic features to the text and uses rabbinic polemics and Hos 6:6a in Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees’ criticisms. There are two points that Matthew shares with his source Mark, but not with Luke: both Matthew and Mark group tax collectors and sinners together. Luke, however, groups the tax collectors with “the others” (Lk 5:29). Matthew and Mark use ivscu,ontej and kakw/j e;contej to describe “strong” and “weak”, whereas Luke uses a medical term, u`giai,nontej, to describe the healthy. 4.2 Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts on Table Fellowship 4.2.1 Ready to Repent Tax Collector as a Bridge to the Gentile Ministry

The controversy about the converted tax collector’s identity and his relationship to the circle of 12 is recorded by various textual witnesses. From the internal and external 59

See Lk 5:29, 30, 7:34, 15:1. The tax collectors consistently show a readiness to repent. They are depicted as a prototype of a ready to repent sinner, a positive contrast to the Jewish leaders. See Lk 3:12, 5:27-28, 7:29, 18:10-14, 19:1-10. 60 Cf. Rau, E. "Jesu Auseinandersetzung mit Pharisäern über seine Zuwendung zu Sünderinnen und Sündern, Lk 15:11-32 und Lk 18:10 als Worte des historischen Jesus", ZNW 89 (1998), pp. 5-19, Haacker, "Die Einladung zur Mitfreude", ThBeitr, 10-2/3, 41 (2010), pp. 114-125. 61 Cf. 1 Tim 3:16: where Christ is also set in the passive form. Lk 7:29 and Lk 18:14 are also the only occasions where God and man are set in reciprocal relationship in the mutual act of justification. The usage is similar to PsSal 2:16, 3:3, 5, 4:9, 8:7, 27. See also Tuckett, Griesbach, p. 149. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

evidence, the identification of the tax collector called to be one of the twelve disciples is part of Matthew’s redaction.62 Matthew names the tax collector Matthew, not Levi. The 96 name may not fit his theological theme. He could be reserved about the Hasmonean’s dominance, which represents a priestly Messianic movement that ended in ruins.63 He may not only be interested in relating the repentance of a Levite, a supposedly devout servant of the temple, who took up the mundane and impure profession of tax collecting.64 He may also want to stress Jesus’ (and God’s) initiative: the name Matthew means “given by God” and stresses God’s initiative and control.65 Matthew notes that the earliest witnesses to the Gospel are untrustworthy people, such as women. He challenges the contemporary criteria for witnesses. Marture,w is found in the opportunistic, false witnesses against Jesus before the Sanhedrin’s verdict (Mt 26:60). Matthew wants to point out that the trustworthiness of a witness does not lie in his social or religious status or profession, but in his relationship to the truth.66 The tax collector, or any group with similar social or religious connotations, may have had a role in the Matthean community. telw,nhj appears only in the synoptic Gospels but nowhere in other books of in the New

62

Pesch thinks that Matthew’s disciples are restricted to twelve only. The tax collector, who was called in the same way as the first four disciples, must be one of the twelve disciples, Pesch, "Levi-Matthäus, ein Beitrag zur Lösung eines alten Problems", ZNW 59 (1968), pp. 51-52. However, Gnilka disagrees. For him, the disciples should not be restricted to a small circle of twelve. See his discussion on the use of maqhtai, in Matthew's Gospel in Gnilka, Matthäus 1, p. 331. Nolland holds that the involvement of Matthew here aims to highlight the apostleship and pattern of wider discipleship, Nolland, Matthew, p. 385. Klostermann suggests that the final redactor thought that the book was written by Matthew, and so placed his name in this scene, Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 81. 63 The genealogy of Jesus is a mixture of royal and priestly descendants of David, which may represent a correction to the priestly, non Davidic Hasmonean's rule. 64 Leui (Levi) is ywl in Hebrew. Though not all named after this is priests or of a priestly origin, the name refers obviously to someone of Jewish origin. Accordingly to Ilan, the name is not found in the list of names of high priests from 200 BCE to 130 BCE. Nevertheless, the name leu(eij) is the name of a priest in an apocryphal Gospel preserved on a papyrus, and in its slavic form, it is the name of a priest. See Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity I, pp. 182-185. 65 Maqqaioj (Matthew) is hyttm or atytm in Hebrew, which is a passive participle form of !tn (give) followed by the subject hy (the (ever) living one, a Tretagrammaton of God), cf. SB, Kommentar 1, p. 536. In MT, the name appears in Ezra 10:43, Neh 8:4, 1 Chr 9:31, 15:21, 16:5 etc. Ilan points out that the name can be found in Palestine from 200 BCE to 130 BCE. See Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity I, pp. 191-196. 66 marture,w (also martu,rion) appears four times in Matthew’s Gospel, i.e. in Mt 23:31, 26:60, the Pharisees, chief priests and council, who are eligble to witness in the Jewish tradition, provide false verdicts in the sentence of Jesus. In Mt 8:4 a healed leper is asked to provide the proof of his being healed to the priests. In Mt 10:18, the Christians will provide witness in court by enemies. While Luke retains the texts about false witnesses provided by the Jewish leaders in the sentence of Jesus, Luke uses the term positively; Luke’s Jesus assigns the tasks of witnesses to the twelve disciples in Lk 24:48 and Acts 1:8. The various forms of marture,w appear roughly twenty times in Acts. The subjects of marture,w in Acts are various. They include the disciples and also other Christians. The noun form of the verb applies primarily to the eleven disciples plus Matthew (Acts 1:26). Out of the seven places where the noun form appears, six places refer to those who accompanied the earthly Jesus from Galilee and Jerusalem and to whom the risen Jesus appeared (Acts 1:8, 2:32, 3:15, 5:32, 7:58, 10:39, 13:31). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

Testament. 67 The spreading of the Gospel in early Christianity required many crossregion/cross-border/cross-sea activities. The paying of levies and contact with tax 97 collectors was almost unavoidable.68 The tax collector may have been a frequent object of contact and even eventually the fruit of evangelisation for the first Christians, who were fishermen and who were required to pay taxes.69 The earliest ministry to the Gentiles required connections. The tax collectors may have provided an essential link to the Gentile ministry for the Matthean community because of their close association with the Gentiles. They may even have sponsored the Christian ministry.70 Likewise, the “harlots” married to the Gentiles provided an important bridge to the Gentile ministry. Paul’s closet companion in his missionary trip to Asia Minor, Timothy, had a Jewish mother and a Greek father (Acts 16:1). 4.2.1.1 Triad of Tax Collectors, Sinners and Harlots Why does Matthew group together the sinners (an ethic-religious group) and the tax collectors (a socio-economic group) (Mt 9:10, 11, cf. Mt 5:46-48, 11:19, 18:17)? 71

67

telw,nhj, Mt (8), Mk (3), Lk (10). Schröter points out that Galilean villages were well linked by roads to Via maris and the Royal Road during the reign of Herod Antipas. The roads provide easier trade links between Galilee with other non Jewish cities in the region. Schröter, “Jesus of Galilee: The Role of Location in Understanding Jesus", in Jesus Research, p. 46. 69 An inscript dated 59 AD was evacuated near to a port of Ephesus. A tax station was mentioned. It is where the tax from the fishermen and the traders of fishes was collected. See "Bauinschrift des Fischerei – Zollhauses" in Die Inscripten von Ephesos, Teil 1a, No. 20. 70 See Fieger, Schatten, pp. 82-90. 71 kai, in Mt 9:10 is epexegetic. See Herrenbrück, "Zum Vorwurf der Kollaboration des Zöllner mit Rom", ZNW 78 (1987), p. 164. In Mt 5:48, Gentiles are set as parallel to tax collectors, who do not know the Will of God (cf. Mt 5:45, see also Mt 6:32. Codices L, W, q, f13, and a number of Byzantine Manunscripts supply telw,nai instead of Gentile in Mt 5:47, cf. Tos Dem 3:3-5). In Mt 18:17 tax collectors and Gentiles are treated as a morphologic parallel group, which is still resistant to change, even by three successive attempts of heightened open confrontation are about their sin. Cf. Lk 3:13-14, where tax collectors are mentioned together with soldiers. Herrenbrück suggests that the soldiers accompanied the tax collectors because they faced resistance during the tax collection process, Herrenbrück, Zöllner, p. 250. See also Jos. Ant 12:180. The soldiers are Gentiles. It shows the close association between tax collectors and the Gentiles. Luz disagrees with the hypothesis that Matthew has the foreigners in mind when he writes Mt 9:9-13. Cf. Luz, Matthäus 2, p. 43, note 30. Klostermann thinks that tax collectors and sinners are grouped together because of the relaxed attitude to the Torah, see Klostermann, Markus, p. 25, Tos. Dem 2:2, 3, b.Hag 25a, Tos.Ter 3:1-2. Other groups which are allied with tax collectors are robbers, criminal gangs, thieves and money exchangers. See b.Ned 28a. Donahue thinks that the expressions “tax collectors and sinners” and “tax collectors and Gentiles” belong to two different periods of Galilean perspectives. The former is the perspective of the pre-Easter era (i.e. before 44 AD) and the latter belongs to the post-Easter era (i.e. after 44 AD). It is because before 44 AD, the collaboraton between tax collectors and the Romans did not exist in Galilea, but in Rome. See also Herrenbrück, Zöllner, p. 14. Jeremias holds that tax collectors and sinners are grouped together because of their immoral lifestyle. See Jeremias, "Zöllner und Sünder", ZNW 30 (1931), pp. 293-300. 68

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

Another group that is mentioned together with the tax collectors are the harlots (Mt 21:31-32). Harlot is a euphemism for a Gentile woman or for any Jewish woman who 98 enters into an “illicit” marriage with a Gentile in the Biblical tradition.72 Hence, it can be concluded that the tax collectors are often joined with the Gentiles or those Jews who have a close relationship with the Gentiles. Matthew does not explicitly explain this reason for the incongruent grouping. The issue involved is not ethical,73 but religious74; the Gentiles do not know the Torah. The Jews who know the Torah but do not follow it

Nevertheless, a person who could make a sin offering through the priests as an atonement still remains a part of the Jewish community and the chosen people of God. See Tos. b.Seb 7b, b.Zeb 52b, Jos. Bell, 2:287-288. See further Jos. Bell 2:292, which is the only place where telw,nhj appears in Josephus’ literature, although the theme of the imposition of taxation on the Jews and their subsequent rebellion against the Romans appears quite frequently in his books. 72 ai` po,rnai (hnz –haycym haycy wysvp) appears mainly in prophetic books e.g. twenty two times in Hos and twenty two times in Ezek 16 and Ezek 23 alone. In both books, it is used as an analogy to idol worship. The same connotation is found in Deut 31:16. See also b.Shab 88b. hnz also means “going out, wooing someone into illicit sexual relationship”. In Hebrew and Aramaic, prostitute is used to name a woman who is in illicit marriage. In Galilean and Babylonian Aramaic, prostitute means the one who goes out arb tqpn. See j.San 9:2, 11Q19 2:13, 15. It also carries a connotation of illicit marriage outside the scope of Lev 18, 19. Marriage between Jews and Gentiles is forbidden in Judaism (Exod 34:15-16, Deut 7:1-5, Ezra 9:1-4, 12, 10:2-44, Neh 13:23-29). Texts against intermarriage between Jews and Canaanites are found in Jub 20:4, 25:1-3, 27:8, TestJud 14:6, b.Tem 29a-30a, b.Syn 76a, b.Zeb 85b. Further examples of naming Gentile women prostitutes can be found in Jos. Ant 9:118, where Jezebel is named as prostitute. Rahab, who was known in the LXX as a prostitute (Jos 2:1) is a Gentile innkeeper whose inn is in the wall (Jos. Ant 5:7-8). The Qumran community regards harlots as someone who deviates from the right way. Cf. 11Q 19 2: 13, 15. The only other place in the Bible where prostitutes and tax collectors are mentioned together is in Tertullian’s fragmented citation of Deut 23:18 in Tert. pud 9:5 “non erit uectigal pendens ex filis Israel”; these texts are followed by the strictly forbidden offerings from female or male prostitutes and illicit “exchanges” in the temple of God (Deut 23:19, Bietenhard, Sifre Deut §261 Deut note 34). The verse is however not recorded in the parallel texts in Septuaginta, nor in the Targum Neofili, Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo Jonathan. 73 This is because Matthew often uses ponhro,j, not a`marti,a when he describes the evils in people. He uses a`marta,nw mainly with a Jewish overtone, i.e. it describes a broken relationship between God and men caused by failings of the latter. ponhro,j appears 26 times in Matthew’s Gospel (i) The general evil nature of man: Mt 5:45, 6:23, 7:11,17, 18, 9:4, 12:34, 15:19, 18:32, 22:10, 22:18, 25:26 (ii) The non-believing Jews: Mt 12:39, 12:45, 16:4 (iii) The enemies or the opponents: Mt 5:11, 5:37, 5:39, 6:13, 13:19, 13:38, 13:49. a`marta,nw appears three times in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 18:15, 21, 27:4), where Mt 18:15 and 27:4 belong to Matthew’s Sondergut and Mt 18:21 belongs to Q (Mt 18:21, Lk 17:4 [Q]). Matthew’s own redactions are found in the context of broken relationships between fellow members in a community. a`marti,a appears seven times in Mt 1:21, 3:6, 9:2,5,6, 12:31, 26:28, where Mt 1:21, 3:6, 26:28 are Matthew’s redaction. Mt 9:2, 5, 6, 12:31 are from Mark (Mk 2:5, 9, 10, Mk 3:28). Matthew’s own redactions are related to Jesus’ ministry of forgiving sin. a`martwlo,j appears five times in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 9:10, 13, 11:19, 26:45). All are from either Mark (Mt 9:10, 11, 13, 26:45) or Q (Mt 11:29). 74 Cf. Gnilka is of the opinion that the mentioning of tax collectors, sinners and harlots together (Mt 11:19, 21:31f) shows that "Jesus durchbricht die Regeln einer standardisierten 'Frömmigkeit'". See Gnilka, Matthäus 1, p. 331, Sanders, Jesus and the Sinners, pp. 5-36. Konradt is of the opinion that Matthew does not intend to portray tax collectors and harlots in a positive light (Mt 5:46, 18:17) but to present them as a group in contrast to the unrepenting Jewish leaders, Konradt, Matthäus, p. 186. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

behave like Gentiles (Gal 2:14).75 They are sinners in the eyes of the Pharisees; they 99 cannot fulfil their halakha. A closer look at the first saying of Jesus and its related texts in Matthew may shed light on the theme. Jesus’ first logion, o` de. avkou,saj ei=pen\ ouv crei,an e;cousin oi` ivscu,ontej ivatrou/ avllV oi` kakw/j e;contej (Mt 9:12, Mk 2:17), resembles Diogenes’ explanation of why he went into exile instead of staying in Sparta.76 However, a closer comparison of the two shows that Diogenes may not be the source of Jesus’ first logion.77 Rather, Jesus’ logion could be based on Ezek 34:4 (LXX). 78 oi` kakw/j e;contej means exhausted, not just sick, and oi` ivscu,ontej means forcing one’s way with violence or strength, not just healthy. The former need to be restored, the latter constrained.79 A study 75

Gedalyahu, Jew, Judaism, p.187, cf. Pesch, Markus 1, p. 165. Pesch points out that sinners can be the terminus technicus for Gentiles, cf. Mk 14:41, Lk 6:32, Mt 5:47, Gal 2:15, Pesch, Markus 1, p. 169. According to the Pharisees, defilement (or impurity) is contagious, cleanliness (or purity) is not. Hence, cleanliness needs protection. However, holiness is understood to have the power to overcome defilement and impurity. See Evans, "Who touched me? Jesus and the Ritually Impure" in Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration, p. 368, Berger, "Jesus als Pharisäer und frühe Christen als Pharisäer", NovT 30, 1988, p. 240, Holmén, "Jesus and the Purity Paradigm" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol.3, pp. 2721-2723. Holmén, "A Contagious Purity: Jesus´ Inverse Strategy for Eschatological Cleanliness" in Jesus Research, p. 210, note 52. The tax collectors can still have social contact with the learned group, though the latter knows their ignorance of the purity laws. See Tos. Dem 2:2, 18-24 and Tos. Dem 3:1, cf. Waubke, "Die talmudische Haberim-Halacha und die Pharisäer" in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, p. 113. However they are forbidden membership to the group of the learned so long as they remain in their profession. See Tos. Dem 3:4, b.Bek 31a. 76 See Plut. mor 230F. 77 Three differences are noted between Jesus’ logion and Diogenes’ saying: (i) the subject of Jesus’ saying is the strong and the weak, but in Diogenes’ saying the subject is the doctor. (ii) Jesus’ saying is structured by ouv...avlla, while Diogenes uses oυ,δε.. o]pou de,….(iii) oi` ivscu,ontej… oi` kakw/j e;contej are employed in Jesus’ saying for strong and weak while the words u`gih,j and nose,w are used in Diogenes’ answer. 78 (i) oi` kakw/j e;contej –hlwxh ta and oi` ivscu,ontej –~ta ~tydr hqzxbw appear together in Ezek 34:4, (ii) the motive of zhte,w appears in Ezek 34:4 and 34:16, (iii) the context of the verses is a criticism of Israel’s leaders, and at the end the Lord himself takes over the leadership and leads his herd home. See also Chae, Jesus as Davidic Shepherd, pp. 247-324, Willitt, Shepherd-King, pp. 117-134, 179-219. Konradt also points out that the motive of Jesus as the “davidisch-messianischer Hirte Israels” is revealed in Mt 9:36, 10:6 and 15:24. The motive has Ezek 34 as the background. The Jewish leaders have failed in their role of herding the people, Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 8-40, 47. 79 to. hvsqenhko.j and to. kakw/j e;con in Ezek 34:4 can be translations of the nifal and qal forms of the same verb hlx respectively, which however means more than “sick”, i.e., in its nifal form it means exhausted, cf. Jer 12:13, it means spiritually or morally or mentally weak, insolence etc. In its qal form, it means weak, tired, cf. Gen 48:1 Jud 16:7; sick, cf. 1 Sam 19:14, Isa 33:24. Even in the relatively few usages in other texts of LXX, to. kakw/j e;con does not mean physically sick. Cf. 1 Macc 7:42, 3 Macc 1:14, 16, 4 Macc 6:17, 12:15. The verb to to. kakw/j e;con in Ezek 34:4 is swmatopoi,ew, which is rarely found in LXX. It means strengthening, not simply healing. It is a translation of the apr in piel, which means heal and fully restore to its totality. to. ivscuro.n (Ezek 34:4) is a translation of ~ta ~tydr hqzxbw. The verb is qzx. The verse means literally “through the strength you rule them with severity”. Ezek 34:4 is God’s reproach of the incompetence of Israelite leadership. In Ezek 34:15-16, God himself will mend all failings with his own involvement: He will strengthen the exhausted to. evklei/pon evniscu,sw (where evklei,pw is used as a synonym The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

of the use of oi` ivscu,ontej… oi` kakw/j e;contej in the rest of Matthew’s Gospel shows a similar tendency to the connotation in Ezek 34:4: Matthew avoids using ivscu,j in a 100 positive sense.80 oi` kakw/j e;contej in Matthew’s Gospel implies a meaning wider than physical sickness. It describes one who is in a desolate, exhausted condition.81 Unlike Mark’s parallel text, Matthew sets Mt 9:9-13 analogously to Ezek 34:4, as a reproach of the incompetence of the Israelite leaders, followed by a replacement of their failing leadership and God’s initiative to search for the lost sheep of Israel.82 A study of the texts in Mt 9:12 and Ezek 34:4 suggests that the tax collectors and sinners are “exhausted” when they are measured against the standards set by the Pharisees.83 However no one can become exhausted by requirements if he does not voluntarily subject himself to them. 84 The tax collectors and sinners may make themselves vulnerable because they are willing to repent and the Pharisees offer them ways to do so.85 An analysis of how Matthew composes the debate within a larger section of Jesus’ ministry reveals the same theme: the conflict on table fellowship is placed after Jesus’ healing of the paralytic. The paralytic’s inability to walk may have the secondary connotation that he is unable to live according to the halakha ($lh) required by the Jewish leaders; therefore, he sins. Jesus challenges the halakha as an absolute norm and thus enables the paralytic to live free from his burden. Likewise, the Pharisees’ rejection of table fellowship with the tax collector and sinners is one example of their halakha. So also are later debates on the practices of fasting (Mt 9:14-17), the list of forbidden work of to. kakw/j e;con) and will keep the strong under guard and judge them to. ivscuro.n fula,xw kai. boskh,sw auvta. meta. kri,matoj (Ezek 34:16). 80 ivscu,j: Mt (4), Mk (4), Lk (8), Acts (6). Matthew avoids applying the phrase to Jesus’ disciples; in Mk 9:18, Mark uses ouvk i;scusan to describe the failure of the disciples to heal, where Matthew uses ouvk du,namai (Mt 17:16). In Mt 22:34, Matthew omits the part of using all of one’s strength to love God (cf. Deut 6:5, Mk 12:30). 81 See Mt 14:35-36: the kakw/j e;cw is handled with a rare diasw,|zw, which occurs only once in Matthew’s Gospel and once in Luke in the whole New Testament. According to its usage in LXX, it means save (cf. Hos 13:10, John 1:6, Zech 8:13). 82 Ezek 34:4 is a criticism of the incompetency of the shepherd of Israel (Ezek 34:1-16). Cf. Greenberg, Ezechiel, p. 389, Cook, Ezekiel, pp. 372-374. The lamentation in Ezek 34:5-6 is analogous to Mt 9:36, which is the end of the session wherein Mt 9:9-13 is set; Jesus feels sorry for the crowds, who are like sheep without a shepherd. Jesus appoints the twelve disciples to further his ministry to the lost sheep of Israel in the section immediately following (Mt 10:6). The theme of searching for the lost sheep is also found in Ezek 34:11-13. 83 An example is the offering of tithes (Mt 23:23, Lk 11:42). The offering of tithes was introduced in the first century. See m.Maↄas 1-5. 84 How strong the leadership of the Pharisees is in the times of Jesus remains highly controversial. Sanders thinks that their influence is limited and is less than that of the high priests, see Sanders, "Jesus and the Sinners", JSNT 19 (1983), p. 19. Deines and Saldarini hold that the Pharisees were influential on the populace before 70 AD, Saldarini, Pharisees, pp. 169-170, Deines, Die Pharisäer, pp. 515-555. 85 Jos. Bell 1:648, 649, 650, 653. The Qumran community also offers support to those willing to pursue a life conforming to the teachings of Bible. The Qumran sects, however, regard the Pharisees as twqlh yvrwd, false or smooth expounders. See 1 QHa 10:31-35. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

in Shabbat’ rest (Mt 12:1-14) and even the washing of hands before meals (Mt 15:1-20). The healing and the conflicts may hint at Jesus’ criticism of holding the halakha as an 101 absolute norm. Mt 9:9-13 is set within a session bracketed by Jesus’ seeing the crowd, ivdw.n de. tou.j o;clouj, i.e., his Sermon on the Mount in Mt 5:1 and his sympathy with their desire for a shepherd in Mt 9:36. His answer to seeing the needs of the crowd is the furthering of his ministry by sending out the 12 disciples (Mt 10:1-42). This arrangement is also a criticism of the teaching and healing competency of the Jewish leaders. 4.2.1.2 Allusion of the Gentiles to Children The open accusation of Jesus’ table fellowship with the outcasts is repeated in Mt 11:18 (Lk 7:34 [Q]). Matthew’s Jesus responds by lamenting, describing his woe at their lack of repentance (Mt 11:20-24), which provides the ground for his shifting his attention to those who are more ready to receive his message, his praise for the nh,pioj (Mt 11:25) and his offer of rest for the oi` kopiw/ntej kai. pefortisme,noi (Mt 11:28-30). A short study of Mt 11:28-30 and Mt 23:4 shows that they also have a strong intertextual relationship with Mt 9:9-13 through the wordplay on “burden” or “load” and “exhaustion”. Jesus offers rest (avnapau,w) for oi` kopiw/ntej kai. pefortisme,noi. They are invited to a;rate to.n zugo,n mou evfV u`ma/j kai. ma,qete avpV evmou (Mt 11:29). As forti,on is also used to describe how the Pharisees burden others with their teachings in Mt 23:4,86 it is very probable that they also cause the fatigue and toil mentioned in Mt 11:28.87 Further support for this hypothesis comes from zugo,n in Mt 11:29-30, which is often used metaphorically as the Torah (i.e., teaching) in both Biblical and rabbinic contexts.88 The context here is further confirmed by Jesus’ pledge of ma,qete avpV evmou/ in Mt 11:29. The consequence of bearing a load is kopia,w or being exhausted in Mt 11:28, which has the same meaning as oi` kakw/j e;contej in Mt 9:12.89 Mt 11:28-30 is set after Jesus’ two concluding remarks on 86

forti,on in Mt 23:4, forti,zw in Mt 11:28. kine,w (Mt 23:4) could mean remove, Liddell-Scott, Lexicon, p. 592. 87 See also Van de Sandt, "Matthew 11, 28-30: Compassionate Law Interpretation in Wisdom Language" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 329-331, 334-336. Cf. Davies and Allison offer three explanations for Mt 11:28: (i) those suffering under the burdens imposed by the Pharisaic establishment, (ii) those suffering from the costly demand of discipleship, (iii) those suffering under the weight of sin, see Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 288. See also Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 103, Vahrenhost, Nicht Schwören, p. 310. 88 zugo,n refers to the ruling of foreign powers over Israel, e.g. Isa 47:6, Jer 28:2,4,10,14. It may imply the imperial Roman rule, but it may also mean God’s covenant or Torah given to the Israelites, see Jer 5:5, Acts 15:10, Gal 5:1. In the rabbinic literature, yoke is often used as a shortform of Yoke of Heaven, i.e. God’s reign over the earth. It is the opposite of the yoke of the foreign rulers. The presence of God’s reign is witnessed by the obedience to, literally, hearing [mv, his Torah (Deut 6:4,11). 89 kopia,w appears two times in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 6:28, 11:28). In Mt 6:28, it means toils. forti,zw appears twice in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 11:28, 23:4). In Mt 23:4, it means bind, i.e., the Pharisees bind a “heavy burden” on other people –desmeu,ousin de. forti,a bare,a. The image in Mt 23:4 is analogous to that of Mt 18:6, where someone who causes a little one who believes in Jesus to fall should have himself The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

the failure of his ministry in the coastal cities: from the wisdom tradition, on the willful rejection of the generation of John the Baptist and Jesus (Mt 11:16-18) and from the 102 lament tradition, his “woe betide” to the unrepentant lake towns around the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum (Mt 11:12-24). These towns are set in negative contrast with the more ready to repent Gentile towns such as Tyre and Sidon, which lie far beyond the region of Galilee, outside the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali (Mt 4:13, 11:21, cf. 15:21-27), but which correspond to the Gentile regions to which the light is promised in Isa 8:23 (see also Mt 15:21, parallel to Mk 7:24). 90 Their rejection is explained by Jesus’ further quotations from the wisdom tradition in Mt 11:25-27:91 God the Father hides these things from the sofo,j kai. Suneto,j and reveals them to the nh,pioj (Mt 11:25-27) instead.92 nhpi,oj not only refers to youth,93 fastened with a heavy burden, mu,loj ovniko.j –a great millstone” and be drowned. In this way, the metaphor “placing a heavy load” is applied to Pharisees (forti,zw is in the active voice with the Pharisees as the subject) in Mt 23:4, and to someone who causes the other Chrisitans to stumble (krema,nnumi is in middle voice, where it is the object of oneself, who should have a heavy burden placed on him) in Mt 18:6. The meaning of paired phrases kopia,w and forti,zw in Mt 11:28 could possibly be studied in the light of the "burden" metaphor discussed before, as oi` kopiw/ntej –present participle, kai. pefortisme,noi –perfect passive participle could be interpreted in a causal relationship. A similar semantic relationship can be found in Isa 46:1 (LXX) which is the only place in MT that uses the paired words kopia,w and forti,zw together in a single verse. In their MT version, the verbs are set in causal relationship through l –hpy[l avm twswm[. kopia,w and forti,zw could also be the active and passive forms of “exhausted” and "have been caused to be exhausted". This is because kopia,w is a synonym of to. kakw/j e;cw in Isa 33:24 (the same word hlx is in the MT of Isa 33:24 but it is translated as kopia,w). In Ezek 34:16, hlx is translated as evklei,pw and evklei,pw is used as a translation of @y[ in Gen 25:29. forti,zw is a translation of avm twsm[, which appears only once in the whole MT (i.e. Isa 46:1). Both sm[ (cf. Neh 13:15, Ps 68:20) and avm (cf. Ps 37:5) mean bearing a burden. anvvapauw and its noun appears four times in Matthew’s Gospel. The other places are Mt 11:29, Mt 12:43, Mt 26:45. avnapau,w may mean a relief of hardship in Mt 11:28. The usage resonates the same divine promise of avnapau,w in Ezek 34:14-15 of LXX for those to. kakw/j e;cw in Ezek 34:4. zugo,n appears twice in Matthew’s Gospel. The other place is also in Mt 11:29-30. zugo,n refers to teaching in LXX context, cf. 2 Chr 10:1, Sir 51:26. In Mt 11:29, codex a* does not have the phrase avpV evmou. 90 According to Karrer, Matthew uses the ancient tribal names of Zebulum and Naphtali to denote Galilee, which lies in exactly the same region of the two tribes (Mt 4:12 and 4:13). This replacement of Galilee with the ancient tribal names prepares a smooth transition from Mt 4:12-13 to the citation of Isa 8:23-9:1 in the following verse (Mt 4:15-16). Matthew’s citation of Isa 8:23-9:1 follows more closely the Alexandria and Lucian texts of the same verses in LXX, than MT. This is because the MT provides ~ywnh lyln wdryh rb[, which means across the Jordan, surroundings of the nations (see b.San 1-4b), not across Judah, Galilee, the nations. Nowhere in MT does lyln refer to Galilee. Here Matthew follows LXX, which fixed the translation with respect to the political reality of their time. See Karrer, Licht über dem Galiläa der Völker, pp. 33-53. Karrer points out that Jesus started his ministry in a region inhabited by mixed ethnicity of Jews and Gentiles (Galilai,a tw/n evqnw/n). See also Schröter, "Jesus of Galilee: The Role of Location in Unterstanding Jesus", in Jesus Research, pp. 49-51. Cf. Leibner, Settlement, pp. 335-337. 91 In Sir 51:1, the text starts with thanksgiving to God. It mentions about how easy a yoke one bears when one follows Wisdom (Sir 51:25-30). Mt 11:25-27 also starts with thanksgiving to God but the content is a lament to those who do not follow the Wisdom. 92 Mt 11:25-30 is set in a literary form of a “prophetischen Propagandarede”. It can be divided into three parts: (i) Thanksgiving (Mt 11:25), (ii) a description of the Relevation (Mt 11:26-27), (iii) an appeal The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

but also one who can “be educated” and has “a strong potential of teach-ability”.94 Here, those with the potential to be taught are placed parallel with the Gentile regions and the 103 regions beyond the original core area of Jesus’ ministry. The “tax collectors and the sinners”, who are more ready to listen to Jesus and are more ready to repent (Mt 9:11, 11:19), are thus analogous to the nh,pioj, the teachable youth in Mt 11:25. Jesus’ first command after his resurrection is poreuqe,ntej ou=n maqhteu,sate pa,nta ta. e;qnh( (Mt 28:19).95 maqhteu,w also means “to be taught”.96 The readiness of the tax collectors and the sinners to repent makes them subject to the weight of Pharisees’ halakha, which exhausts them (cf. Mt 9:12, Mt 11:28).97 However, Jesus accepts them and offers them his way ($rd. See Mt 21:32, Mt 22:16. The writer of the Gospel of John says that Jesus is the way in John 14:6),98 which is a halakha of light yoke. The lightness of the yoke (i.e., his cross and teaching99) promised by Jesus does not

to the audience (Mt 11:28-30). Cf. Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 102. sofo,j appears three times in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 11:19, 25, 23:34). In Mt 11:19, the word refers to Jesus (cf. ta. e;rga in Mt 11:2 and 19, which encloses Mt 11:2-19 in one section, cf. Tuckett, Revival of Griesbach Hypothesis , pp. 155-156. The Codices B2, C, D, L, Q, f supply the word ta te,knwn, which is a harmonization of Lk 7:32). In Mt 11:25 it refers to those who thought themselves wise and rejected Jesus. Suneto,j appears once in Matthew’s Gospel. 93 nhpi,oj appears two times in Matthew’s Gospel. The other place is in Mt 21:16, which is a quotation of Ps 8:2. See Hos 11:1, Prov 23:13. mikro,j in Mt 18:6 is similar to nhpi,oj –to be taught. Cf. Jub 36:2, Ps 18:8, Wis 12:24, 15:14. mikro,j is set as a parallel word to a.polwlo,j in Mt 18:11 in some ancient texts, e.g. code 5, 32, 33, 38, 1c, 4, 10 etc. Windisch is also of the opinion that paidon may refer to someone who cannot fulfil the requirements of the Torah. See Windisch, H., "Die Sprüche vom Eingehen in das Reich Gottes", ZNW 27 (1928), pp. 163-192. Bovon also points out that te,knon means "ein von Jesus väterlich betrachteter Mann", Bovon, Lukas 1, p. 244. 94 The School of Shammai and the School of Hillel in the first century differ with respect to who is teachable and who is not. See b.Shab 31a. 95 Karrer points out that Jesus as a teacher is primarily a reflection of the second generation Christians. See Karrer, "Der lehrende Jesus: Neutestamentliche Erwägungen", ZNW 83 (1992), pp. 1-20. 96 Wengst, Das Tun der Tora als Kriterium der Zugehörigkeit zur Gemeinde im Matthäusevangelium" in Evangelium Ecclesiasticum Tun der Tora, p. 442. Jesus’ emphasis is on the readiness to be taught, rather than the standard or norm of practices one has to reach in order to be his disciples, just as nh,pi/oj, paidi,on, ei-j tw/n mikrw/n in Mt 18:2-4, 5-6 does not refer to the age of the child, but the “teach-ability”. Cf. LXX Ps 18:8, Jub 36:2, Tob 4:5, 12, 18 etc. Jesus also denounces a teaching hierarchy in the disciples (Mt 23:8). 97 Cf. Strecker, Gerechtigkeit, pp. 173-174, Gerhardsson, Memory, pp. 309-310. Laansma holds that the halakha of Pharisees are heavy because they are absence in mercy, justice and faith, see Laansma, Rest, pp. 241-243. 98 Jesus offers the way ($rd). He offers alternative way of halakha for people who want to walk in the way that is wished by God. Matthew also uses the way ($rd) to describe the teachings of John (Mt 21:32) and the teachings of Jesus (Mt 22:16). The writer of the Gospel of John takes a step further: He proceeds to say that Jesus is the way (John 14:5). 99 Yoke (zugo,j) and cross (stauro,j) are different forms of woodwork shouldered by men or animals. A yoke is a cross in another form. Jesus uses both term with reference to his teaching. See also Van de Sandt, The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

lie in his lax adherence to the Torah,100 but in his humanistic way of interpreting the Torah and his solidarity with those who wish to practise it.101 Its lightness lies in Jesus’ 104 readiness to receive the outcasts into his circle even before they provide restitution,102 Jesus’ promise of avnapau,w, a future, and an eschatologically oriented rest (Mt 11:2829)103 and Jesus’ promise of his imminent presence (i.e., his help) to his disciples (Mt 28:20, cf. Exod 33:14).104 Is Matthew’s depiction of the Pharisees’ halakha historical? It is unlikely: according to the rabbinic literature, the Pharisees do not impose stringent halakha. They are thought to make norms of practice pragmatic and easy for lay Jews. 105 The problems and difficulties in observing the halakha, therefore, do not come from pious Jewish Christians, but are more likely to come from Gentile Christians. The debates between Jesus and the Pharisees in Mt 9:9-13 and the parallel texts do not prepare the ministry to the Jews, but to the Gentiles or the Jews in the diaspora. Luke is less critical of the Pharisees. He lets them ask Jesus when the kingdom of God will come. This text is Luke’s Sondergut. The structure of Jesus’ replies to them resembles what he teaches the disciples in the next few verses (ivdou. w-de( h;\ evkei/ in Lk 17:21 versus ivdou. evkei/( h; ivdou. w-de in Lk 17:23). The Pharisees may also be the "Matthew 11, 28-30: Compassionate Law Interpretation in Wisdom Language" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, p. 328. 100 Jesus requires a better righteousness than the contemporary learned Jews (Mt 5:20, 48). See also Did 6:2-3. Mt 11:28-30 is also found in Logion 90 of the EvThom and the 95th chapter of Pistis Sophia, see Betz, "The logion of the easy yoke and rest (Matt 11:28-30)" in Synoptische Studien, pp. 11-12. 101 See also Sir 51:26-27. The yoke (zugo,j) of Wisdom promises light effort and rest –o[ti ovli,gon evkopi,asa kai. eu-ron evmautw/| pollh.n avna,pausin. 102 Becker holds that the lightness of Jesus’ yoke lies in the motivation: it is out of love that the yoke is carried, cf. Becker, Kathedra des Moses, pp. 157-158. For the lightness of yoke (the commandment) in the wisdom tradition, see Sir 6:23-31. Davies & Allison point out that restitution is not one of the themes of conflict between Jesus and his opponents. Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 102. Konradt is of the opinion that Jesus’ light yoke is his “menschenfreundliche Auslegung der Tora“, Konradt, Die vollkommene Erfüllung der Tora, p. 149. See also Deines, Gerechtigkeit, p. 262, note 467. 103 avnapau,w in Mt 11:28-29 are in future tense: avnapau,sw in Mt 11:28, eu`rh,sete avna,pausin in Mt 11:29. avnapau,w –xwn, hxwnm has a future-oriented redemptive motive and eschatological hope in the Old Testament tradition, see Isa 14:3, 32:18, Jer 31:2, Mi 4:4. The other two places where avnapau,w appears in Matthew’s Gospel are in Mt 12:43 and 26:45. They are in present tense. It means a place where one can dwell restfully (Mt 12:43) or it means a mental state free of agitation (Mt 26:45, Job 13:13). See Laansma, Rest, pp. 58-59, 238-251. 104 Betz holds that Jesus’ yoke is light because it is not forced upon the people. “It is an easy yoke and a light burden because they do not know –the righteous is not the one to compute his reward or consider what he deserves”. See Betz, "The logion of the easy yoke and rest (Matt 11:28-30)" in Synoptische Studien, pp.16-17. 105 B.Bb 60b, CD 1:12f , see also Deines, Steingefäße, pp. 245-246, 280-285. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

teachable group in Luke’s Gospel and Acts (Acts 15:5-6). The uninterested, bored-todeath audience of the Gospel still has a chance to be revived, taught and integrated into 105 the Christian community (Acts 20:8-12).106 The same chance is also available for Jesus’ critics. 4.2.2 Matthean Community and House Fellowship

Why does Matthew consistently use the root form of avna,keimai with a place attribute to describe table fellowship, when this verb does not need a place attribute to qualify its use (Mt 9:10)? avna,keimai, when used with an extra place attribute in the New Testament, usually implies a thematic focus on the quality of place.107 Matthew may emphasise the extra place attribute added to avna,keimai, i.e., evn th/| oivki,a|, to reflect his keen interest in Jesus’ presence in a house. This is the house in which the Matthean community gathered together for table fellowship, becoming the place in which the ethnic (Mt 8:5-11, cf. Lk 7:9), religious (Mt 15:26-27, Mk 7:27-28) and social boundaries (Mt 14:21, 15:38, cf. Mk 6:44, 8:9) were overcome.108 It was also the place in which they gathered to learn Jesus’ teachings.109 It is analogous to the House of Midrash, in which the people are taught to do God’s will so that they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 5:19, 20, 7:21). 106

The feature of itinerant preachers is repetition. After reports of long speeches by the great figures of the early Christian church (dialegome,nou tou/ Pau,lou evpi. plei/on in Acts 20:9), which contain essentially the same content, Luke adds this self-critical but humorous incidence in Acts 20:7-12. Cf. Plut. mor 71C. Theissen also suggests that Jesus repeated his words (and messages) over and over again in his ministry. When Jesus travelled from place to place to teach, there was no pressure for him to say something new. Theissen, "Jesus as an Itinerant Teacher: Reflections from Social History on Jesus´Roles" in Jesus Research, p. 122. 107 kei/mai is a defective verb which is used only in present and imperfect form. Robertson, Grammar, p. 316. The verb indicates also the festive nature of gathering. Cf. Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, pp. 42-43, note 1 of p. 43. kata,keimai means lying, bedridden because of sickness. It is often followed by a place attribute (Mk 1:30, 2:4, 2:15, 14:3, Lk 7:37). Lk 5:29 is the only place where kata,keimai is not immediately followed by a "place" attribute but with metV auvtw/n. When Mt 9:9-13 is compared with the parallel texts, it can be seen that only Matthew consistently uses the verb (and its root form) avna,keimai in Mt 9:9-13. Semantically, avna,keimai does not need a place attribute. Of all the nine places where avna,keimai is found (Mt 9:10, 22:11, 26:7, 26:20, Mk 6:26, 14:18, 16:14, Lk 22:27, John 13:3), three cases (Mt 9:10, 22:10, John 13:3) are followed by a “place” attribute and all occurrences have a thematic focus. 108 Jesus overcomes the ethnic boundary and initates coming to the house of the centurion (Mt 9:7). Also, he quotes about the feast in the Kingdom of heaven, where people from east and west will join (Mt 8:11). He overcomes the religious boundary by naming the Canaanite woman as the pet (the little dog – kuna,rion) raised in the household (Mt 15:27). He overcomes the social boundary by including women and children in the two miracles of feeding the people (Mt 14:21, 15:38). Usually women waited on the men in the table fellowship. They and the children were not involved. See Stein, Frühchristliche Mahlfeiern, p. 331. 109 In Mt 12:46, Matthew’s Jesus is teaching in the context of a house. He extended the biological family to a family whose membership comes from doing the will of God. According to the Jewish understanding, the learning of the Torah may require one’s total devotion such that one may need to The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

Likewise, Matthew is fond of h` oivki,a. He retains h` oivki,a wherever it appears in the parallel texts in other synoptic Gospels. He also adds this word where the parallel texts do 106 not have it and he emphasises it where the parallel texts do not (see Mt 13:36, Mt 17:25, his redaction).110 Matthew also uses oivkodespo,thj more often than the other writers of the synoptic Gospels. He applies this phrase mainly to God, his acts on the Day of Judgment in the eschatological context and God’s relationship with his subjects. However in a noneschatological context, Matthew applies this phrase to the Christian scribes (Mt 13:52) and the disciples.111 Matthew’s Jesus prefers to use the house metaphor in his teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven. 112 Matthew uses “Kingdom of God” rather than

forsake his own family. In this sense the teacher of the Torah is in a position of founding a new family in this sense, Ratzinger, Jesus I, p. 147. Vrdmh tyb is used in parallel to synagogue (Midrash Rabbah Lev 11:7, Song of Songs 6:2, 3). It is also mentioned together with synagogue as the House of God. (Midrash Rabbah Deut 7:1). In the House of Midrash, the interpretation and application of the Torah, civic laws are often debated. The lay people used to seek advice and guidelines from the rabbi there (Midrash Rabbah Num 11:13, Eccl 1:8, 15). 110 The verses (with the phrase h, oivki,a) which Matthew shares with his synoptic parallels but with no remarkable changes are: Mt 8:6, 8:4, 9:23, 11:25, 29, 12:25, 29, 19:29, 23:14, 24:17, 24:43 and 26:6. The verses wherein Matthew emphasizes the normative function of h, oivki,a are as follows: Mt 9:10, 9:28, 13:1. The verses in which Matthew inserts h, oivki,a where the other synoptic Gospels do not are: Mt 2:11, Mt 5:15, 13:36, 17:25. The places where Matthew omits h, oivki,a where other synoptic Gospels have it are Mk 10:10, 13:14, Lk 7:37, 44, 8:27, 10:5, 7. Matthew shortens the narrative but still retains h, oivki,a in these verses. Lastly in Mk 7:24, Matthew omits h, oivki,a because Matthew’s Jesus does not enter the house of Gentiles in Tyre and Sidon. Matthew also uses oi;koj, which is a synonym of oivki,a. However with the exception of Mt 10:6 and 15:24, where oi;koj VIsrah,l belongs uniquely to Matthew, all Matthew’s usage of oi;koj have their parallels in the synoptic Gospels (Mt 9:6, 7, 11:8, 12:4, 44, 21:13) and Matthew does not expand or enrich the meaning of it. 111 oivkodespo,thj: Mt (7), Mk (1), Lk (4). The description of God as oivkodespo,thj is found in parables with an eschatological accent (Mt 13:27, 20:1,11, 21:33). The disciples are named oivkodespo,thj in parables (Mt 10:25, 13:52 and Mt 24:43). In Mt 24:43 (Lk 12:39 [Q]), both Matthew and Luke use oivkodespo,thj. In Mt 13:27, Mark and Luke use a;nqrwpoj (Mk 12:1 and Lk 20:9) while Matthew uses oivkodespo,thj. In Lk 13:25 [Q]; Mt 25:10, where Luke uses oivkodespo,thj but Matthew does not, it could be because Luke depicts the Last Day of Judgment as one who enters a house through a narrow door while Matthew uses the metaphor of narrow gate (to a territory). In Lk 14:21[Q]; Mt 22:7, Luke also uses oivkodespo,thj but Matthew does not. It is because Matthew wants to elaborate the theme of the king launching an attack against dissidents, not a housemaster and his guests. 112 Matthew uses a number of metaphors for the “Kingdom of Heaven”: The following are the metaphors which appear only in Matthew’s Gospel: mustard seeds (Mt 13:31-32), leaven in bread (Mt 13:33), treasure hidden in the field (Mt 13:44), a merchant in search of pearls (Mt 13:45), catching fishs with nets (Mt 13:47-49), a king settling accounts with servants (Mt 18:23-34), a king holding a wedding feast for his son (Mt 22:3-14) and maidens waiting for the bridegroom (Mt 25:1). However, the metaphor of “House” is used for the “Kingdom of Heaven” at leastthree times in Matthew’s Gospel: In Mt 13:27 where the servants of the field are described as oi` dou/loi tou/ oivkodespo,tou; in Mt 20:1 where the kingdom of heaven is likened to a oivkodespo,thj to hire labourers for the vineyard; in Mt 13:52 where the scribe who becomes a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like oivkodespo,thj. In Mt 16:19, where Peter is given the key to the kingdom of heaven after his confession that Jesus is the Messiah. This episode (with “h, klei/j – key”) presupposes a house metaphor behind it. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

“Kingdom of Heaven” in Jesus’ direct confrontation with the learned Jewish leaders.113 Matthew clearly knows the two dimensions of the Lordship of God, the partial realisation 107 113

The Kingdom of God appears one hundred and twenty two times in the New Testament, of which 99 times are from the synoptic Gospels and ninety of them are in words of Jesus. Davies & Allison point out that Jesus almost certainly spoke of the “Kingdom of God”. This is because “Kingdom of Heaven” does not appear in Jewish literature before Yohanan ben Zakkai first mentions it in y.Qidd 1.2.59d, Davies & Allison, Matthew I, pp. 390-392, and in particular, note 81 of p. 390. Some hold that the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are synonyms, where Heaven is a paraphrase for God, Davies & Allison, Matthew I, pp. 290-292. Cf. Kraus, "Zur Ekklesiologie des Matthäusevangeliums" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 212-215, 223-224. Matthew has replaced h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/ with h, basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n in eight of the twelve Q cases (Mt 5:3, Lk 6:20 [Q]; Mt 11:11, Lk 7:28 [Q]; Mt 10:7 par Lk 10:9 [Q], Mt 23:13, par Lk 11:52 [Q], Mt 13:31, par Lk 13:18 [Q], Mt 13:33, par Lk 13:20 [Q], Mt 8:11, Lk 13:28 [Q]; Mt 11:12, Lk 16:16 [Q]) and retains it in four places, Mt 12:28, Lk 11:20 [Q], Mt 19:24, Mt 21:31 and Mt 21:43. Also, he replaces h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/ with h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n in six of the cases in Mark’s Gospel. (Mt 4:17, par Mk 1:15; Mt 13:11, par Mk 4:11; Mt 13:31, par Mk 4:30; Mt 19:14, par Mk 10:14; Mt 18:3, par Mk 10:15; Mt 19:23, par Mk 10:23). He inserts h, basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n in 25 places (Mt 5:10, 5:19 (x2), 5:20, 7:21 (x2), 8:12, 13:19, 13:24, 13:44, 13:45, 13:47, 13:52, 16:19, 18:1, 18:4, 18:23, 19:12, 20:1, 21:31, 21:43, 22:2, 24:14, 25:1). All are places where h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/, with the exception of Mt 19:24, are addressed to learned Jewish leaders, the Pharisees or the chief priests (Mt 12:28, Lk 11:20 [Q], Mt 19:24, Mt 21:31 and Mt 21:43). With respect to Mt 19:24, some textual witnesses (Codex Z, Manuscript Family 1 and 33 etc) supply h, basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n instead of h` basilei,a tou/ qeou in Mt 19:24. It is hard to decide which expression is earlier in Mt 19:24. However, it could be that the two expressions are treated as synonyms by some textual witnesses in Mt 19:24. In EvThom, the author uses “Kingdom of Heaven” together with “Kingdom of the Father”. There is no distinction of meaning between them. Pennington holds that Matthew uses the Kingdom of Heaven with the connotations of Dan 2-7. God’s kingdom will eschatologically replace all earthly kingdoms. See Pennington, Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew, pp. 268-330. With respect to Luke, Luke retains h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/ in eleven of the twelve places in Q (Lk 6:20 [Q], 7:28 [Q], 10:9[Q], 11:20 [Q], 13:18 [Q], 20:28 [Q], 16:16 [Q], 17:20-21[Q]). He also retains h` basilei,a tou/ qeou in seven of the thirteen places from Mark (Lk 8:10, par Mk 4:11; Lk 13:18, par Mk 4:30; Lk 9:27, par Mk 9:1; Lk 18:16, par Mk 10:14; Lk 18:17, par Mk 10:15; Lk 18:24, par Mk 10:23; Lk 18:25, par Mk 10:25). The replacement of “God” by “Heaven” belongs to a later phenomenon. Cf. 1 Macc 4:10, 40. Gnilka thinks that Matthew adopts h, basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n because “Sie ist die Herrschaft, die vom Himmel herkommt, ohne dass irdische Entwicklungen zu ihr hinführen oder menschliche Anstrengungen sie ermöglichen”. He suggests that the Jews prefer “Heaven” as a replacement for “God“ because they do not want to speak directly about God. Gnilka, Matthäus 1, p. 66. However, Gnilka has not explained why Matthew retains Kingdom of God in the three places (or four, if one includes also Mt 19:24). Jäger-Beux holds that direct addressing God was forbidden since the second century BCE because of the misuse of the name in Magic. Only in the temple were the people allowed to read “God”, as provided in Bible reading, Jäger-Beux, Namen, p. 34. Pennington suggests that “Kingdom of Heaven” could be Matthew’s reflection upon the dual themes in Daniel of God’s sovereign rule in heaven and the theme of the contrast of heaven and earth, Pennington, "Refractions of Daniel in the Gospel of Matthew" in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, p. 74. For the close connection between the coming of God’s Kingdom and his immediate presence through honouring his name, see Finkelstein, "The development of the Amidah" in Pharisaism in the Making, pp. 252-261, Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, p. 23. For the presence of the Kingdom of God throughout history, and the realizing of its fulfillment through bearing the yoke of the Torah, see Jäger-Beux, Namen, pp. 62-68, p. 73, pp. 80-90. See also, Bischoff, Jesus und die Rabbinen, pp. 97-100, Hengel and Schwemer, Jesus and das Judentum, pp. 409-412. Cf. Wolter, "Was heist nu Gottes Reich?" ZNW 86 (1995), pp. 7-12. For an analysis on the meaning of Kingdom in New Testament, see Karrer, Jesus, pp. 224-226. Lindemann The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

of the sovereignty of God on earth through the practice of his Torah and the ultimate realisation of God’s Lordship over the earth in the eschatological era. It is likely that 108 Matthew uses different terms to address his audience. For a wider spectrum of audience that may involve the polytheistic Gentiles, he uses Kingdom of Heaven to stress the relevancy of the Jesus’ logia to all,114 as the use of Kingdom of Heaven is always bound with the bearing of the yoke (i.e., the obligation of observing the commandments) on earth in the Jewish tradition. Matthew’s use of Kingdom of Heaven in Jesus’ logia means that the teachings are to be observed by all, both Jewish and Gentile Christians. On the three occasions on which Jesus addresses the Jewish leaders (Mt 12:28, 21:31, 21:43), Matthew uses the term Kingdom of God, as Jesus refers to the eschatological emergence of the Kingdom of God. He warns that the Jewish leaders will lose their rights to this kingdom if they remain unrepentant.115

4.2.3 Priority of Compassion over the Contemporary Norms of Practice

Why does Matthew insert Hos 6:6a into Mt 9:9-13? Hos 6:6a is probably part of Matthew’s redaction as it fits poorly into the context. The citation does not originate from the context of a feast but from temple service and criticism of superficial cultic religiosity. It is used here to link to Jesus’ mission by ga,r in Mt 9:13b. Hos 6:6a is first quoted in a theological reflection on the replacement of offering cults after the destruction of the temple by both the rabbis and the Qumran communities. 116 It is very likely that Matthew is reflecting on the mission in his maintains that “das Trachten nach dem kommenden Gottesreich (gehört) unmittelbar mit dem Streben nach Gottes Gerechtigkeit zusammen”, Lindemann, "Eschatologie", RGG 2, p. 1558. What stands behind the concepts of Kingdom of Heaven (or Kingdom of God) are (i) when earthly rulers and the kingdoms on earth come to their ultimate end and (ii) what comes next when the earthly kingdom and power have come to their ultimate end. The answer provided by the apocalyptics is that the Lordship of God comes at the end of the day (Dan 7:13-14). However, what the apocalyptics provide is from an eschatological perspective of the Lordship of God; but there is still another perspective of realising the Lordship of God on earth, i.e. through observing the Torah (Pessikta 102b), cf. Baeck, Das Reich Gottes II, pp. 238-242, IV, p. 243. 114 Lindemann finds that Matthew does not avoid the word “God” in the Gospel. He points out that Matthew employs the expression “Kingdom of Heaven” whenever he refers to a more universal, futuristic eschatological reign of God. “Kingdom of God”, on the other hand, is more often used to refer to God’s immediate presence, Lindemann, "Herrschaft Gottes", TRE XV, pp. 209-210, cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew I, p. 391. 115 Cf. Pennington, Heaven and Earth, p. 305, note 83, Kvalbein, "Wem gehört das Reich Gottes? Vor der Botschaft Jesu zum Evangelium des Paulus" in Logos-Logik-Lyrik, pp. 97-114. 116 The earliest available rabbinic commentary on Hos 6:6a from Jewish sources is after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, from Rabbi Nathan 4:2 and 4:4 (the end redaction is dated around 300 AD at the latest). Cf. Stemberger, Einleitung, p. 273, Davies & Allison, Matthew I, p.135. Neusner, Hosea, p. 110. See also b.Suk 49b. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

community. As the established cult for reconciliation for (i.e., offering), and reintegration into society of, sinners was no longer practicable or executable after the destruction of the 109 temple, how could a renewed living and reintegration with the community be possible?117 Matthew does not find Pharisees’ way to be a good solution. Their method of building up the proselytes makes them even more fit to go to hell (Mt 23:15). Likewise, the misplaced emphasis on the observance of their halakha alienates the repentant even more from the will of God.118 He supports the principle of compassion (Hos 6:6a). Hos 6:6a is one of the two most frequently quoted Old Testament texts.119 The verse is quoted three times in Matthew’s Gospel, each time in relation to Jesus’ denouncement of the Pharisees’ halakha (on table fellowship in Mt 9:13, on Shabbat in Mt 12:7 and on the temple offering in Mt 23:23). Matthew changes the phrasing or uses a version that supplies “Mercy is what pleases me, not sacrifice”, rather than an earlier version that provides a comparative perspective, i.e., “Mercy is what pleases me more than

Hos 6:6 is also allusively quoted in 1QS 9:4-5, where the importance of burnt offering is downplayed in relation to obedience to the Torah and the community teaching. Muraoka points out that the perfect form of ytcph in Hos 6:6a has been rendered correctly in LXX in the present form –qe,lw, although the verb can refer to a situation which prevailed in the past, cf. John 1:14, Muroaka, Hosea 6 in the Septuagint, p. 343. 117 Hill suggests that the citation of Hos 6:6 denotes "that faithfulness in love to God which manifests itself in the attitude of identification with those whom a legalistic religion debarred from their rights as children of God", cf. Hill, "On the Use of Hosea vi.6 in Matthew’s Gospel", NTS XXIV (1978), p. 118. 118 Konradt is of the opinion that the insertion of Hos 6:6 shows that Jesus understands God’s will and fulfill it in the context of table fellowship. See Konradt, "Die vollkommene Erfüllung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium" in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im neuen Testament, p. 142. 119 The other is Lev 19:18 (Mt 5:43, 19:19, 22:39). It is noted that Mark quotes Hos 6:6 with Lev 19:18 together in Mk 12:33, showing that Mark also considers that the greatest commandment is weightier than burnt offerings. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

sacrifice”.120 Matthew thus not only stresses the priority of e;leoj over qusi,a but also the 110 negation of qusi,a.121 Here Matthew’s Jesus is exactly like Matthew himself, who always quotes the Old Testament.122 4.2.4 Gentile Ministry

According to many New Testament scholars, the earthly Jesus of Matthew’s Gospel comes primarily to the Jews (Mt 10:5). 123 The official command of commission of 120

The main support for “Mercy is what pleased me more than sacrifice“ as an earlier version is in the parallelism, i.e. a resemblance of its semantic construction with Hos 6:6b. Also Codex B, Aramaic Targum (the pre MT version) and a commentary by Pirke de Rabbin Elieser (the 8th/9th century) supply this version. The MT supplies the same reading as Matthew but the MT is a much later edition than this Targum. It is more probably a harmonization with the NT text. Luz, however, prefers the earlier version. He argues that this version fits better with Matthew’s intention, i.e., not to abolish the cult, but to subordinate it to the commandments on love (Mt 5:18, 5:23-28), Luz, Matthäus 2, p. 44, cf. Hill, "On the Use of Hosea vi.6 in Matthew’s Gospel", NTS XXIV (1978), p. 109. What Matthew quotes from Hos 6:6a is a truncated version of LXX, in which Matthew changes the subordinate clause of LXX and MT of Hos 6:6a to a noun clause. The LXX supplies dio,ti e;leoj qe,lw kai. ouv qusi,an kai. evpi,gnwsin qeou/ h' o`lokautw,mata where MT supplies twl[m ~yhla t[dw xbz alw ytcph dsh yk. According to Aramaic Targum, Hos 6:6a, like LXX, is a subordinate clause xbddm ymdq aw[r adsx yd[b yda but the word sequence is different from LXX and MT. Codex B and a part of group of MSS supply dio,ti e;leoς qe,lw h;, qusi,an kai. evpi,gnwsin qeou/ h' o`lokautw,mata. h;, fits the syntax of parallelism better than kai, ou, fits the syntax. According to Aramaic Targum, the word m in xbdd has the same meaning as h;. The commentary of Pirke de Rabbin Elieser also supplies the same reading as Codex B ~yxbzm ~ydsx twlymg hbybx h”bqh rma. 121 e;leoj appears twenty times in the Synoptics (as verb: Mt (8), Mk (3), Lk (4); as noun: Mt (3), Lk (2)) and Matthew uses it most often among the Synoptic Gospel writers (as verb: Mt 5:7, 9:27, 15:22, 17:15, 18:33, 20:30-31; as noun: Mt 6:2, 3, 4). On five occasions in Matthew’s Gospel, the word is used as a pledge from the people who are in need of Jesus’ help. They include Jews (Mt 9:27, 17:15) as well as Gentiles (Mt 15:22, 20:30-31). e;leoj is also used by Jesus himself, in his Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:7) and in his parable instructing the disciples about how they are to relate to each other (Mt 18:33). In three occasions, e;leoj is set in a context of reproach, wherein Jesus denounces those who use compassion as a means to seek honour (Mt 6:2-4). France and Nolland both agree about the centrality of “mercy” in the second saying. France maintains that the upholding of mercy is a matter of priority, not a rejection of offering. France, Mark, p. 135, Nolland holds that the emphasis is on human interaction, namely the manifestation of human kindness, Nolland, Matthew, p. 387. Konradt points out another verb for compassion (splagcni,zomai) is a central concept of Jesus' healing ministry in the Gospel of Matthew (Mt 14:14, 20:34), Konradt, Matthäus, p. 42. 122 Matthew often quotes the Old Testament with an introductory formula –i[na plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n …dia. tou/ profh,tou le,gontoj (Mt 1:22, 2:15, 2:23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4) or without a standard form, e.g. Mt 3:3, 21:9. In fact, Matthew’s Jesus quoted more Old Testament than Matthew. He cited the Old Testament thirteen times in his debates with the Jewish leaders (Mt 9:13, 12:7, 40, 15:4-9, 19:1-5, 18-19, 21:13, 16, 42, 22:32, 37, 39, 44). 123 Garbe holds that there are three dimensions of meaning of “Israel” in the ministry in Matthew’s Gospel, i.e. “Israel” in the times of the earthly Jesus means Israelites, “Israel” in the times of Matthean community means the Christians from the Jews and Gentiles, and “Israel” in eschatological judgment means the fulfilled and restored Israel at the end of the time, see Garbe, Der Hirte Israels, pp. 209-214. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

ministry to the Gentiles is first given by the resurrected Jesus (Mt 28:19-20). Matthew is careful to show that the mission to the Gentiles in the post-Easter era is not discontinuous 111 with Jesus’ mission to the Jews, but is continuous. It is very likely that Matthew projects the Gentile ministry of his community ex eventu to the earthly Jesus: through his redaction of the conflict on table fellowship, Matthew lays down principles for overriding religious boundaries between Jews and Gentiles through emphasising the Gentiles’ readiness to repent and the earthly Jesus’ compassion for the oi` kakw/j e;contej (Mt 9:913) and oi` kopiw/ntej kai. pefortisme,noi (Mt 11:28-30), who are burdened by the Pharisee’s halakha. Starting his ministry in Galilee fulfils an Old Testament promise (Mt 4:15). This is continued by the encounters between the earthly Jesus and the Gentiles in Galilee and in Tyre and Sidon (Mt 8:5-13, Mt 15:21-28). Jesus’ evle,hson h`ma/j (Mt 9:27, 15:21, 17:15, 20:30,31) groups the Jews and Gentiles as those whom the earthly Jesus has been seeking (Mt 9:13).124 Like Matthew, Luke describes the mission to the Gentiles as commissioned by the risen Jesus in his second volume (Acts 1:8). Luke’s Jesus also comes for the Gentiles (Lk 2:32). His earthly Jesus is in contact with the Gentiles in his ministry, but primarily in a relatively reactive manner.125 Unlike Matthew, whose Gentile mission is begun by the risen Jesus, Luke describes the ministry as beginning with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on people of different ethnic origins (Acts 2:1-11). The table fellowship scene in Lk 5:29-32 depicts a conflict that arises under one roof between Jesus and the Pharisees, Jesus’ association with sinners despite opposition from Jewish leaders, tax collectors as an example of repenting sinners and the shared interest of Jesus and his critics in calling sinners to repentance.126 Luke extensively expands the narrative of table fellowship in his Konradt holds that Gentile Ministry does not form part of the earthly Jesus' intended agenda, but it is a "Israelbezogenheit des Wirkens Jesu", Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 59-94. 124 The four verses (Mt 9:27, 15:21, 17:15, 20:30, 31) with the shared evle,hson describe how Jews and Gentiles suffered from “blindness” and sought Jesus’ healing. The Jews addressed Jesus first as “Lord”, the Gentiles addressed Jesus as “(a) son of David”. evle,hson resonates the citation of Hos 6:6 in Mt 9:13. 125 evqniko,j is only found in Matthew’s Gospel (3) in the Synoptic Gospels. e;qnoj is used more frequently: Mt (15), Mk (6), Lk (13), Acts (43) but it does not consistently mean Gentiles, but may be used to refer to Jews as well. In Luke’s Gospel, e,qnikoi means Gentiles (Lk 2:32 12:30, 18:32, 21:24, 22:25, 24:37). It is a contrast to Christian (Lk 12:30, 22:25) or it refer to the enemies of Jews (Lk 18:32, 21:24). Luke records also that the Gentiles are more ready to repent than the Jews (Lk 10:13-14), but he does not elaborate it through narratives, e.g. he does not have the healing of the daughter of a Canaanite woman as in Mt 15:21-28 (par Mk 7:24-30). The issue of Gentile conversion belongs primarily to post-Easter development. Jesus’ contact with Gentiles is found in Lk 6:17, 7:1-10, 8:26-37. Jesus acts in a reactive and responsive manner. The positive narratives about Gentiles include Lk 7:1-10, 10:29-37, 17:17-19. Samaria is treated as Gentile in this study (cf. Lk 17:18 where Jesus called a Samaritan o` avllogenh.j). 126 oi` kakw/j e;contej appears twice in Luke’s Gospel and both time it is applied to the physically sick, cf. Lk 5:31 oi` kakw/j e;contej is set in contrast to physically healthy oi` u`giai,nontej, see also Lk 7:2. It does not carry the meaning of exhausted as in Matthew. telw,nhj appears ten times in Luke's Gospel (Lk 3:12, 5:29,30, 7:29, 34, 18:10,11,13, 19:2) and in five verses, tax collectors are allied with sinners (Lk 5:30, 7:34, The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship

Gospel. Table fellowship with Jesus is recorded both before and after his resurrection, with his disciples, the learned Jews and outcasts. Table fellowship between Jesus and the 112 people begins with Jesus’ opening speeches before meals. It provides an essential platform for ministry. However, the episode on table fellowship in the Gospel is not directly used as an argument for table fellowship with the Gentiles in Acts. It serves as a prelude to Acts. The invitation to fellowship is extended from the ready to repent Jewish outcasts to the repentant Gentiles in the post-Easter era. meta,noia in Lk 5:32 reappears seven times in Acts, three in Peter’s sermons addressed to Jews in Jerusalem and three in Paul’s sermons in the Gentile regions.127 The Gentile ministry only unfolds fully in his second volume, Acts. According to Acts, the mission to the Gentiles is first legitimised not by any teaching or deeds of Jesus, but by Peter (Acts 11:1-18). Peter is directed by the Holy Spirit and experiences success in his ministry through eating and drinking with Cornelius (Acts 10:48, 11:3). However, Peter’s narrative comes only after spontaneous mission activities initiated by anonymous Christians and Philip (Acts 8:1, 4-40).128 His narrative legitimises that which is already happening. The Gentiles, despite opposition from the conservative Jews and the Pharisee Christians (Acts 11:2-3, 18, 15:1, 5, 12), are finally accepted. This final change of mind of the conservative religious wing of the early Christians in Acts may be hinted at in Luke’s use of the rare word goggu,zw in Lk 5:30, 15:2 and 19:7. Luke points out that the dispute about admitting Gentiles to fellowship with Jewish Christians is intra-muros, as the objection comes primarily from Jewish Christians in Judaea (Acts 11:1, 15:1-2, 24). He uses the following strategies to solve the problem: it is the Holy Spirit who initiates the overriding of the main obstacles hindering fellowship between Jews and Gentiles by lifting the necessity of circumcision (Acts 8:26-39) and lifting the dietary laws (Acts 10:9-16).129 Not all Gentiles are initially admitted to the Christian community, only the 15:1, 18:13, 19:7). a`marti,a appears 11 times in noun form (Lk 5:8, 30, 6:32, 7:34, 37, 13:2, 15:1, 2, 7, 18:13, 19:7) and three times in verb form (Lk 15:18, 17:3, 4) in Luke's Gospel, not once in Acts. In noun form, it is most frequently associated with tax collectors and serves as an apposition to it. In verb form, it is used in contexts where wrong has been done to inter-personal relationships, in the family and in the Christian community. 127 Peter’s sermons to the Jews in Jerusalem involve meta,noia: Acts 2:38, 3:19, 5:31. Likewise, Paul’s sermons in Gentile regions also involve the same word: Acts 17:30 (Athens), Acts 20:21 (Ephesus), Acts 26:20 (before Agrippa, in Casearea). meta,noia is also used by Peter to warn against Simon, who wants to obtain a gift from God, i.e. the Holy Spirit, with money, in Samaria (Acts 8:22). Karrer points out that Luke holds that the salvation promised to the Jews will not be thwarted by their hard-heartedness, but will be fulfilled by God himself (Acts 28:27, Isa 6:9). See Karrer "Und ich werde sie heilen: Das Verstockungsmotiv aus Jes 6:9 in Apg 28:26" in Kirche und Volk Gottes, pp. 255-271. Vahrenhorst, "Gift oder Arznei", ZNW 92 (2001), pp. 145-167. 128 See Lindemann, "Der äthiopische Eunuch und die Anfänge der Mission unter den Völkern" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 250-251. 129 See Löhr, "Speisenfrage und Tora im Judentum des Zweiten Tempels und im entstehenden Christentum", ZNW 94 (2003), pp. 35-36. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Table Fellowship Table Fellowship

“God fearers”. The “God fearers of the Gentiles” are portrayed as being like pious Jews in their religiosity and are generous to Jewish causes (Acts 10:2, cf. Lk 7:5).130 The “God 113 fearers of the Gentiles” serve as a legitimate hinge for the Jewish Christian mission to other Gentiles.131 His redaction may reflect the condition of some Christian communities 132 in the first century.

130

Cornelius, a pious Italian centurion, is a God fearer who has not gone through the final step of circumcision ~ymv yary or oi sebomenoi, oi foboumenoi in LXX (cf. Acts 11:2), cf. Barrett , Acts I, p. 500. His acts of almsgiving correspond more to the Jewish practice of asking for forgiveness of sin from God than a Gentile, who asks for eternal life. Also, the hour of Cornelius’ praying w`sei. peri. w[ran evna,thn th/j h`me,raj is the same as the hour of Jesus’s Passion. Cf. Mk 15:34 th/| evna,th| w[ra| evbo,hsen o` VIhsou/j fwnh/| mega,lh|, cf. ynhbz[ hml in Ps 22:2. 131 Koch defines God fearers –Gottesfürchtigen– as “Gruppe der nichtjüdischen Bevölkerung mit einer besonderen Nähe zum Judentum“, Koch, Proselyten und Gottesfürchtige, pp. 84-107. Cf. Lindemann suggests that the interest in the Gospel is already a good starting point for the faith. See Lindemann, "Der äthiopische Eunuch und die Anfänge der Mission unter den Völkern" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 231-251. 132 In the letter issued by James to Gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria, Cicilia (Acts 15:23-29), the Gentile Christians were not called God-fearers but brothers of gentile birth. See also Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 313. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

Chapter 5 Conflicts on the Tradition of the Elders (Oral Law) and the Torah The letter is fixed, but the Spirit is not. The exegetical endeavour to release the potential meaning of the Torah underlies the debate between Jesus and his contemporaries. The same endeavour calls the tradition of the elders (the oral law) into existence. 1 The tradition of the elders contains unwritten oral traditions of the forefathers of the Pharisees. It attempts to apply the observance of the Torah to the ever-changing situations in real life. Its teachings originate from exegeses of the Torah. If not, their authority is still warranted by Moses.2 However, the Pharisees’ assertion that the tradition of the elders has the authoritative status of the Torah does not convince other schools. The Sadducees refuse it because it is not part of the written Law.3 Jesus has a similar view; he challenges the tradition of the elders, whose authority should not be the same as the Torah, but should be subject to it.4 Jesus’ critical attitude towards the oral tradition of the Pharisees is hardly a surprise to New Testament scholars. The debate on the tradition of the elders has long been a battlefield between different Jewish schools. 5 Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus’ 1

The oral tradition refers to hp l[bv hrwt (of Hebrew) or para,dosij a.,grafoj tw/n paterw/n in Philo’s or Josephus’ work. See b.Git 60b. The schools of Shammai and Hillel hold that the oral tradition has the same status as the Torah. See m.Abot 1:1. 2 Cf. Pirqe Avot 1:1, b.BM 59b –according to the understanding of the Jews, Moses received both written and oral Torah in Sinai. Once the Torah was given to Israel, God handed over the right of interpreting it to the sages, whose majority views will determine the meaning of the texts. Shammai and Hillel are the first to speak of the written and oral laws as equally authoritative. See b.BM 59b, y.Pes 33a, b.Sab 31a. Philo also puts the Torah and unwritten customs together, Philo Legat 115. Daube however points out that even the rabbis may not regard all oral tradition as having the status of Law, they differentiate between halakha (i.e matters of law), and haggada (the other matters which are of religious importance do not affect the law), Daube, New Testament and Judaism, pp 69-70. 3 Jos. Ant. 13:297, 298. However, what the Sadducees considered the written laws of Moses is also controversial. Do they refer only to the Pentateuch or do they refer to some written laws whose origin is attributed to Moses, though they do not belong to the Pentateuch? The Sadducees have their own Book of Decrees, which is binding within their group. Also, they support the Jewish calendar, which is also a part of the tradition of the elders not totally based on the Pentateuch. Another controversy between the Sadducees and Pharisees is that the Sadducees claim that their written law is exclusively based on their exegesis, while those of the Pharisees may base on Pharisaic consensus. There is also a difference between different schools of Pharisees with regard to the status of the tradition of the elders. Some hold that its status is the same as the Torah. Others hold that the written Torah has priority. Sanders, Jewish Law, pp. 97-130. 4 Cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 517. 5 Finkelstein maintains that oral law is a historical development which could probably be traced from the exile period, when the priests and the elders of the city suddenly became jobless. Some of them combined their religious functions with the occupation of the scribes: They read and interpreted the Torah for the lay people. These trained scribes continued to serve as the teachers and leaders of the synagogues in Babylon. They contributed to keeping the Jewish tradition and faith alive in Diaspora. However, after the rebuilding of the first temple, rivalry between the priests and the scribes arose. The priests could no longer claim sole mastery of the Torah. Nevertheless, they still enjoyed authority due to their patrician status in The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

114

Tradition of the Elders

challenge cannot be proven by the Synoptics. The absence of deposits of Jesus’ challenges by the incumbent Jewish authorities is obvious. If the earthly Jesus really did 115 challenge and alter the Pharisees’ tradition of the elders, the matters of dispute would have been raised in the Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin. This process is, however, not recorded in the Synoptics, but in Acts,6 in which the apostles are tried three times in the Sanhedrin for this reason.7 An anachronistic projection of the accusation back to Jesus’ lifetime is possible, as teachers were expected to be accountable for the misdemeanours of their students.8 Likewise, if Jesus really dispensed with the Levitical dietary laws (Mk 7:19), there should not have been any more disputes on the subject in the early church (cf. Rom 14:14). However, the issue is still being hotly debated in Acts (Acts 11:1-18). Either Jesus’ teachings about the dietary laws are not historical or his teachings did not convince the conservative wings of the Jewish Christians in Judaea.9 This chapter studies three disputes between Jesus and the Jewish leaders on the tradition of the elders and, in particular, the position of the tradition of the elders in relation to the Torah. The disputes are grouped by the shared word evntolh,.10 The first dispute is kindled by a conflict on the custom of washing hands before a meal (Mt 15:120).11 It then escalates to the dispute about the position of the tradition of the elders in Jerusalem. The teaching of the scribes was at best only a tolerated deviation. To back up their authority, the scribes traced their authority back to the ancestral tradition of Moses. Their interpretation of the Torah later becomes the tradition of the elders. “The Oral Law thus became a platform of articulate, plebian protest against the official interpretation of the written law.” Finkelstein, "The Oral Law" in The Pharisees, pp. 261-280. 6 The trial of the Sanhedrin against Jesus is about his blasphemy against the temple (Mt 26:59-67, cf. Mk 14:55-64, Lk 22:54-71). According to Matthew, Jesus was sent to trial by the Jews who were jealous of him (Mt 27:18). Jesus was not accused of altering the tradition of the elders, but Stephen and Paul were (Acts 6:14, 21:20-21). The same accusation was laid against Judas the Galilean by Josephus, Jos. Ant 18.23. 7 In Mt 5:17, nomi,zw is used to depict the accusation on Jesus’ lax attitude toward the Torah. The verb means customary, habitual supposition or expectation, i.e. Jesus is accused of habitually rebelling against the Law. James, the brother of Jesus, was accused of breaking the law and was sentenced to stoning (to death) by the Sanhedrin. Cf. Acts 5:28, 6:12-15, 23:1-10. Jos. Ant 20:200-201. 8 Mt 5:17, Acts 6:11, 13, 14, 11:3, 18:13, 21:20-21, 24:14. The teacher is often held to be accountable and be responsible for the behaviour of the students. See the question dia. ti, raised by Jesus’ opponents against the behaviour of the disciples (Mt 9:11, 14, 15:2, Mk 2:18, 7:5, Lk 5:30). Cf. Daube, "The responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the Gospels", NTS 19 (1972), pp. 1-15. 9 Gnilka, Mark 1, p. 286. Davies and Allison, Matthew II, p. 528. 10 The shared word in the three conflict stories is evntolh, and its verb form evnte,llomai. The themes of the texts chosen, (i) honouring parents, (ii) honouring God and (iii) love of neighbours, are also found in the wisdom tradition, i.e. Sir 7:27-33. 11 Sanctifying (bathing, washing hands and feet) should be practised by the priests before and after the offerings (Exod 30:18-20). In 2 Chr 29:35, the Levites, who helped the priests to complete their tasks in bringing offerings, were more conscientious than the priests in observing the rules. For the laymen the priestly practice of sanctification was condensed into the custom of washing one’s hands. Nevertheless, when the custom of washing hands was extended to the laymen and whether the custom was obligatory for all Israelites by Jesus’ time remain controversial. See Tos Ber 4:12, 5:6, b.Ber 46b, Finkelstein, "The Oral Law" in The Pharisees, pp. 272-280, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 521, Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl, pp. 48-49, Vahrenhorst, Nicht schwören, pp. 396-401. Birenholm, "A Kingdom of Priests: Did the The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

relation to the Torah. The scene leads to a discussion of purity.12 The second dispute concerns divorce and the original intention of the matrimonial ruling (Mt 19:1-9). The 116 dispute reveals the tension of the ostensibly conflicting teachings in the Torah. The third dispute concerns the fundamentals of the Torah (Mt 22:34-40). It is the only occasion on which Jesus and his critics agree in the Synoptics. The Gospel writers use different terms to describe the law and the oral tradition. Mark stresses the uncritical entrenching of customs into law-like practices in Jesus’ time (kratei/te th.n para,dosin tw/n avnqrw,pwn in Mk 7:8). Matthew softens Mark’s criticisms. He re-evaluates the position of the oral tradition in relation to the Torah (dia. ti, kai. u`mei/j parabai,nete th.n evntolh.n tou/ qeou/ dia. th.n para,dosin u`mw/nÈ in Mt 15:3). However, he also questions the transcendence of the Torah beyond all time, in the light of the gradual unfolding of the Messianic era. Luke highlights the particularity of the oral tradition by naming it to. e;qoj as he develops the theme from his Gospel to Acts, across the geographical and ethnic boundaries from the Jewish to the Gentile regions. A short examination of the terminology the Gospel writers use to discuss the tradition of the elders indicates their articulate attempt to dissuade the reader from observing the Torah to the letter.13 Pharisees try to live like Priests" in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? pp. 65-67. Gutenberger, Gottesvorstellung, pp. 136-142, Deines, Steingefäße, pp. 228-229. The controversies about the custom of washing hands are: (i) whether the custom of washing hands was already limited or widely practised before or after the destruction of the temple: Büchler thinks that the custom is restricted to consecrated food for the priests or for sacrifice. See Büchler, Der galiläische Am haares, p. 83, p. 130. A similar view is held by Danby, Maimonides, Mish 10, part 6, 16:8. Büchler further suggests that the custom of washing hands for unconsecrated food was initiated by the school of Rabban Gamaliel of Jabneh around 100 BCE. However for the schools of Hillel and Shammai, the practice was mainly restricted to priests. Gedalyahu however thinks that the custom of washing hands must have been well established before the time of Hillel and Shammai as the two schools debate about the sequence of washing hands at mealtimes. The practice belongs to one of the halakha, though he agrees that until the time of the destruction of the temple, the practice of washing hands for ordinary food was not accepted by all the sages, nor practised in all parts of Israel, Gedalyahu, Jews, Judaism, pp. 219-222. (ii) Whether the custom of washing hands is an extension of priestly law to lay people: while Gedalyahu supports it, Sanders opposes it. He holds that it is just an application of Lev 11:34, see Sanders, Jewish Law, pp. 152162, cf. Gedalyahu, Jews, Judaism, pp. 219-222. Guttenberger suggests that the custom of washing hands has its background of resistance of the Roman (impure) influence on the temple and the office of High Priest. See Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, p.134. 12 See Ex 30:17-21 and the discussion in Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 521. “Purity” needs to be protected from all forms of impurity, which are considered highly contagious. Otherwise one does not qualify to meet God. According to Rabbi Rinchas ben Jair, devotion (in worship of the Creator) leads to purity. Purity leads to purity of heart. Purity of heart leads to abstinence. Abstinence leads to separation (i.e. Holiness). See Abodah Sarah 20b: twvyrp ydyl haybm hrhjw hrhj ydyl haybm twyqnw twyqn ydyl haybm twzyrz rmwa ryay !b sxnp ybr 13 There is no single word for the Torah or the Commandments in the Old Testament: The Torah hrwt, Law hqx, Commandments twd[, hwcm in Hebrew are translated into nomo,j, evntolh,, diaqh,kh, dikai,wma in LXX, which are also adopted in the Gospels. nomo,j: Mt 5:17,18, 7:12, 11:13, 12:5, 15:6, 22:36, 40, 23:23, Lk 2:22-24, 27, 39, 10:26, 16:16,17, 24:44, Acts 6:13, 7:53, 13:15, 38, 15:5, 18:13, 15, 21:20, 24, 22:3, 12, The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

5.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 15:1-20 5.1.1 Mt 15:1-20

5.1.1.1 Source and Text Criticism There is already consensus that Mt 15:1-20 is based on Mk 7:1-23.14 Matthew adopts Mark’s themes in his narrative and develops them further. The text is a more coherent whole than its source (Mk 7:1-23). Matthew substantially improves the flow of the arguments and the transitions between themes. 15 His three redactions in the narrative reflect his Jewish origin: he removes background information that would be too obvious to all Jews (Mk 7:2-4). He tones down the radicalism of Jesus’ attitude towards the dietary laws (Mk 7:19) and he consolidates and expands the list of vices according to the second half of the Ten Commandments.16 His insertion of criticism of the Pharisees in the 23:3, 29, 24:6, 14, 25:8, 28:23, evntolh: Mt 5:19, 15:3, 19:51, 22:36, Mk 10:5, Lk 1:6, diaqh,kh: Lk 1:72, dikai,wma: Lk 1:6. Luke’s use of to. e;qoj deserves attention (Lk 1:9, 2:42, 22:39, Acts 6:14, 15:1, 16:21, 21:21, 25:16, 26:3, 28:17). Neither LXX nor Mark and Matthew use to. e;qoj to describe the law or the tradition of the elders. In LXX, to. e;qoj is used to describe customs. It is found in the wisdom traditions (Wis 14:16) and in Maccabees (1 Macc 10:89, 4 Macc 18:5) only. Not even Paul uses to. e;qoj in his letters to describe the oral tradition. The author of Hebrews uses this term to refer to the habits of some people (Heb 10:25). Luke however uses it three times in his Gospel to describe Jewish customs from the perspective of a Gentile Christian author (Lk 1:9, 2:42, 22:39). The term is found in Codex D in Lk 2:27 but it means habits, not custom), and he uses it seven times in direct speeches in Acts (of which 6 times are used to describe Jewish customs. See Acts 6:14, 15:1, 16:21, 21:21, 26:3, 28:17). All the usage of to. e;qoj in Acts involved either Hellenistic Jews or Gentiles as speakers or as the audiences. On one occasion, to. e;qoj is treated as having a status equal to Law, and this view was expressed by Hellenistic Jews themselves (Acts 6:13-14). Thus, Luke uses to. e;qoj primarily to describe Jewish customs to the Gentiles from their (Gentile) perspectives. However, in this way, the overtone of the equal status of Jewish custom and their Law is vitiated in the ears of the Gentiles. Also, Luke never uses para,dosij as Mark and Matthew do (cf. Mt 15:2,3,6 and the parallel text in Mk 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13). para,dosij could originate primarily from the Israelites (cf. Gal 1:14). Mark never uses no,moj to describe the theme of conflict (cf. Mt 22:36 versus Mk 12:28). Luke however gives the law of Moses the same status as the law of God, from the perspective of the Jewish characters in his Gospel (Lk 2:22, 23, 24, 27, 39). Matthew questions the position of oral tradition in relation to the Torah (Mt 15:6, 22:36). It is probable that the conflicts concerning Jewish tradition and God’s commandments had not escalated to a violent dispute in Mark’s time. In his narrative about the conflicts on oral tradition, Mark uses evntolh, or lo,goj tou/ qeou/ (Mk 7:8, 13, par Mt 15:3, 5). Luke never employs these terms in the dispute over oral tradition (cf. Lk 11:37-41, Lk 16:18, Lk 10:25-28). He only uses them to describe the religious piety of his characters in observing evntolh, and dikai,wma. Nevertheless, this positive description is never applied to Luke’s Jesus (Lk 1:6, 23:56). Mark uses krate,w to describe how the Jewish leaders hold the tradition. The verb shares the same root as kratu,nw, which means holding something firmly through the times, in such a way that it finally becomes fixed and unalterable. Cf. Wis 14:16. 14 Cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew II, pp. 516-517, Luz, Matthäus 2, pp. 418-419. 15 Gnilka thinks that Matthew summarizes from heterogeneous materials, Gnilka, Matthäus 2, p. 19. 16 Matthew’s Jesus shortens Mark’s 13 vices into 7. The first five, together with the dispute on Corban, i.e. respecting the parents, correspond to the 5th to the 9th of the Ten Commandments. See also Gnilka, Matthäus 2, p. 26. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

117

Tradition of the Elders

middle of the narrative (Mt 15:12-14) hints at the real problems his community was 118 facing: the problems did not lie in the Torah, but in the Pharisees’ interpretation.17 The text has some textual variants but none of them are deemed worthy of detailed discussion. (i) (ii) (iii)

The religious leaders and their delegates from Jerusalem are the major critics of Jesus with respect to his incompliant attitude to the tradition of the elders.18 The tradition of the elders held by the Jewish leaders deviates from the law and commandments of God.19 Contrary to its position in Mk 7:1-23, Codex D softens the criticism against the dietary laws in Mt 15:11 and allows room for the Levitical code.20 5.1.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features

Mt 15:1-20 is embedded in the literary genre of the Jewish school debate.21 Like Mk 7:1-23, the narrative is placed after a summary of healing miracles caused by Jesus letting patients touch the tassels of his cloak with their hands by Lake Gennesarat (Mt 14:36) and immediately after Jesus enters the Gentile areas of Tyre and Sidon (Mt 15:21).22 Unlike Mk 7:1-23, Mt 15:1-20 is not attached to the preceding pericope by kai, but to,te (cf. Mt 15:1 versus Mk 7:1). This shows a closer thematic connection with the preceding pericope on healing. Jesus’ unrestricted contact with the hands of the sick and the Pharisees’ paranoia about unclean hands foretells the theme of their debate, the issue of purity. 23 The law-abiding image reflected through Jesus’ tassels and his unrestricted access to the “unclean” hint that allegiance to the law and the Pharisaic ideals of purity are only a matter of contingency, not necessity. The tension between purity and impurity is thematically dissolved in the narrative on the Canaanite woman when Jesus agrees to

17

Matthew’s Jesus’ accusations against the Pharisees have many parallel texts in the Gospel, Mt 13:24-30, 23:16, 24. Peter’s request Fra,son h`mi/n th.n parabolh.n tau,thn in Mt 15:15 has its source in Mk 7:17. His request refers directly to Mt 15:11, not the inserted criticism of the Pharisees in Mt 15:12-14. See also Luz, Matthäus 2, p. 415, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 517. 18 In Mt 15:1, Codices C, L, W supply the reading with the definite article oi` avpo. ~Ierosolu,mwn grammatei/j kai. Farisai/oi. 19 In Mt 15:6, Codices a*2, C, Manuscript Family 13 provide to.n no,mon while Codices L, W, Manuscript Family 1 and 33 provide th.n evntolh.n. 20 In Mt 15:11, Codex D adds pa/n. It allows room for the levitical dietary code. 21 Davies & Allison hold that it is an objection story. See Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 516. 22 Gnilka points out that Jesus’withdrawal to a Gentile area implies already the sharpening of the conflict, Gnilka, Matthäus 2, p. 18. 23 kra,spedon (Mt 14:36) is tcyc in Num 15:38. The tassel encourages the reader to think Jesus as a law obedient Jew. See also Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 517, note 2. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

her suggestion that the Jews and the Gentiles can share bread (a meal) together, although 119 in a different sequence and portions (Mt 15:27).24 Matthew’s use of syntactical construction suggests that he treats Mt 15:1-20 as one of the conflict narratives. The construction prose,rcomai with dative and le,gontej (Mt 15:1) is Matthew’s favourite opening formula to introduce how different groups of people approach Jesus.25 The construction of the questions raised by the Jewish leaders and the response given by Jesus in Mt 15:2-3 of dia. ti,… o` de… ei=pen can also be found in the second open conflict in Mt 9:11-12.26 Matthew’s pedagogical concern is clear: he puts four concluding remarks at the end of each concentric discourse to reinforce Jesus’ logia (Mt 15:6, 9, 18, 20). Mt 15:1-20 is an inclusion bracketed by ni,ptontai ta.j cei/raj in Mt 15:2 and Mt 15:20. Another inclusion is found in Mt 15:18-20, with koinoi/ to.n a;nqrwpon. The ring composition of the inclusions and the way Matthew introduces Jesus’ refutation show the two major themes of the narrative: 27 the rivalry of the tradition of the elders with the Torah and the prophetic tradition and the true cause of impurity.28 Both narratives in the two inclusions use the custom of hand-washing as an example. The shift from Jesus’ refutation to his teaching starts in Mt 15:10, in which Matthew concretises Mark’s 24

Kowalski points out that there can be a parallel between the missions to the Jews and the Gentiles and the miracles of the loaves. In Mt 14:13-21, twelve baskets of scraps represent the twelve tribes of Israel. In Mt 15:32-39, seven baskets of scraps represent the Gentiles. See Kowalski, "Wunder bei den Heiden: Der heidnische Hauptmann (Mt 8, 5-13) und die kanaanäische Frau (Mt 15, 21-28) in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, p. 538. 25 The construction is also used by the following groups who approach Jesus: the disciples of John, Mt 9:14; the disciples, Mt 15:23, 18:1; the Pharisees, Mt 19:3. 26 parabai,nousin th.n para,dosin tw/n presbute,rwn in Mt 15:2 shows that the Pharisees do not concern about the reason for the disciples' behavior, but their infringement of the traditions of the elders. See also Konradt, Matthäus, p. 119, note 128. 27 Both are introduced by o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen (Mt 15:3 and Mt 15:13). o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen is Matthew’s favourite phrase, which is reserved for introducing important teaching from Jesus only. It appears seventeen times in Matthew’s Gospel. In Mt 15:15 the phrase appears in an inverted form. The inverted form is also used by Jesus, Peter and angels. 28 Gnilka summarises three positions on the interpretation of the text: (i) The early Christian community declined the whole of the tradition of the elders, with the custom of washing hands as the typical example. They observed the Christian ethics but not the Jewish cultic practices. The Ten Commandments remain as the centre and norm of their behaviour. (ii) Matthew and his community still honoured the Levitical purity codes and the traditions of the elders in general. However they challenged some of the traditions of the elders. (iii) Matthew and his community still honoured the Levitical purity code and the older traditions of the elders. However, they challenged only the special halakha on the washing of hands. Gnilka, Matthäus 2, pp. 20-21. See also Konradt, "Die vollkommene Erfüllung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium" in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im neuen Testament, p. 144. Gnilka maintains that the theme of the narrative is about the true nature of impurity. Matthew’s Jesus’ criticism of the custom of washing hands does not necessarily mean that he and the Matthean community reject the authority of the whole of the traditions of the elders, Gnilka, Matthäus 2, pp. 26-27. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

morphological contrast of “in” and “out” to “in and out of the mouth” (Mt 15:10) and “in and out of the heart” (Mt 15:18, cf. Mk 7:21). The Jewish leaders are used as a counter- 120 example.29 The literary structure of the text also confirms the redactional themes. Twice Matthew stresses the problem of putting disproportionate weight on the tradition of the elders (Mt 15:3, 6) through syntactic parallels and morphological contrasts. He twice criticises the incompetency of the Jewish leaders by morphological and phonetic parallels and allegory (Mt 15:13, 14). The tradition of the elders and the commandments of God are set three times as a word-pair in the ring composition (Mt 15:2-3, 4-5, 6). The tension reaches its height in Mt 15:13-14: not only does Matthew use a contemporary Greek metaphor to ridicule the Pharisees as blind leaders (Mt 15:14, Mt 23:16),30 but he also reverses the traditional tree metaphor in the Old Testament to disgrace the Pharisees (Mt 15:13, 13:24-30). The allegory of the tree is always used as a self-perception of one’s relationship with God.31 However, the Pharisees are like trees not planted by God (Mt 15:13). They are blind leaders causing others to also be blind.32 Their teachings render God’s word (the Torah) ineffective (Mt 15:5-6), a rippling effect which is not desired at all among Jesus’ followers (Mt 16:5-12, cf. Lk 12:1, Mk 8:15). The polemics against the Jewish leaders in the text are so dense that one may ask if Matthew really does justice to them.33 The second theme of the true cause of impurity is set in a syntactic parallel, with a morphological contrast between “in” and “out” (eivsporeu,omai versus evkporeu,omai in Mt 15:17-18) and three successive clauses led by eivj (Mt 15:17) and evk (Mt 15:18-19). kavkei/na koinoi/ to.n a;nqrwpon in Mt 15:18 is an insertion that disrupts the syntactic and morphological parallels in Mt 15:17-18. It brings the reader’s attention to the seven true causes of impurity in Mt 15:19. Most of the words used in Mt 15:1-20 are not among Matthew’s favourite words.34 However, if the words and transitions between the themes shared with Mk 7:1-23 are 29

In Mt 15:1-19, Matthew’s Jesus distinguishes the crowd from the Pharisees. The former is the object of his teaching. The latter is also the object of his rebuttal. Cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 526. 30 The metaphor of blind leaders is frequently found in Hellenistic literature, e.g. Plut mor. 139A. Plato, rep VIII 554b, Philo, virt, 7. eivj bo,qunon pesou/ntai is used frequently in the wisdom tradition in the Bible, cf. Isa 24:18, Sir 27:26, Prov 22:14, 26:27, Eccl 10:8. See also Gnilka, Matthäus 2, p. 25. Lk 6:39 shows that the metaphor of the blind does not originate from the context of the criticism of the Pharisees, cf. Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 133. 31 Gnilka points out that the metaphor of plants was widespread in Jesus’ time. Israel is planted by God (Isa 61:3, 60:21). The Qumran refers themselves as everlasting plants (1QS 8:5, 11:8). See Gnilka, Matthäus 2, p. 25. Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 133. The Qumran community also describes itself as the eternal plant (1QS 8:5, 11:8. See also Dam 1:7). 32 Konradt, Matthäus, p. 48, note 167. 33 The literary motive of Jesus’ knowing the heart of the religious leaders can be found also in Mt 9:4, 12:25. skandali,zw appears fourteen times in Matthew’s Gospel. The construction skandali,zw evn auvtw/ is found in Mt 13:57 only. 34 With respect to the theme of the tradition of the elders: In Mt 15:2 –parabai,nw, Mt (2); para,dosij, Mt (3). In Mt 15:6 – avku/ro,w, Mt (1). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

discounted,35 the only rare words that Matthew uses are parabai,nw,36 which replaces ou peripate,w in the same complaint raised by the Jewish leaders in Mark’s text, and 121 yeudomarturi,ai, which appears in the list of vices springing from the heart. This additional vice may be Matthew’s attempt to imitate the second half of the Ten Commandments.37 The redactional themes in the episode (i.e., the Pharisees are like trees not planted by God and are blind guides leading the blind, see Mt 15:13-14) also have parallel texts in the Gospel of Matthew.38 5.1.2 Mk 7:1-23

5.1.2.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 7:1-23 contains at least four separate pre-Markan traditions: the Jewish custom of washing hands (Mk 7:1-8) and the use of Isa 29:13 to renounce the tradition of the elders in general; the dispute between the position of human tradition and God’s commandments (Mk 7:9-13); the teaching about the genuine cause of uncleanliness (Mk 7:15), whose justification is also found in rabbinic literature;39 and the elaboration of evil intentions by a list of vices, which reflects both Hebrew and Hellenistic origins (Mk 7:1823).40 Nearly all of the verbs and nouns constituting the major themes of the text, namely the washing of hands, the tradition of the elders, the dietary laws and ethical impurity, are With respect to the theme of the custom of washing of hands: In Mt 15:2 –ni,ptw ta.j cei/raj, Mt (1); a,ni,ptoj, Mt (1). In Mt 15:11 – koino,w, Mt (5). With respect to ethical impurity: In Mt 15:17 –to. eivsporeuo,menon, Mt (1); ta. evkporeuo,mena, Mt (5); avfedrw,n, Mt (1). In Mt 15:19 –dialogismo,j, Mt (1); ponhro,j, Mt (26); fo,noj, Mt (1)( moicei,a, Mt (1); pornei,a, Mt (3); kloph,,, Mt (1); yeudomarturi,a, Mt (2); blasfhmi,a, Mt (4). With respect to the slowness of the disciples: In Mt 15:17 –avsu,netoj, Mt (1). 35 In this episode, Matthew’s reliance on Mark can be shown because the direct quotations from the Old Testament in Mt 15:1-20 do not follow Matthew’s favourite formulation, which usually has an introductory formula of fulfillment (with the use of plhro,w, cf. Mt 1:22, 2:15, 17, 23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 26:54). Likewise, the way in which the Old Testament is quoted in Mk 7:6, 10 does not follow Mark’s usual style. The shared rare words that only appear in this conflict (in both Mk 7:1-23 and Mt 15:1-20) include: koino,w, Mk (5), Mt (5); para,dosij, Mk (5), Mt (3); ni,ptw, Mk (1), Mt (1); a,ni,ptoj, Mk (1), Mt (1); avkuro,w, Mk (1), Mt (1); avsu,netoi, Mk (1), Mt (1); to. eivsporeu,omai, Mk (8), Mt (1); avfedrw,n, Mk (1), Mt (1); dialogismo,j, Mk (1), Mt (1); moicei,a, Mk (1), Mt (1). The quotation closely follows LXX. See also Gnilka, Matthäus 2, p. 24. 36 Cf. Mt 15:2-3. 37 Cf. Mt 15:19, Exod 20:16. Cf. Gnilka, Matthäus 2, p. 19. 38 Vegetation not planted by God can be found in Mt 13:29, where evkrizo,w is used. Another metaphor of planting a vineyard can be found in Mt 21:33, where fu,teuw is found. The Pharisees were analogous with blind guides, e.g. Mt 23:16, 17, 26. Cf. Prov 28:10. 39 1QS 3:4-10. 40 Mk 7:19b belongs to Mark’s own redaction. The list of vices in Mk 7:20-22 is a combination of selected commandments from the Ten Commandments and other vices. The first six vices are in plural form and the next six vices are in singular form. It has a strong Hellenistic background. The list is a comment on Mk 7:20b. Cf. Gnilka, Markus 1, p. 285, Klostermann, Markus, p. 71. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

rare in Mark’s Gospel. Most of them appear only in this text.41 The use of rare words confirms the foreign source. The core verse in this narrative is Mk 7:15, whose original 122 context cannot be accurately determined.42 The different textual witnesses do not supply significant points that affect the interpretation of the text. Nevertheless, of all of the textual variants, three are worth mentioning: (i) (ii) (iii)

The terms used to describe the washing of hands before a meal.43 The quotation of Isa 29:13.44 The order of the vices in the list.45

41

Words which are used for the theme of the custom of washing of hands: In Mk 7:2–koino,j, Mk (2) (but as a verb koino,w: Mk (5), all are found in Mk 7:1-23; the verb has its origin in a Jewish or JewishChristian context); a;niptoj, Mk (1). In Mk 7:3 –pu/gmh,, Mk (1); ni,ptw, Mk (1). In Mk 7:4 –baptismo,j, Mk (1) but as a verb bapti,zw, Mk (12); xe,sthj, Mk (1); calki,on, Mk (1). All these words, except the verb bapti,zw, appear only in this episode. The phrases used in the theme of the tradition of the elders: In Mk 7:4 –h. para,dosij tw/n presbute,rwn, Mk (2); h. para,dosij appear five times in Mark’s Gospel and are all in this narrative. In Mk 7:8 –h. evntolh, tou/ qeou/, Mk (1). h. evntolh appears six times in Mark’s Gospel, of which two appear here. The phrases used in the theme of dietary law: In Mk 7:15 –e;xwqen tou/ avnqrw,pou, Mk (1); ta. evk tou/ avnqrw,pou evkporeuo,mena,, Mk (1). The converting of the preposition e;xwqen to noun form appears only in this narrative. In Mk 7:19 –koili,a, Mk (1); avfedrw,n, Mk (1); kaqari,zw: Mk (4). The phrases used for ethical impurities: In Mk 7:21 –oi` dialogismoi. oi` kakoi., Mk (1). In Mk 7:22 – pornei,a, Mk (1); kloph,, Mk (1); fo,noj, Mk (2); moicei,a, Mk (1); pleonexi,a, Mk (1); ponhri,a, Mk (1); do,loj, Mk (2); avse,lgeia, Mk (1); ovfqalmo.j, Mk (7); ponhro,j, Mk (2); blasfhmi,a, Mk (3); u`perhfani,a, Mk (1); avfrosu,nh, Mk (1). The phrases which are used for cleansing and which have a strong ritual emphasis: ni,ptw is used instead of ni,zw, lou,w, which is commonly used for washing parts of the body. ni,ptw has a strong ritual overtone in LXX. Cf. Exod 30:19, Lev 15:11. bapti,zw recalls the ritual cleansing by John the Baptist and Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, e.g. Mk 1:5, 8, 9, 6:14, 24, 10:29, 38, 11:16. Its ritual sense is found also in LXX, cf. Jud 12:7-9. The other usage of kaqari,zw is found in Jesus’ first miracle of healing the lepers in Mk 1:40, 41, 42, which however shows Jesus’ respect for the Levitical purity rules. 42 See Gnilka, Markus 1, pp. 276-278. 43 In Mk 7:3, Codices a, W supply pu,kna (cf Lk 5:33) while Codices A, B, L, Q supply pu/gmh,, which could mean (i) the washing of the other hand with the fist, i.e. a cupped hand, (ii) washing the whole hand up to the elbow, (iii) the washing of the hands with a handful of water. In Mk 7:4a, Codices a, B supply ranti,swntai, Codices A, D, W supply bapti,swntai and Codices L, D supply bapti,zwntai. The difference reflects different practices of ritual cleanliness: washing of hands or immersing oneself in a bath. Nevertheless, in Mt 7:4b, all textual witnesses supply baptismou.j. Cf. Luz, Matthäus 2, p. 416, note 7. 44 In Mk 7:6c where Isa 29:13 is quoted, Codices D and W supply a,ga/pa instead of tima/|, which is supplied by Codices a and B. According to both MT and LXX of Isa 29:13, dbk and tima,w are supplied respectively. It is more probable that Codices a and B retain the earlier readings. 45 The order of the first seven vices in Mk 7:21-22 varies among different textual witnesses. Codices a, B and L supply pornei/ai( klopai,( fo,noi( moicei/ai( pleonexi,ai( ponhri,ai( do,loj. Codex W and Manuscript Family 1 supply moicei/ai(pornei/ai( klopai,( fo,noi( pleonexi,ai( ponhri,ai( do,loj. Codex A and Manuscript The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

The textual variants show that the early Christian communities tried to make the Jewish custom of hand-washing more comprehensible to the Gentile Christians by 123 providing details of local practice.46 Among the available textual variants, Codices D and W have a stronger tendency to denounce the Pharisees’ practices. They put the debate into the context of the greatest commandment and disqualify the custom from the appropriate ways to honour God. 47 One major difference found across the textual witnesses is the term used for cleansing containers. Some textual witnesses report the Jewish tradition of cleansing containers, whereas others use a more technical term used for rituals in Leviticus.48 5.1.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mk 7:1-23 provides a bridge between the Jewish and Gentile ministries of Jesus.49 It is placed after a summary of the healing miracles by Lake Gennesaret (Mk 6:53-56) and before Jesus’ mission to the Gentile regions of Tyre and Sidon (Mk 7:24-37), where Jesus accedes to a ~Ellhni,j (Syro-Phoenician) woman’s request to heal her demon-possessed daughter. The debate on washing hands links the two sections on healing through shared motive and words. a,gora, is a place where healing takes place (Mk 6:56),50 but is also where people contract impurity (Mk 7:4). a;rtoj (Mk 7:2, 5 versus Mt 7:27) indicates that Family 13 supply moicei/ai( pornei/ai( fo,noi( klopai,( pleonexi,ai( ponhri,ai( do,loj and Codex D supplies pornei/a, kle,mmata, moicei/a, fo,noj, pleonexi,a, do,loj, ponhri,a in singular form. The reason of the difference in the order is not known. 46 In Mk 7:5, Codices a2, A, L, M supply the reading of avni,ptoij cersi.n instead of koinai/j cersi.n, P45 and Manuscript Family 13 supply koinai/j cersi.n kai. avni,ptoij. They try to explain to their Gentile Christian communities what koinai/j cersi.n is. 47 In Mk 7:7, P45 and Vulgata supply a mild expression of dida,skontej didaskali,aj kai, evnta,lmata avnqrw,pwn, which does not equate dida,skontej didaskali,aj with evnta,lmata avnqrw,pwn. In Mk 7:9, Codices A and B supply a milder verb thrh,sate. They reflect a restrained denouncement of the Israelite customs. The strong tendency of Codex D to denounce human tradition can be seen in Mk 7:13, where it inserts th mwra, to h-| paredw,kate. Codex D also strengthens the polemics against the Pharisees, in which it inserts kategnw,san in Mk 7:1, and describes the questions of the Pharisees as complaints. Both Codices D and W supply ota/n e,lqwsin in Mk 7:4, which stresses the repetitive disturbance of the cleansing rituals in daily life. 48 In Mk 7:4a, Codices A, D, W supply bapti,swntai and Codices L, D supply bapti,zwnta. Only on this occasion is bapti,zw used in an active intransitive sense for an object (container), the other appearances of bapti,zw are used in a passive transitive sense for people undergoing the ritual of repentance or cleansing (Mt(7), Mk (12), Lk(10)). The active intransitive sense of bapti,zw has its Hebrew and Aramaic origin. It is applied to the Jews in their cleansing ritual, during which the people go through the water themselves, unaided, to wash away their impurity. When the verb is used for cleansing an object, as in the textual variant provided here, it carries a transitive sense. In the Gospels, bapti,zw is extended and applied to the religious ritual of repentance. When used in a passive and transitive sense, it refers to the time when the repenting people are baptized by an agent, e.g. John the Baptist, or later the Holy Spirit. It may reflect a post-Easter reflection of one’s own incompetency to repent or renew without the help of God. 49 50

Same as Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, p. 133. Codices A, W and Q. do not suppy a,gora. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

the symbolic demarcation between clean and unclean, which is represented by the custom of bread (i.e., a meal in Hebrew), is overcome by a witty argument from the Syro- 124 Phoenician woman. She argues that the Gentiles can share the crumbs from the bread. The narrative is placed between the feeding of the 5,000 in the Jewish region (Mk 6:3043) and the 4,000 in the Gentile region (Mk 8:1-10). kaqari,zw versus a,ka,qartoj (Mk 7:19 versus Mk 7:25) indicates that the source of uncleanliness of an individual is redirected from the consumption of (unclean) food to the evil within one’s own heart (Mk 7:19). It then grows into an unclean spirit, which possesses the whole individual, rendering her totally helpless (Mk 7:26). In the debate on hand-washing, Jesus is portrayed as a teacher superior to the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem. However, in the healing narrative he lets himself be beaten by a Gentile woman’s arguments.51 Mk 7:1-23 is set in a Jewish school debate (Mk 7:2). 52 The text is intentionally constructed to escalate a misdemeanour into a conflict. 53 Jesus’ disciples’ failure to observe the ritual of hand-washing before a meal is questioned by the religious leaders, whose origin Mark stresses with a participial clause: they come from Jerusalem, the “Supreme Court”. Obviously the same question could equally possibly be raised by any lay Jews at any meal (according to Mk 7:3 the practice is observed by all Jews). Only criticism from the religious authority in Jerusalem could escalate the scale and importance of the discussion. Mark’s Jesus rejects the tradition of the elders because of their human origin, which he repeats four times, three of which are mentioned successively in a syntactic parallel, with the tradition of the elders and the commandment of God set in contrast (Mk 7:7, 8, 9, 13). Mark’s redactional concern is clear: he wants to justify the defilement of the Jewish dietary laws and to overcome the religious boundary between the Jews and the Gentiles.54 Mk 7:1-23 is a narrative unit bracketed by koino,j (Mk 7:2, 23), wherein the theme of discussion is transposed from unclean hands (Mk 7:2) to the true causes of impurity (Mk

51

296.

It is Jesus who first offers her a loophole in his logion on his own initiative. See also France, Mark, p.

52

P.Oxy 840 supplies an independent reading wherein a Pharisee, a high priest, asks Jesus in the temple why his disciples do not observe the rites of cleanliness, Gnilka, Markus 1, p. 282, note 32. See also Bovon, "Fragment Oxyrhynchus 840, Fragment of a Lost Gospel, Witness of an early Christian Controversy over Purity" in New Testament and Christian Apocrypha, pp. 174-196. 53 Pesch is of the opinion that the mentioning of scribes´ coming from Jerusalem could be related to the discussion on Corban in Mk 7:11. See Pesch, Markus 1, p. 370. See also note 4 of p. 370 for his analysis on cultic impurity and cultic incompetence. 54 Mark’s emphasis on all Jews in Mk 7:3 does not mean that it is factual truth that all Jews practised the washing of hands. It could be his own reflection on the scope of the impact of the purity practice on the Jewish community. Deines points out that texts from Qumran (1QS 6:16-21, 4Q 514), an anonymous Mischna (m.Hag 2:5), m.Yad 1:2 suggest that the practice was observed quite widely. See Deines, Steingefäße, pp. 228-229. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

7:23).55 It consists of three main narrative units, marked by the change in audience. 56 Each features syntactic parallels: the debate between Jesus and the religious leaders on 125 hand-washing and the tradition of the elders it represents (Mk 7:1-13)57 contains three syntactic parallels contrasting the tradition of the elders and God’s commandments (Mk 7:7-9, 13). The verb ei=pen (in aorist tense) used in the quotation from Moses in Mk 7:10 is seldom used.58 It shows that Mark is ironically mimicking the unwritten oral tradition. The verbs that Mark uses to describe how the religious leaders invalidate the commandments of God by their oral invention are equally ironic. They carry a negative judicial sense; the Jewish leaders position themselves over God.59 The episode contains three supplementary explanations about Jewish purity customs, which are led by e;stin (tou/tV e;stin/o[ e;stin). Although the provision of an explanation through e;stin is common in Mark’s Gospel,60 he uniquely elucidates the purity custom three times.61 This shows the importance (and penetration) of the purity laws that the Jews attached to the minutiae of their religious life.62 Jesus’ first open teaching on his dismissal of the Levitical dietary law for the crowd (Mk 7:14-15 [16])63 contains a morphological contrast between e;xwqen tou/ avnqrw,pou and avlla. ta. evk tou/ avnqrw,pou (Mk 7:15). Jesus’ private teaching to the disciples in a house (Mk 7:17-23) elaborates the contrast of e;xwqen tou/ avnqrw,pou and avlla. ta. evk tou/ avnqrw,pou in Mk 7:15 in the concentric symmetry of the “in versus out”

55

koino,j in Mk 7:2, 5 reappears again in Jesus’ first teaching to the crowd in Mk 7:15, and his second teaching to the disciples in Mk 7:18, 20 and 23. 56 See the discussion in Gnilka, Markus 1, pp. 276-279. 57 The construction ouvk evsqi,ousin and koinai/j cersi.n, which appears three times in Mk 7:1-5 disappears completely in the second and third sections. 58 When Mark quotes a verse from the Old Testament, he always uses gra;fw (Mk 1:2, 7:6, 10:5, 11:17, 14:27) and avnaginw,skw (Mt 12:5). Mk 12:36 uses le,gw to quote Ps 110:1, which is also unusual. 59 In Mk 7:9 –avqete,w, Mk (2). It appears also in Mk 6:26, which is the irrevocable vow of King Herod. In Mk 7:13 –avkuro,w, Mk (1) has a strong negative judicious sense. It emphasizes that the Pharisees invalidate the content of God’s commandments. 60 Cf. Mk 5:41, 7:34, 15:22, 34: a short explanation is provided of a transliteration of either Hebrew or Aramaic origin. Mk 15:42: an explanation is provided on the preparation day before the Shabbat. 61 All explanatory clauses in Mark’s Gospel are short relative clauses. In Mk 7:3-4 they are however long but broken up. Mk 7:3 contains a cultic description of the washing of hands. It starts with oi` ga.r Farisai/oi kai. pa,ntej oi` VIoudai/oi, which is intruded by a conditional sentence –eva.n mh. … ouvk. It is then followed by a present participial clause kratou/ntej th.n para,dosin tw/n presbute,rwn. Mk 7:4 provides another situation where another form of cleansing is taking place, which involves not only the washing of the hands but also the whole body. The same subject in Mk 7:3 is presupposed but not explicitly spelt out. Mk 7:4a starts with kai, which is followed by a place attribute, then a conditional sentence evan. mh. … ouvk. Mk 7:4b provides a subject shift to a;lla polla, which is followed by evstin … kratei/n. The examples provided in Mk 7:4c show that the objects to be cleansed are shifted from the human body to utensils they use. 62

Yad 1:1-4, Schiffman, Texts and Traditions, p 730, notes 183-86. Mk 7:15 is framed in a syntactic contrast: ouvde,n … e;xwqen tou/ avnqrw,pou eivsporeuo,menon and ta. evk tou/ avnqrw,pou evkporeuo,mena, with word-plays on “inside” and “outside”. The contrast may hinge allegorically but not explicitly on cei,loj and kardi,a. Same in Mk 7:17-19, the dichotomy of “inside (the house)-outside” echoes Mk 7:15. See also the discussion in Gnilka, Markus 1, p. 284. 63

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

dichotomy in Mk 7:18-21a.64 A list of vices springing from the heart is provided in Mk 126 7:21b-22. 65 Jesus’ logion carry a strongly pedagogic interest with an overtone of the wisdom tradition. The opening scene in Mk 7:1, with a participial clause in the present tense, suna,gontai pro.j auvto.n, is not found frequently in Mark’s Gospel. It is used when people gather around Jesus and listen to his logia. 66 The construction of introducing the Jewish leaders (Mk 7:2) is also found in other dispute scenes in Mark’s Gospel.67 The syntax of their inquiry appears five times in the Gospel. It is also found in a genuine enquiry raised by Jesus’ disciples.68 Likewise, Jesus’ appeal to the people to hear and understand (Mk 7:14, Mk 7:16, as supplied by Codices A, D, W and Q) reflects the wisdom tradition.69 His offer of an exclusive private lesson to his slow-witted disciples also finds many echoes in Mark’s Gospel.70 The reinforcement of Jesus’ logion to the three parties (the Jewish leaders, the crowd and the disciples) through phonetic parallels and proverbial formulations is also a typical feature of the wisdom tradition (Mk 7:13, 15, 19). The teaching of Mark’s Jesus is unconventional. He interprets Isa 29:13 (Mk 7:6-7) for his own agenda,71 emphasising the morphological contrast between the word-pair “lip” and “heart”. 72 Ironically, Jesus’ strong criticism of the Pharisees’ trampling on God’s commandments with their tradition of the elders can be applied to himself when he dismisses the dietary laws (Mk 7:18-19).73 The narrative is the second encounter between Jesus and the religious delegates from Jerusalem (cf. Mk 3:22, 7:1). The religious leaders’ reproach of Jesus’ disciples’ inobservance of the washing of hands is less serious than their first slander of the 64

Guttenberger points out that there are two dichotomies: (i) inner versus outer, (ii) from God versus from man. See Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, pp. 142-143. 65 Cf. Philo her. 173. 66 suna,gw is found five times in Mark’s Gospel. Similar patterns of suna,gontai pro.j auvto.n are found in Mt 4:1, 6:30. Other narratives which start with suna,gw are found in Mt 2:2 and 5:21. 67 ivdo,ntej together with an accusative clause, cf. Mk 2:16. 68 e,perwta,w appears twenty five times in Mark’s Gospel of which 5 times come from Jesus’ opponents (Mk 10:2, 12:18, 28, 34) and one comes from the disciples (Mk 7:11). 69 Sir 27:6. 70 Jesus’ exclusive private lectures for his disciples are recorded in Mk 9:28, 10:10. Although a,su,netoj appears only once in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus’ reproach of his slow-witted disciples can be found in Mk 4 :13, 40, 6:52, 8:14-21. 71 The original meaning of the verse does not suggest that the commandment of men and the commandment of God are rivals to each other. 72 With respect to Isa 29:13c, MT supplies hdmlm ~yvna twcm yta ~tary yhtw, LXX supplies ma,thn de. se,bontai, me dida,skontej evnta,lmata avnqrw,pwn kai. didaskali,aj. Isa 29:13 does not compare human commandments to the commandments given by God. However, the contrast between lip and heart, i.e. outer and inner, was later incorporated into Jesus’ arguments on the real cause of uncleanliness. 73 Mark’s Jesus is against Lev 11:1-47. Cf. France, Mark, p. 277. The remark is strongly reminiscent of Rom 14:14. However, Paul does not take it as Jesus’ logion but his own conviction. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

demonic origin of Jesus’ power. However in this second encounter, the resultant polarisation between the two camps is clear. In the first confrontation, Jesus still uses the 127 metaphor of one house and one country. In the second confrontation, Jesus distinguishes between himself and his followers and the Jewish leaders; Jesus and his followers are those who faithfully interpret (and defend) God’s commandments, but the religious leaders try to replace them with their own inventions.74 Both function as a prelude to the later conflicts between Jesus and the religious authorities in Jerusalem (Mk 11:15-12:40). 5.1.3 Lk 11:37-41

5.1.3.1 Source and Text Criticism The conflict about the custom of washing hands in Lk 11:37-41 has an entirely different introductory scene and discussion flow.75 It remains unclear whether Mark is one of the sources of Lk 11:37-41.76 It is highly likely that Luke consults another source. The Pharisee is reserved and restrained in his silent observation of Jesus’ infringement of the custom of hand-washing, whereas Jesus is proactive in his defence and provocative in his further criticism of the host and his colleagues. Luke also suggests a way of converting from impurity (or superficial religiosity) through almsgiving. His suggestion is consistent with his theological theme that serving God and serving mammon are mutually exclusive (Lk 11:41). There are at least four traditions in Lk 11:37-54: the conflict on the custom of washing hands, the criticism of the Pharisees’ behaviour (not their oral teaching), another criticism of the lawyers’ behaviour (not their opinion on oral teaching) and the resultant hostility towards Jesus and his followers. The text does not consist of many words and semantic constructions that are foreign to Luke.77 There are

74

France, Mark, p. 277. What Luke shares with Mark and Matthew are (i) the conflict starts in a meal setting (Lk 11:37, par Mk 7:2), (ii) the use of the word play on poth,rion and ponhri,a to trigger off the contrast between outward cleanliness and inner evil (Lk 11:39, Mk 7:4, 22), (iii) the issue of true religiosity (Lk 11:39, par Mk 7:3, 15, Mt 15:11). However, Luke’s usage and sequence of words, as well as the text flow, are entirely different from Matthew’s. Luke has grouped the criticism into two categories (against the Pharisees [three criticisms with ouvai.] and scribes [two ouvai.+one criticism]) whereas Matthew organizes them in seven ouvai. according to wisdom tradition (Lk 11:39-41, par Mt 23:25-6 [Q]; Lk 11:42, par Mt 23:23 [Q]; Lk 11:43, par Mt 23:6-7 [Q]; Lk 11:44, par Mt 23:27-28 [Q]; Lk 11:46, par Mt 23:4 [Q]; Lk 11:47-48, par Mt 23:47-48 [Q]; Lk 11:49-51, par Mt 23:34-36 [Q]; Lk 11:52 par Mt 23:13 [Q]). The only verse which the three share is Lk 11:43 = Lk 20:46 par Mk 12:39a, 38b and Mt 23:7. 76 Bovon points out Luke's narrative is inspired by Mark's. Bovon, Lukas 2, pp. 220-222. 77 The words and the construction used in the introductory scene of reclining at table, the main scene of conflict and the final scene of the appeal to give alms are typical Luke’s style of writing, e.g. “En de. plus dative” can also be found in Lk 1:26, 8:24, 10:38. en (de). tw/| plus aorist infinitive (lalh/sai) –in Lk 11:37 resembles the Semitic construction of b plus infinitive constructus. The same construction is found also in Lk 2:27, 3:21, 9:34, 36, 14:1, 19:15, 24:30, Acts 11:15, cf. BDR, Grammatik, 404:1, 3, 4. 75

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

few rare words in the text, but they are constitutive to the theme of cleanliness.78 They 128 suggest the foreign origin of the tradition. Criticism of the position of the oral tradition in relation to the Torah is not found in the text.79 The debate on dietary law is also not found in Luke’s Gospel, although Luke’s Jesus is aware of the purity laws and has the most contact with the ritually impure in the Synoptics.80 Luke must have a reason for deliberately leaving out this discussion.81 There are no major controversies among the textual variants of the text. 5.1.3.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Lk 11:37-41 is placed after Jesus’ teaching about the evil generation (Lk 11:29-32) and the second (and repeated) parable of light (Lk 11:33-36, cf. Lk 8:16-18, which are duplicates). Jesus is named o` ku,rioj in the narrative by the author. 82 The texts immediately preceding and following the conflict in Lk 11:37-41 have a contrast between fw/j and skoti,a (Lk 11:33, 34, 35, 36, 12:3) and between avpokalu,ptw and krupto,j (Lk 11:33, 12:2). The conflict in Lk 11:37-41 does not match the texts surrounding it, unless

Although it is the first time that the Pharisees’ query on Jesus’ behaviour remains unspoken, his reaction qauma,zw is found twelve times in Luke’s Gospel, of which the same reaction from religious leaders is found again in Lk 20:26. ei=pen de. … pro.j appears nineteen times in Luke’s Gospel. ouvc with an expected affirmative answer appears three times in Luke’s Gospel. The appeal for almsgiving is also found in Lk 3:11. The insertion of kai. ivdou (Lk 11:41) in a direct speech, which is used for calling the attention of the partner in dialogue to the subsequent discussion, can also be found in Lk 13:30, 24:49. 78 In Lk 11:37 –Avrista,w,| Lk (1). It means “(having) breakfast”. It could have the Jewish tradition of cleansing in the morning as a background. Some members of the Pharisees bathe in the morning (they are called the morning brothers) before they say their first prayer, while some Pharisees do not, because they hold that bathing cannot clean the impurity inside the body (i.e. the excrement in the intestine). Their reason is similar to Jesus’ argument. Nevertheless, the Pharisees observe hand washing before taking their meal (i.e. breakfast here), see Finkelstein, "The Origin of the Pharisees" in Pharisaism in the Making, pp. 175-176. In Lk 11:39 –to. e;xwqen, Lk (2), which appears only in this text. In Lk 11:39 –pothri,on, Lk (1); ge,mw, Lk (1); a`rpagh, Lk (1); ponhri,a, Lk (1); kaqari,zw, Lk (1). In Lk 11:40 –a;frwn, Lk (2). 79 Luke is not concerned about oral tradition in his Gospel. He has double loyalty: to the Torah and to Jesus’ words (Lk 16:17, Lk 24:33). The same double loyalty can be found in Mt 5:17, 24:35. However Luke and Matthew both argue apologetically about the temporal constraint on the Law’s validity in Jesus’ era. Mark, however, is solely loyal to Jesus’ logia (Mk 13:31). 80 Luke is aware of the issue of the levitical code of purity, cf. Lk 2:22. Luke’s Jesus has one more encounter with death and with virulent skin diseases than his synoptic parallels (Lk 7:14, 17:11-19). 81 Davies & Allison suggest that Luke removes the discussion of dietary law because of its lack of harmonization with Acts, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 528. 82 The frequency with which Luke, as an author, addresses Jesus as Lord is far lower than the times he addresses Jesus by his name. The occasions where Luke (as author) addresses Jesus as Lord are in Lk 7:13, 10:1, 10:4, 11:39, 12:42, 13:15, 17:6, 18:6, 19:31 and 22:61. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

the Pharisees’ seeking of vainglory in public and the lawyers’ building tombs for the prophets (Lk 11:37-54) are treated as counter-examples of what a life of light should be. 129 Lk 11:37-41 is the beginning of a long reproach against the Jewish leaders (Lk 11:3754) that is embedded in a mixed literary form of Greek “Symposium” and Jewish “Woe”. 83 It is a reproach against the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders. It features a morphological contrast between to. e;xwqen and to. e;swqen in Lk 11:39 84 and a ring composition with phonetic parallel about the same theme in Lk 11:40. 85 The episode consists of one scene staged in a meal setting. It records primarily Jesus’ logion in a monologue. Jesus is invited to have a light breakfast or lunch (avrista,w) with a Pharisee, immediately after his teaching on light. Jesus’ deliberate negligence of the custom of washing hands before a meal is supported by his self-defence: the inner is more important than the outer and it is important to be consistent (or clean) about both. The contrast between to. e;xwqen and to. e;swqen is found twice in a syntactic parallel in the defence (Lk 11:39-40). Jesus accounts for the discrepancy in their lack of inner cleansing with kaqari,zete. Their inner greed and wickedness are the cause (Lk 11:39). Notwithstanding the silence of his host, Jesus escalates his defence with his provocative criticism first of his host’s group, the Pharisees (the three woes in Lk 11:42-44), then of lawyers (the three woes, Lk 11:46-48, 52).86 The anonymous host of the meal, a Pharisee, is assimilated with all Pharisees, u`mei/j oi` Farisai/oi. This is the second occasion on which Jesus turns his table fellowship with a Pharisee into a denouncement, but here it is more intense and aggressive (cf. Lk 7:36-50, Lk 11:37-54). Luke uses this episode to elucidate the enmity between Jesus and the Jewish leaders and paves the way to his crucifixion (Lk 11:54). 5.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 15:1-20

Matthew adopts two themes in Mk 7:1-22, but elaborates them further: the debate on the true cause of impurity (Mt 15:10, 17; Mk 7:15, 18-20) and the criticism of the Pharisees’ upholding of the tradition of the elders at the cost of the Torah (Mt 15:3, 6; Mk 7:8-9, 13). He introduces three redactions: Matthew’s Jesus is not so willful in his interpretation of the Torah. Matthew turns down the radicalism of Jesus’ logion on

83

Bovon, Lukas 2, pp. 219-220. Wolter thinks that the narrative is in the forms of a Streitgespräch and a Chrie, Wolter, Lukas, pp. 429-430. 84 Deines points out that the first half of Lk 11:39 quotes the halakha decision of differentiation of "outside" and "inside" with regard to the purity of vessels. It is an alleviation to make Lev 11:33 more practicable for lay people. Given that the vessels were mostly used by women in the household and women are often subject to impurity, this halakha can make the observance of Lev 11:33 easier. Yet, Luke quotes it to mock the Pharisees polemically. Deines, Steingefäße, pp. 245-246. 85 It resembles the teaching of the School of Shammai with respect to its teaching on outward and inner cleanliness. See Bovon, Lukas 2, p. 226. 86 Pharisees and lawyers are joined by the word mnhmei/on (Lk 11:44, 47). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

Levitical dietary laws by removing Mk 7:19.87 However, he builds a stronger unity into his arguments by introducing two inclusions into his narrative, (a)ni,ptai cei/ro,j in Mt 130 15:2 and Mt 15:20 and a ring composition of koinoi/ to.n a;nqrwpon in Mt 15:18-20. Matthew not only buttresses the arguments against the tradition of the elders with two successive syntactic parallels (Mt 15:3, 6), but also tries to totally discredit the authority of the Pharisees with contemporary Greek and Jewish metaphors (Mt 15:13-14).88 His reproach of the Pharisees is an outburst in response to the disciples’ observant but casual remark about the Pharisees’ reaction to his logion, which is only recorded once in the whole Gospel. The Pharisees are shocked by Jesus’ logion and the disciples are disturbed by the Pharisees’ reaction (Mt 15:12). Matthew consolidates and expands the list of vices according to the second half of the Ten Commandments.89 yeudomarturi,a is added to the list of vices springing from the heart. Matthew’s redaction differs from Luke’s in three ways: both Matthew and Mark attribute the origin of the critics to avpo. ~Ierosolu,mwn, the “Supreme Court”, whereas Luke does not care about their origin. Luke is not even interested in the identity of the Pharisee. He is just a Pharisee. Luke does not see the issue of purity as a core conflict between the earthly Jesus and the Jewish leaders from Jerusalem. Both Matthew and Mark report that Jesus’ disciples do not wash their hands before eating, whereas Luke writes that Jesus himself does not wash his hands. Matthew and Mark understand the custom of hand-washing as an example of the dispute on the status of the traditions of the elders in relation to the Torah, whereas Luke is not concerned about this question. Rather, he proceeds immediately to the question of ethical purity. The debate on the purity issue is postponed to Acts 10:1-48, 11:1-18 and 15:1-29. Luke considers the question of purity to belong more to the early Christian community than to the time of the earthly Jesus.

87

It is also plausible that the remarks in Mk 7:19b are a later addendum by the early Christian community not known to Matthew, although no textual witnesses provide proof of this supposition. Konradt points out that in the narrative of Jesus’ healing of the two demon-possessed men in Gadara, the redactional phrase makra.n avpV auvtw/n in Mt 8:30 shows that Matthew’s Jesus keeps his distance from pigs. It shows that the Matthean community observed the dietary law. See Konradt, "Die vollkommene Erfüllung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium" in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im neuen Testament, p. 144. 88 Luz points out that dia. th.n para,dosin u`mw/n is ambiguous. It may mean the separation of the Matthean community from the Jewish counterpart, Luz, Matthäus 2, pp. 421-422. However, it is also likely that Matthew is setting “your (the Pharisees’) tradition” as being against the “Torah”. This is because not all traditions from other Jewish schools are against the Torah. 89 All Matthew’s vices are in the plural, while half of Mark’s vices are in the singular and half are in the plural (the first half of Mark’s vices are specific and the second half are abstract). Four of the vices in Mt 15:19 appear again in Mt 19:18 almost in the same order. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

5.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 19:1-12 5.2.1Mt 19:1-12

5.2.1.1 Source and Text Criticism Paul’s quotation of Jesus’ logion in 1 Cor 7:10 suggests that the earthly Jesus is against divorce and the remarriage of divorcees. The same opinion is also found in Mark’s Gospel (Mk 10:11-12). Nevertheless, there remain doubts about whether Mark (Mk 10:1-12) is the source of Mt 19:1-9.90 The main argument against Mark’s priority is the way Matthew’s Pharisees put the question of divorce to Jesus. The question presupposes that divorce is an established practice. Mark’s Pharisees, however, do not have this presupposition. 91 The section immediately following Mt 19:1-9 is about celibacy, which is a Sondergut of Matthew (Mt 19:10-12). However, the doubt can be cleared up. It is known that in Jesus’ time (even if Galilee was not under Roman rule), divorce was allowed.92 The question should rather be: why do the Pharisees deliberately pose this question to Jesus, although they (and surely Mark also) know that there are permitted and convenient ways to divorce (Mk 10:2-3)? Matthew’s insertion of his Sondergut (Mt 19:10-12) after Mt 19:1-9 does not preclude that Mt 19:1-9 has Mk 10:112 as its source. There are three major textual variants in Mt 19:1-12, but they are deemed unimportant. (i) Is the emphasis in the debate placed on the persons involved in divorce or divorce itself?93 (ii) The strength and intensity of the bond between a man and his wife in marriage.94 90

See discussion in Davies & Allison, Matthew III, pp. 4-5, Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 90-91. kata. pa/san aivti,an (Mt 19:3) may have its background in the same discussion (Deut 24:1) between Hillel and Shammai, b.Git 90a. 92 Unlike the Jewish tradition which gives the husband the sole right to divorce, the Roman laws permitted the wife to have the same right, Jos. Ant 18:254. The laws of the Jews and the Romans both permitted remarriage after divorce. Deut 24:1-5 forbids only a divorced but remarried woman to marry her divorced husband again. 93 The reading of NA25, Codices X*, B, L, G supply eiv e;xestin| avpolu/saith.n gunai/ka auvtou/ kata. pa/san aivti,anÈ without avnqrw,pw in Mt 19:3. Luz points out avnqrw,pw is not found in the Alexandrian texts because “der Kurztext ist eine fast ausschliesslich ägyptische Lesart”, Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 89, note 1. The version with avnqrw,pw is preferred. 94 Codices X, C, K. L, Z, G, D etc supply proskollhqh,setai instead of kollhqh,setai in Mt 19:5. The former stresses a faithful and tight connection, the latter means “joining to”. Codex D supplies o] ou=n o` qeo.j sune,zeuxen ei/j e;n( a;nqrwpoj mh. cwrize,tw in Mt 19:6. ei/j e;n emphasizes the unity as one. Given that Jesus’ subsequent argument stresses the insolubility of marriage, proskollhqh,setai fits Jesus’ argument better but not the standpoint of his opponents. It could be a later attempt to strengthen Jesus’ standpoint. 91

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

131

Tradition of the Elders

(iii) The appearance of parekto.j lo,gou pornei,aj in many textual witnesses about the definition of an adulterer or adulteress. Are divorcees themselves, whose divorce 132 is not caused by the adultery of the spouse, considered to be adulterers or adulteresses when they remarry? The insertion of parekto.j lo,gou pornei,aj is probably a harmonisation with Mt 5:32.95 The textual variants show that not only are the legitimate grounds for divorce under debate, but also remarriage after divorce, which is considered adultery. Remarriage is not just considered a possibility open to divorcees, but is also a reason for divorce.96 The variants show a later modification of Jesus’ logion in Mark’s Gospel, with respect to the social reality of their time. 5.2.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mt 19:1-12 offers a shift in the geographical region of Jesus’ ministry. The text is sandwiched between Jesus’ second and third foretelling of his crucifixion and resurrection on the way from Galilee to Jerusalem (Mt 17:22, Mt 20:17-19). It records his first conflict with the Pharisees in Judaea, a new region that Matthew’s Jesus does not enter until this point. 97 Although Mt 19:1-12 has a weak semantic link with the immediately preceding and following sections,98 Matthew forges a stronger thematic link between Mt 19:10-12 and Mt 19:13-30 by relating them to the discussion of the essential qualification to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Does marital status matter in the Kingdom of God? It is under this context that the conflict on divorce is retold. In Mt 19:1-12, the question of divorce is successively raised by Jesus’ critics and followers. It is the only occasion in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus’ critics and followers share the same view, that divorce is allowed. Jesus’ answer to them is essentially the same: the only legitimate 95

Mt 19:9 contains many textual variants, e.g. Codex N supplies o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ mh. evpi. pornei,a| moica/tai. Codex C*, pc supply o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ mh. evpi. pornei,a| kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn poiei authn moiceuqhnai. Codex B, Manuscript family 1 supply a version which is harmonized with Mt 5:32: o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ parekto.j lo,gou pornei,aj poiei/ auvth.n moiceuqh/nai... Codex D, Manuscript family 13 supply another harmonization with Mt 5:32 o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ parekto.j lo,gou pornei,aj kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/tai. Codices B, Z and Majority text of Byzantine supply o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ mh. evpi. pornei,a| kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/tai kai. o[ avpolelumenhn gamh,saj moica/tai while Codices C*, W, Q also supply a similar version. It makes the divorced wife who remarries an adultress o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ mh. evpi. pornei,a| kai. gamwn| a;llhn moica/tai kai. o[ avpolelumenhn gamh,saj moica/tai. 96 Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 99. 97 See Gnilka, Matthäus 2, p.151. Mt 19:1a is one of the standard constructions of section division in Matthew’s Gospel, i.e. kai. evge,neto o[te evte,lesen o` VIhsou/j …( meth/ren. It is also found in Mt 11:1, 13:53, 19:1 and 26:1. 98 The only semantic link with the preceding section: lu,w in Mt 18:18 and a,polu,w in Mt 18:27, Mt 19:3. The semantic link with the immediately following section: h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n in Mt 19:12, Mt 19:14, evnte,llomai, in Mt 19:7 and h, evntolh, in Mt 19:17. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

ground for divorce is adultery. God’s original intention is that the marital bond should be indissoluble. Matthew stresses the original intention by quoting Gen 1:17, 2:24 in an 133 narrative unit bracketed by avpV avrch/j (Mt 19:4, 8). The priority of the marital status prevails. For the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, divorce is not necessary for those who are already married (Mt 19:11, 19:29, cf. 1 Cor 7:10, see also 1 Cor 9:5).99 Unlike his source Mark, no more hints from the variants of textual witnesses or from Matthew’s redaction suggest that the question of divorce could have been raised by the crowds, not by the Pharisees.100 Unlike the ambiguity of the legitimacy of divorce raised in Mk 10:2, Matthew presupposes that divorce is allowed and is institutionalised, although the grounds for divorce might be problematic (Mt 19:3, 19:7).101 The question posed by Matthew’s Pharisees is a modification of Mk 10:2, regarding the legitimate grounds for divorce, kata. pa/san aivti,an. (Mt 19:3, in singular form, i.e. one cause only).102 Matthew’s Jesus replies that divorce is but a compromise with reality, at the cost of the original intention of the Torah.103 He follows Mk 10:5 in using sklhrokardi,a as the reason for divorce. In LXX, sklhrokardi,a suggests inobservance of the covenant, which is semantically analogous to the uncircumcised in a non-physical sense. 104 99

Matthew’s Jesus leaves out the renunication of the spouse in Mt 19:29 when Jesus mentions about the reward to renunciation of relationships for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Cf. Mt 10:34-35, conflicts between spouses is also left out in the dissension caused by Jesus in a family. Celibacy is a hot issue in the early Christian community. However, according to the Old Testament, celibacy is considered an act which diminishes the image of God. People who remain single cannot fulfill God’s blessing of procreation (Gen 1:28). In the rabbinic literature, people who do not (because of homosexuality) or cannot engage themselves (because of castration) in procreation are castigated (Tos Jeb 8:4). 100 In Mk 10:2, Codex D, Manuscript 1661 and 2615 do not supply the subject for evphrw,twn. Manuscript 443, 496, 2446 supply kai, prose,lqontej. All these manuscripts imply the one who raises the question to Jesus is not necessarily from the Pharisees. 101 Cf. Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 92. Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 155. 102 The syntax of the question and answer here is similar to Mt 12:10: Jesus’ negative answer is expected and his answer is further used to accuse the opponents. Davies & Allison also ask what Matthew means by peira,zw in Mt 19:3, if the issue of divorce falls into the traditional school debate between Hillel and Shammai. They suggest that Jesus’ opponents may attempt to demote Jesus or expose his contradiction to the Torah by asking him a difficult question. See also Mt 19:7. Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 5, p. 8. 103 The provision of divorce is treated as part of the civic rights. It was regarded as a privilege of Israelites as compared with the other nations in the time of its promulgation. Haacker points out that Jesus has attempted to resolve the issues arising from the execution of (i) the prohibition against divorce, (ii) commandment for nuptial purity, i.e. the married couple could not have sexual relationships together anymore, if one of them had committed adultery outside marriage. See Haacker, "Ehescheidung und Wiederverheiratung im Neuen Testament", ThQ 151 (1971), pp. 28-38. Nevertheless, what Jesus teaches about divorce and marriage is not the same as the contemporary practices, cf. 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6, which imply polygamy, 11 QTemple 57:17-19 prohibits both polygamy and divorce. 104 In Mt 19:8 –sklhrokardi,a, Mt (1), Mk (2). One of its two appearances is found in the longer ending (inauthentic) of Mark's Gospel, i.e. Mk 16:14. The word appears two times in Deut 10:16 and Jer 4:4 of LXX, which is a translation of (!wkldqw) !wkbyl twvpj. –stupidity of (your) heart(s) in Targum (Deut 10:16) or !wkbl [vr –your evil hearts in Targum (Jer 4:4) and ~kbbl tlr[ –foreskin(s) in (your) hearts in Deut 10:16 and Jer 4:4 in the Hebrew Bible. The main verb involved in both verses (Deut 10:16, Jer 4:4) is to The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

Matthew’s Jesus expands his teaching against the remarriage of divorcees, which is an allowable reason for divorce in his time (Mt 14:1-4).105 Both parties support their view 134 with citations from the Old Testament (Gen 1:27, 2:24, Deut 24:1).106 Jesus’ answers to the Pharisees’ two questions are in an inclusion bracketed by avpV avrch/j (Mt 19:4, 8). At the end of the first school debate, Jesus gives his sole legitimate grounds for divorce, i.e. evpi. pornei,a| in Mt 19:9, which is essentially the same as his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:32). Here, Jesus shares the opinion of Shammai. 107 The position of circumcise –perite,mnw –lwm (Deut 10:16 and Jer 4:4) rws (in Jer 4:4). The Israelites themselves are the subject of the act of circumcision in Deut 10:16 and Jer 4:4. sklhrokardi,a is a synonym describing the Israelites unfaithfulness to their covenant in heart and in spirit, despite their circumcision in the flesh (cf. Lev 26:41-42). The word also appears in Wisdom literature, i.e. in Sir 16:10, sklhrokardi,a means obstinacy. See also Ezek 3:7. sklhro.j th.n kardi,an in Prov 28:14 means those who do not fear God. The same Hebrew expression of foreskin of the heart (~kbbl tlr[) is found also in prophetic writings but in different Greek translations. It could be said that sklhrokardi,a and avperi,tmhtoj kardi,a are synonymous. In Ezek 44:7, 9, avperi,tmhtoj kardi,a| kai. avperi,tmhtoj sarki. or rfb lr[w bl lr[ (Hebrew) is used to describe Gentiles, who are called uncircumcised in heart and in flesh, but the Greek translation is different. In Jer 9:25, the Aramaic supplies !whbylb !ylr[, MT supplies bl-ylr[, and LXX supplies avperi,tmhtoi kardi,aj. They refer to Israelites who are uncircumcised in the heart, in comparison to the people who are uncircumcised in the flesh. A similar usage of the translated term is found in Lev 26:41 where h` kardi,a auvtw/n h` avperi,tmhtoj is supplied by LXX for avpj !whbl in Aramaic and lr[h ~bbl in Hebrew. Deut 30:6 is the only occasion that God is the one who circumcises the heart of the Israelites – perikaqariei/ ku,rioj th.n kardi,an sou. Likewise, in Acts 15:9, God is the subject who cleanses the hearts of the Gentiles - th/| pi,stei kaqari,saj ta.j kardi,aj auvtw/n. Another synonym for sklhrokardi,a could be evnqu,mhma th/j kardi,aj in LXX, a translation of –~bl twrrv stubbornness of heart. Cf. Jer 3:17, 7:24, 9:14, 11:8, 13:10, 16:12, 18:12, 23:17. It is noted that not all the named verses in Jeremia in LXX supply evnqu,mhma th/j kardi,aj as a translation of [rh ~bl twrrv. Other synomyms are provided, e.g. kardi,aj auvtw/n th/j kakh/j (Jer 9:14), tw/n avrestw/n th/j kardi,aj u`mw/n, (Jer 11:8, 13:10, 16:12), ta. avresta. th/j kardi,aj (Jer 18:12) and tw/| poreuome,nw| pla,nh| kardi,aj (Jer 23:17). For Philo, sklhro,j is used to describe ground which is too hard and too rocky. See Philo Spec 3:34. For Plutarch, it describes people who are rigid, forbidding and uncultivated, Plut. Kimon & Lucullus 1:2. See also the similar expression ybl twryrv in 1QS 2:12, 26, 3:3, 5:4-5, 7:21, 26, 9:10, 4Q 256 5:4, 4Q 257 1, 3:4-5, 4Q 258 1, 1:4. The expression of uncircumcised foreskins can also be found in other texts in Qumran; the foreskin of the heart bbl tlrw[ can be found in 1QS 5:25. The foreskin of inclination rcy tlrw[ can be found in 1 QS 5:5. The foreskin of the lips tpv lwr[ can be found in 1QHa 10:6, 18. All mean inobservance of the Torah and need to be circumcised. 105 Dam 4:20, Jos. Ant 18:109-115. 106 Gen 2:18 contains the ideal of an androgynous man, i.e. when God first created man, he created him as both man and woman in one inseparable being. Hence, marriage is insoluble and divorce does not dissolve this bond between the man and the woman. With this understanding, not only remarriage but also polygamy is considered adultery, cf. Gen. Rabba on Gen 1:26, Daube, New Testament and Judaism, pp. 7079. Philo does not use Gen 2:24 to argue that marriage is insoluble. For him, marriage is only an extreme form of partnership. See Philo QG 29. Likewise, the Qumran community uses Gen 1:27 to forbid polygamy, not divorce. See CDA 4:21, 5:1. 107 See also b.Git 90a. The narrative about Joseph’s strong hestitation to take Mary as his wife reflects the same principle (Mt 1:19), i.e. divorce is only allowed when either partner commits adultery. Shammai holds that a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her. Hillel however maintains that a man may divorce his wife even when she spoils a dish for him. This is because love is no longer found in the relationship. According to rabbinic teaching, a husband can divorce his wife when she denies conjugal rights to her husband or when she refuses to perform the seven household duties (b.Ket 59b, 63a). Cf. Lev 18:18. The Qumran community prohibits polygamy and divorce. See 11Q 56:18, 57:17-18. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition Tradition of of the the Elders Elders

Matthew’s Jesus on divorce and remarriage after divorce is stricter than the Torah (Deut 24:1).108 Unlike Mark’s Gospel, in which the teaching against divorce and remarriage is 135 given exclusively to the disciples, Jesus’ logion on divorce is held publicly in Matthew’s Gospel and so is applicable to both those asking the questions (the Pharisees) and the disciples.109 The narrative of Jesus’ logion on celibacy is a reflection on how to apply his teaching on divorce to discipleship. Hence, Matthew’s Jesus says it privately, only to his disciples.110 His second logion about celibacy is linked to the former with h` aivti,a (Mt 19:3, 10) and game,w (Mt 10:9, 10, which is in contrast to avpolu,w in Mt 19:3, 7, 8, 9). The teaching is in a narrative unit bracketed by cwre,w (Mt 19:1-12). It starts with syntactical and morphological parallels between cwre,w and di,dwmi (Mt 19:11-12). The logion is presented in three ascending grades of physical potency and self-determination, featured with strong phonetic parallels between euvnou/coi and euvnouci,zw. 111 The two words emerge again in transposition at the end (Mt 19:12). The end of the discussion is its climax: self-determined and self-imposed celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven is not for all but for a selected few (Mt 19:12). This theme is not new; the importance of the earthly, biological family is relativised for the sake of the Kingdom of God.112 The new horizon of a family joined together by the same wish to do the will of God is opened up (Mt 12:46-50).

Vermes, "Sectarian Matrimonial Halakhah in the Damascan Rule" in Studies in Jewish Legal History, pp. 197-202. 108 Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees’ challenge is his exegesis of Gen 1:27, 2:24 and his explanation on the measure to be adopted, a state that falls short of the ideal of creation (Mt 19:6, 8). Jesus’ argument agrees also with Mal 2:15-16 and Jer 3:1-10. Cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew III, pp. 13-16, Konradt, "Die vollkommene Erfüllung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium" in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im neuen Testament, p. 138. 109 In fact, Mt 19:1-9 is the second time Jesus mentions divorce and adultery publicly. The text is an expansion of Jesus’ logia on divorce in his Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:31-32), in which Jesus quotes six instances to show the close proximity of his interpretations to the original intention of the Torah (Mt 5:2148, in the construction of VHkou,sate o[ti evrre,qh… evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n o[ti). Mt 19:1-9 is an elaborated version of the parallel text in Mt 5:31-32. According to Lev 21:9, only the priests are forbidden to marry divorced women, not Jewish laymen, nor the Levites. 110 Why isn't Peter the one who raises the question? Is it because Peter is married (Mt 8:14)? See also Gnilka, Matthäus 2, p. 154. 111 In Mt 19:12 –euvnou/coi, Mt (3); euvnouci,zw, Mt (2). 112

Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 6. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

5.2.2 Mk 10:1-12

5.2.2.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 10:1-12 is the first part of the Catechismal Collection in Mk 10:1-45, in which the codes of conduct and practices of the early Hellenistic Jewish Christian community are collected.113 It contains a Jewish school debate in Mk 10:2-9 and Jesus’ logion in Mk 10:11-12. The latter probably belongs to a relatively widespread pre-Markan tradition (cf. 1 Cor 7:10).114 It is uncertain whether the interpretation of the Old Testament in Mk 10:9 and the law forbidding the remarriage of divorced women in Mk 10:12 belong to Mark’s redaction or pre-Markan oral traditions.115 Mark’s redaction can be found in his framing of the narrative in the debate in Mk 10:1-2a and in Jesus’ private logion to his followers in Mk 10:10.

113

Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 70. Also, Mark’s statement about the remarriage of a divorced wife reflects a strong Hellenistic background of legal rights in remarriage of both sexes. See also Pesch, Markus 2, pp. 128-129. 114 The text also contains substantial elements that are foreign to Mark, which hints at a pre-Markan tradition: In Mk 10:1 –o;cloj without an article appears three times in Mark's Gospel, i.e. Mk 3:32, 5:24, 10:1; sumporeu,omai, Mk (1); w`j eivw,qei pa,lin, Mk (1). However, Mark uses many synonyms to describe the surging of a crowd toward Jesus: sune,rcomai in Mk 3:20, suna,gw in Mk 5:21, sunqli,bw in Mk 5:24, evpisuntre,cw in Mk 9:25. With respect to the theme: In Mk 10:2 –avndri. gunai/ka avpolu/sai, Mk (3), all appear in this section, although avpoluw appears twelve times in Mark’s Gospel, in Mk 10:12 –moica/omai, Mk (2), all are found in Mk 10:1-12. The three verses from the Old Testament which Mark quotes contain mostly words which are not used by Mark often: In Mk 10:4 –bibli,on avpostasi,ou, Mk (1) (the same in Deut 24:1, 3, LXX) is a translation of ttyrk rps. In Mk 10:6 –a;rsen kai. qh/lu, Mk (1) (the same in Gen 1:27 LXX) is a translation of hbqnw rkz. In Mk 10:7 –proskolla,w, Mk (1) (the same in Gen 2:24, LXX) is a translation of qbd. In Mk 10:8 –(oi` du,o) eivj sa,rka mi,an, Mk (1) (the same in Gen 2:24, LXX) is a translation of dxa rvbl. In Mk 10:2 –peira,zw, Mk (4); the word is Matthew’s favourite verb for describing the motive of Jesus’ opponents (six times). It is probable that three out of four of Mark’s peira,zw are harmonization with Matthew’s text, i.e. Mk 8:11, 10:2 and 12:15. This is because there is a lack of further reference to the opponents’ motive of testing in Mark’s text but in the parallel texts in Matthew’s Gospel, the motive is further elaborated. In Mk 10:5 –sklhrokardi,a, Mk (2), the noun appears also in Mk 16:14, which is inauthentic in the shorter version of Mark’s Gospel. In Mk 10:9 –sunzeu,gnumi, Mk (1), cwri,zw, Mk (1). The following words used in scene development belong to Mark. prose,rcomai, Mk (5); evparwta,w, Mk (25); e;xestin, Mk (10); avrch/j kti,sewj, Mk (2); {Eneken, Mk (5); eivj th.n oivki,an: Mk (3). 115 From Mt 5:28 and Lk 16:18, one could suggest that the prohibition of remarriage for divorced women could be Mark’s redaction or the earliest teaching among the Synoptics, cf. Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 70. According to the Egyptian and Roman laws, women have the same right as men with respect to divorce. See also Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 21. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

136

Tradition of the Elders

There are three major textual variants in Mk 10:1-12. (i) Whether the question of divorce is raised by Pharisees or by the crowd.116 (ii) The legal status of the letter of divorce as compared to other commandments.117 (iii) Attempts to clarify whether a divorcee of either sex is forbidden from remarrying.118 Some textual variants hint that the question of divorce could first have been raised by the crowd but not by the Pharisees. Jesus’ internal arguments against divorce support this suggestion.119 5.2.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mk 10:1-12 is placed after Jesus departs from Galilee and enters Judaea, the places where Jesus announces his passion for the second and third time, respectively (Mk 9:3032, Mk 10:32-34). The text is part of Jesus’ logia to his followers about true leadership, qualifications for entering the Kingdom of God and the cost and returns of discipleship in light of his passion. The theme about divorce does not fit well with the other themes in this section and it is not connected semantically with the preceding and following teachings.120

116

Codex D, Manuscript 1661 and 2615 do not supply the subject for evphrw,twn. Manuscript 443, 496, 2446 supply kai, prose,lqontej. All these manuscripts imply the one who raises the question to Jesus is not necessarily from the Pharisees. However, all available textual witnesses agree on the integrity of peira,zontej auvto,n to the narrative in Mk 10:2c. 117 Manuscript family 1 supplies the reading of Mwsh/j evne,teilato instead of Mwsh/j evpe,treyen in Mk 10:4. As a number of Codices supply Mwsh/j evpe,treyen, NA27 is adopted here. 118 auvth. is unclear in Mk 10:11: whether it refers to the first wife the man divorces or the second wife whom the man marries after the divorce. It is more plausible that it refers to the latter. This is because Mk 10:11 does not mention if the divorced first wife remarries. The textual variants in Mk 10:12 provided by Codices A, D, Q are essentially different formulations of the same meaning, i.e., when a woman divorces her husband (Codex A) or runs away from her husband (Codex D) and marries another, she commits adultery. NA27 is to be followed here. 119 u`mi/n (Mk 10:3) refers more to the Jews (the crowd) than the Pharisees. This is because when Moses first instituted divorce because of th.n sklhrokardi,an u`mw/n (Deut 24:1, 3), the Pharisees as a party did not exist at all. Furthermore, if e;xestin means “is it allowed?” and not “is it legally permitted?”, the inquirers are asking for the grounds for divorce, not the way to divorce. The discussion about divorce and remarriage could take place anytime when Jesus teaches the public or his disciples in general, not necessarily in an open debate with the Jewish authorities. However, all available textual witnesses supply the Pharisees as the inquirers who raise the issue of divorce. Also, no textual witnesses disagree on peira,zontej auvto,n in Mk 10:2c, which also appears in Mt 22:35. It could be a harmonization between Mark and Matthew. 120 avpoko,ptw is found in Mk 9:43, 45. evkba,llw is found in Mk 9:47. avpolu,w is found in Mk 10:2, 4, 11, 12. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

137

Tradition of the Elders

Mark directs Jesus’ logion (Mk 10:1-12) against the polygamy found in his days.121 It is one of the three occasions in the Gospel of Mark that Jesus is tested by the Jewish 138 leaders.122 The text is composed of two of Jesus’ teachings of unequal length, which start with by evphrw,twn auvto.n. Jesus’ first logion is formed of two syntactic parallels, in which the contrasting word pair mi,a and du,o and the synonymous word pair suzeu,gnumi and mh. cwri,zw are found (Mk 10:7-9). The second logion is in a single ring composition (Mk 10:11-12) with avpolu,w kai. game,w and moica,omai as cause and consequence. The two logia are held together by the same theme of gunai/ka avpolu/sai (Mk 10:2, 11). The first logion is a long unit of a school debate on divorce between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in public (Mk 10:2-9). Both sides quote from the Old Testament from LXX (Mk 10:5-8, cf. Gen 2:24, Deut 24:1, 3, 4) to support their views, but Jesus makes the deciding conclusion at the end (Mk 10:9).123 The second logion is a much shorter unit in Jesus’ private teaching to the disciples about remarriage after divorce (Mk 10:10-12). He denies the legitimacy of remarriage and calls it adultery. 5.2.3 Lk 16:18

5.2.3.1 Source and Text Criticism Jesus’ saying on divorce (Lk 16:18) is included in Lk 16:16-18, which is the only notable discussion of the status of the law in Luke’s Gospel.124 The section contains a logion of Jesus whose content and context remain an unsolved puzzle. 125 Many New Testament exegetes agree that Lk 16:16-17 comes from Q, but the discussion of where the verses are positioned in their source is inconclusive.126 The content of Lk 16:18 is very near to Mk 10:11-12,127 as neither Mark nor Luke mention the exceptional case of 121

see Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 73. Klinghardt points out that Mk 10:11 presupposes that the marriage partners are obliged to remain faithful to each other. Klinghardt, Gesetz und Gottes Volk, p. 88. 122 Mk 8:11, 10:2, 12:15. 123 Gnilka suggests that the citation from LXX may hint that the teaching was first addressed to Hellenistic Jewish-Christian circles, Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 70. 124 Wilson, Law, p. 43. 125 The parallels of Lk 16:16-18 are dispersed in Matthew's Gospel: Lk 16:16 has its parallel in Mt 11:12-13. Lk 16:17 may relate to Mt 5:18 and Lk 16:18 may relate to Mt 5:32. See Wolter, Lukas, pp.554-557. Verheyden suggests that Q 16:16 reflects the opinion of the critics on Christian missions, i.e. The Christians no longer accept the Torah. Q 16:17-18 represent the reply of the Q Christians, which is formulated as a general principle (Q 16:17) and then illustrated with an example (Q 16:18). See Verheyden, “The Violators of the Kingdom of God: Struggling with Q Polemics in Q 16:1618” in Jesus, Paul and Early Christianity, pp. 399-413, Klinghardt is of the opinion that "in Lk 16:16 äussert sich Lk in einem nicht unmittelbar durchschaubaren Zusammenhang zu Geltungsdauer und Funktion des Gesetzes." See Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 14-23, especially notes 1, 2 of p. 15. 126 Bovon, Lukas 3, p. 91. Neirynck holds that the source is Q. Neirynck, Q Parallels, p. 57. Klinghardt holds that Matthew retains Mt 11:12, Lk 16:16 (Q) in its original context, but Mt 5:18, Lk 16:17 belong to different tradition. See Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 17, and note 6, and p. 18 and note 14. 127 Lk 16:18 has many parallel texts. See discussion in Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 20. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

adultery as a legitimate ground for divorce, nor do they mention the consequence of such divorce for the divorced wife.128 However, Luke has one small agreement with Matthew 139 (but not Mark), that the remarriage of the divorced woman is not mentioned. An analysis of the word form and sequence shows that Lk 16:18 is nearer to Mt 5:32, a saying which reappears in Mt 19:9 in different words.129 The final redaction shows much of Luke’ own style. 130 Lk 16:18 does not contain words unusual to Luke. 131 It hints that Luke may reproduce Jesus’ logion in his own words or make a redaction. However, it is unlikely that Luke has his own Sondergut in this place, as all of the evangelists share the same position against remarriage: they are stricter than Torah and their Jewish counterparts. According to the Torah, only the priests are forbidden from marrying divorced women (Lev 21:7, 13). The text does not have any major textual variants. 5.2.3.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Lk 16:18 is the only logion of Jesus on remarriage and adultery in Luke’s Gospel. It is syntactically parallel with the transposition of avpolu,w of man and woman and the same consequence: gamw/n moiceu,ei, the remarriage of divorcees means adultery. Unlike the parallel texts in Mark and Matthew, Luke’s Jesus does not forbid divorce, but he agrees with Mark and Matthew’s Jesus in disapproving of remarriage after divorce.132 However, in Lk 16:18 Jesus’ logion is awkwardly joined to Lk 16:16-17 with the slender binding thread of “law”.133 This loose joining of the disparate teachings may show pre-Lukan traditions.134 128

The differences between Mt 5:32, 19:9 and Mk 5:32 and Lk 16:18 are (i) Matthew mentions a legitimate ground for divorce in both verses: parekto.j lo,gou pornei,aj (Mt 5:32), mh. evpi. pornei,a| (Mt 19:9). (ii) In Mt 5:32, the consequence of ‘illegitimate’ divorce is mentioned (i.e. divorce not because of unchastity of either partner may result in adultery): first for the divorced wife, then for the divorced man, who remarry. In Mt 19:9, only the consequence of the illegitimate divorce and remarriage of the man is pointed out. In Mk 10:11-12, divorce is not condemned, but remarriage of the divorced party is condemned. According to Lk 16:18, only the divorced man who marries again or any man who marries a divorced woman is condemned as committing adultery. The remarriage of a divorced wife is not mentioned in Luke’s Gospel. Bovon explains that Mark's text could reflect the practice of divorce according to the Roman laws, cf. Bovon, Lukas 3, p. 92. 129 Nearly 70% of the words (their grammatical form and their sequence) of Lk 16:18a agree with Mt 5:32a and Mt 19:9a. 90% of the words Luke uses can be found in Mark's Gospel, although they are written in different grammatical forms. His sequence of the words is the same as Mark’s. 130 One example is the insertion of pa/j in Luke’s redaction: pa/j o]j a'n o`mologh,sh| evn evmoi… in Lk 12:8. See also Pa/j o` avpolu,wn in Lk 16:18, cf. o]j a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka in Mk 10:11. 131 In Lk 16:18 –avpolu,w, Lk (13); game,w, Lk (6); moiceu,w, Lk (3). 132 The problem of divorce and remarriage is a concern in the early Christian community, cf. 1 Cor 7:10-11. See also Herm. mand 4:1-6. 133 Cf. Wolter, Lukas, p. 556, Tuckett, Griesbach, p. 154. 134 Daube points out that polygamy was used as an example to explain how the steadfastness of the Law should be guarded against human practices: Simeon ben Johai, who went up to heaven to charge The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

Why does Luke put these isolated verses about the Torah and remarriage together (Lk 16:16-18)? Some New Testament scholars refer to the widespread metaphor of adultery 140 in the Old Testament: Israel is unfaithful to the covenant with Yahweh. She is engaged in idol worship, an act that is analogous to adultery. The metaphor is regarded as a hermeneutical clue to explain the position of Lk 16:18 in the textual context.135 Following this argument, the prohibition of adultery represents undivided faith in and reverence of the Torah (Lk 16:17). However, two limitations to this thesis can be found: The metaphor of adultery refers to the idol worship of the Israelites (i.e., it is against the monotheism of the worship of Yahweh) in the Old Testament, not their inobservance of the Torah. Lk 16:18 speaks primarily about remarriage, not divorce.136 Unlike the parallel version in Mark and contrary to his own knowledge of the equal rights to divorce held by men and women in the Roman Empire, Luke here refers to the man as the instigator of divorce and remarriage twice (cf. Mk 10:10-12, see also Mt 5:32, 19:9). Does Luke revert here to the Jewish law of divorce and remarriage or does he have another literary motive? Luke may use this section (Lk 16:14-18) to discuss the tension between the Torah and the contemporary religious and political authorities and to assert the primacy of the former over the latter two. The examples he uses discuss the coveting of another’s property, which are counter-examples to the previous discussion (Lk 16:9-12), greed for money in Lk 16:13 and greed for another’s wife (divorced woman) in Lk 16:18.137 The two examples are linked by Lk 16:16-17.138 Luke’s Jesus describes John’s role in the temporal transition from the law and Prophets to the Kingdom of God in Lk 16:16, but he stresses the perpetuity of the Torah in Lk 16:17. Lk 16:17 is likely to be a correction to

Solomon, the King, with annulling a yod (y) in the precepts. Instead of hbry (a)l –he shall not multiply wives (to himself), Solomon read hbrl –to multiply wives (for himself). Such a cancellation of yod (y) makes law against polygamy void. God, however, judges that Solomon and a thousand like him will perish. See Midrash Rabbah Exod. on 6.1 and Daube, New Testament and Judaism, pp. 298-299. The saying of Simeon ben Johai is about the forbidden polygamy, i.e. having more wives when the first wife is still alive. The issue under discussion by Matthew/Mark is about forbidden divorce and remarriage after divorce, and by Luke forbidden remarriage and in particular remarrying a divorcee after divorce (cf. Mt 5:32, Lev 21:7). Q however discusses about forbidden divorce, not the forbidden remarriage after divorce. Cf Lk 16:18 [Q]. Wolter points out that the teaching against remarriage could have taken place in the early church, where many Christians divorced their spouses who were not Christians (cf. 1 Cor 7:10, 11b-16). The problem remains whether these divorced Christians could remarry other Christian divorcees. Wolter, Lukas, p. 557. Cf. Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, pp. 88-89. He suggests that Lk 16:18 is „eine typische pharisäische Ausdehnung von Priestervorschriften auf Laien ... Das Gesetz soll umfassend und in phariäischem Verständnis eingehalten werden.“ 135 Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 86, note 4. Wilson holds that Lk 16:18 "is less an abrogation and more an intensification of the law and as such akin to the scribal 'building as hedge around the law'". Wilson, Law, p. 46. 136 Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 86. 137 Klinghindt pointed out that "Ehebruch ist dort verstanden als Eigentumsdelikt". See Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 87. 138 See Klinghardt for another interpretation, Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 19. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

any misunderstanding that the law is transitory with the emergence of the Kingdom.139 141 The law can be challenged, but its perpetuity is upheld. Another reason for the sudden insertion of John and his role in Lk 16:16 can be elucidated as follows. The teachings in Lk 16:14-15, 18 are parallel in content to Lk 3:1014, 19. A shift of the speaker from John the Baptist to Jesus and an escalation of the issues takes place. In Lk 3:10-13, John encourages the people to share their possessions with the needy. In Lk 3:19, John confronts Herod’s relationship with Herodias. His theme is later taken up by Jesus. In Lk 16:14, Jesus criticises the Pharisees’ greed for money. In Lk 16:18, Jesus stresses the indissolubility of marriage. The insertion of John in Lk 16:16 may also imply continuity between the teachings of this section and John’s teaching in Lk 3:10-14, 19. In Lk 16:16-18 in particular, Luke may extend his criticism on the tension between the Torah and the political authority by hinting at the confrontation between John the Baptist and Herod in Lk 16:18 (see also Lk 3:19, 9:9, Exod 20:14). 140 His silence on the cause of John’s execution (Lk 3:19, cf. Mt 14:3-12, Mk 6:17-29) can be explained by his wish to portray Christianity to the Roman authorities as a pacifist religious movement.141 139

Daube pointed out that John was often taken as Elia in times of Jesus, who, according to rabbinic tradition, can change the Law. He suggested that Lk 16:17 is a correction to an early comment on John and his role in the Law. Daube, New Testament & Judaism, p. 296. 140 Klinghardt quoted Baltensweiler that Lk 16:16-18 could be understood as "Täufersprüche"–"16, 18 sei (historisch) die Kritik des Täufers an der Heirat des Herodes und seiner Schwägerin Herodias". Klinghardt disagrees with Baltensweiler's interpretation because John the Baptist does not oppose remarriage of the divorced per se, but the marriage of one's brother's wife, which is against the Torah (Mk 6:17, Mt 14:3, Lk 3:19, Lev 18:16, 20:21), Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 85, note 3. Klinghardt's argument may suppose that John has a more relaxed attitude about divorce and remarriage. However, given John's ascetic attitude, he may oppose to both, i.e., divorce not out of illicit sexual relationship, and the taking of one's brother as one's wife. In Lk 16:18b, Luke uses a definte article o`, instead of an indefinite article, eg. tij (Lk 14:26) or the more general expression Pa/j o` (Lk 16:18a). avpolu,w in avpolelume,nhn avpo. avndro.j can be a participle in perfect, passive or medium form. In this way, the verse can refer to two situations of the woman whom a divorced man marries: (i) She was divorced by her husband (avpolu,w in passive form). (ii) She divorced herself from her husband (avpolu,w in medium form). The former refers to Jewish and Roman context, and the latter refers to a Hellenistic context. In the case of Herodias, she divorced herself from her husband, Herod in order to marry his half brother, Herod Antipas (Jos.Ant. 18:136). The use of the definite article o` and the middle form of avpolu,w in Lk 16:18b may hint that Luke is referring to a particular incidence. Josephus does not hold that the death of John (the Baptist) was caused by his dissension to the marriage between Herod (Antipas) and Herodias. He sees the potential threat of John’s growing influence to the Roman the cause to his death. See Jos. Ant 18:109-117. Nevertheless, he places the two accounts closely together in chronological sequence. He also tells that the marriage brought conflicts between Herod and his former wife and caused a military dispute, which was ended with Herod’s loss in the battle. His defeat, not his marrying Herodias, was taken as divine punishment for his killing of John. Josephus’ report shows that even a conservative Pharisee like Josephus does not find it problematic to divorce in order to remarry, cf. Jos. Ant 18:116-119. 141 The political and religious criticisms here may be related to the tragic execution of John the Baptist, who was killed because of his upholding of the Torah’s teaching on divorce and subsequently infuriated the The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

5.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 19:1-12

Matthew’s major redaction in Mt 19:1-12 is that he forges a stronger thematic bond between the debate and the sections immediately following. On Jesus’ way to Jerusalem, the debate on divorce and celibacy leads to a discussion of the essential quality required for anyone who wants to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. 142 Matthew adds the private school discussion of celibacy (his Sondergut) in Mt 19:10-12 to highlight a post-Easter reflection on the attempted application of Jesus’ logion to divorce. Mt 19:10-12 is the only occasion in the Gospel that the disciples hold a more stringent position than the Pharisees on the Torah: they may want to be more righteous than their Jewish counterparts (Mt 5:20). Jesus’ position on divorce is consistent. Leaving one’s spouse is never mentioned as a warranted condition, or the cost of following Christ (Mt 10:34-35, 19:29).143 The thematic link between celibacy and the following sections is h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n (Mt 19:12, 14, [21], 23. See further the parable of the Kingdom of Heaven in Mt 20:1-16). Matthew’s Jesus teaches about divorce in public, whereas Mark’s Jesus teaches his disciples privately in a house. Matthew removes Mark’s verses about the right of a divorced woman to remarry (Mt 5:32, 19:9, cf. Mk 10:12). He chooses to discuss the issue from the perspective of Jewish law on divorce, a right which is reserved primarily for men. In Mt 19:1-12, Jesus disqualifies all but one permissible cause for divorce, lack of chastity (Mt 19:9). The radicalism of Matthew’s Jesus lies here in his “better righteousness”, as his teaching is even stricter than some of the Torah’s teachings. the divorcees, Herod Antipas (the Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea) and Herodias, who divorced in order to remarry (Mt 14:3-12, Lk 9:7-9). Luke removes the narrative explaining why Herod Antipas executed John the Baptist in order to preserve an image of political non-violence among the Christians (cf. Acts 13:1). Luke does not hide the fact that the Roman rulers consider Jesus and Christians a potential threat (Lk 13:31). Nevertheless, he tells the Passion narrative in such a way that neither Pilate nor Herod could find any guilt in Jesus (Lk 23:15, Acts 4:27). Cf. Dibelius, "Herodes und Pilatus", ZNW 16 (1915), p. 113. The theme of non-violence of the Christians towards the state can find its parallel in Paul’s case before Festus and King Agrippa (Acts 25:26, 26:31). Luke still believes that although the one who upholds the Torah (John the Baptist) is killed by a worldly power who tries to override the Torah, the validity of the Torah still remains (Lk 16:17). See also Kurth, Die Stimmen der Propheten erfüllt, pp. 82-83. Cf. Windisch, "Kleine Beiträge zur evangelischen Überlieferung", ZNW 18 (1917/18), p. 80. 142 Loader is of the opinion that the discussion "is likely also to have stood under the influence of what seems to be a distinctive eschatology which envisaged the future perhaps in terms of asexual innocence as in Eden and probably as presence in holy space." See his "Does Matthew's Handling of Sexuality Issues Shed Light on Its Context?" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, p. 582. 143 Matthew’s Jesus left out spouse in Mt 19:29, which is the same as Mk 10:29. Nevertheless, Lk 18:29-30 mentions leaving wives when Jesus talks about the reward for renunciation of a relationship. The conflict between spouses is also left out in the dissension caused by Jesus in a family (Mt 10:34-35, Lk 12:51-53 [Q]). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

142

Tradition of the Elders

However, his disciples’ application of his logia for “better righteousness” is subject to Jesus’ correction. If the dispute about washing of hands (Mt 15:1-20) and the dispute 143 about divorce (Mt 19:1-9) are compared, it can be seen that Jesus is more lenient than the Pharisees in the washing of hands, but is stricter on divorce and remarriage. This arrangement may be a carefully constructed defence against the accusation that Jesus annuls – katalu,w – the Torah (Mt 5:17), as he does not consistently play the role of a willful law-breaker.144 For the debate on divorce, Luke differs from Matthew as he does not describe Jesus’ objection to divorce, but does describe divorcees remarrying (Lk 16:18). A reward is promised to those who leave their wives for the sake of the Kingdom of God in the present age and the age to come (Lk 18:29-30). Luke probably has Paul in mind (1 Cor 7:7) when he writes this logion. 5.3 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 22:34-40 5.3.1 Mt 22:34-40

5.3.1.1 Source and Text Criticism Mt 22:34-40 is one of the examples in the synoptic Gospels that cast doubt on the two-source hypothesis. It provides support for a Deutero-Mark text or for a Gospel of Mark that Luke and Matthew have access to, but which is different from that which we have today.145 The text contains a phrase that is rare in Matthew’s Gospel, evn o[lh| th/| dianoi,a| sou, in Mt 22:37. 146 The sequence of kardi,a, yuch, and dia,noia (Mt 22:37) corresponds to the order of theological motives revealed in the seven parables in Mt 13:1144

Mark and Luke do not have this self-defence in mind. This is because Mark does not contain the accusation of Jesus’ abolition of the Law, and Luke does not elaborate in full on the dispute of the custom of washing hands and divorce in his Gospel. 145 Mt 22:34-40 provides support for Deuteromarkus or another version of the Gospel of Mark known to Matthew and Luke but not to us. The agreements between Matthew's and Luke's texts are substantial and all of their agreements are different from Mark’s Gospel (Mt 22:34 = Lk 10:25, Mt 22:35 = Lk 10:25, Mt 22:36 = Lk 10:25, Mt 22:37 = Lk 10:26). However, this hypothesis does not exclude the possibility that Matthew consults both Mark and the other available text when he compiles Mt 22:34-40. Where Matthew differs from Mark is consistent with his motive of redaction in other places in his Gospel. Cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew III, pp. 235-236, Tuckett, Griesbach, pp. 125-133. 146 In Mt 22:37 –dia,noia, Mt (1) is a translation of dam in Deut 6:5. The same word could also be a translation of the plural form of bbl. It means a state of one’s deliberate unifying one’s split and divided hearts for the sake of loving God (Deut 6:5). Abraham quotes Chajes that the rendering of bl by dianoi,aj and not kardiaj is also influenced by LXX, which is in turn influenced by rabbinic influence, which interprets bl as dianoi,aj, which means financial capability. See Gen 6:5, 8:21 in LXX where bl is translated as dianoi,aj, 1 Chr 29:18 and Gen 6:5 where both words dianoi,aj and kardiaj appear in translation. See Abraham, "The greatest commandment" in Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, p. 19. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

50.147 The other words rare to Matthew are nomiko,j in Mt 22:34, fimo,w in Mt 22:34 and krema,nnumi in Mt 22:40.148 Otherwise, the phrases used in the scene development and 144 citation of LXX are Matthew’s.149 It is obvious that the frame of the narrative, i.e., the introduction (Mt 22:34) and the conclusion (Mt 22:40), are part of Matthew’s redaction. However, the extent to which Matthew (Mt 22:35-39) depends on Mark in the main debate is highly controversial. Here, Matthew shares more similarities with Luke’s text.150 There are two major textual variants in Mt 22:34-40 that are interesting. (i) Is the question raised by a lawyer or by one of the audience?151 (ii) The equivalent of $dam-lkbw in Deut 6:5, is evn o[lh| th/| dianoi,a| sou a remark to evn o[lh| th/| yuch/| sou or is evn o[lh| th/| iscui| sou, which is not found in most of the manuscripts, dropped by Matthew?152 It is highly unlikely that the question about the greatest commandment is raised by a legal expert. The question itself is harmless and the debate involves no controversy that

147

Gerhardsson, "The Shema in early Christianity" in The Four Gospels, pp. 276-279. Also, Gerhardsson, "The Seven Parables in Matthew XIII" in NTS 19 (1972-73), pp. 16-37, especially p. 32. 148 In Mt 22:34 –fimo,w, Mt (2), the other occurrence is in Mt 22:12. In Mt 22:35 –nomiko,j, Mt (1). In Mt 22:40 –krema,nnumi, Mt (2), the other occurence is in Mt 18:6. However, the phrase has textual variants. Some of the textual witnesses do not supply the phrase, e.g. Manuscript Family 1 and Sinaitic syriac. The use of nomiko,j (in codices a, B, L etc) is a hapax legomenon in the Gospel of Matthew but it is found more frequently in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 7:30, 10:25, 11:45, 46). 149 With respect to scene transition: suna,gw, Mt (24), see also Mt 13:47, 22:20, 25:24, 26, 32, 35, 38, 43. evperwta,w, Mt (8) see also Mt 12:10, 16:1, 22:35, 41, 46, 27:11. peira,zw, Mt (6), see also Mt 4:7 (Codex D, but ekeira,zw in other codices), 14:3, 16:1, 22:18. o` de. e;fh, Mt (3), see also Mt 13:28, 22:37, 27:23. deu,teroj, Mt (4), see also Mt 22:26, 26:42. With respect to LXX quotation: avgapa,w, Mt (8); kardi,a: Mt (16); yuch,, Mt (16); plhsi,on, Mt (3). 150 The similarities between Mt 22:34-40 and Lk 10:25-28 are as follows: (i) Both identify Jesus’ opponent as a lawyer (Lk 10:25, Mt 22:35). (ii) Both reveal that the intention of the lawyer is to test Jesus (Lk 10:25, Mt 22:35). (iii) The opponents address Jesus as “teacher” (Lk 10:25, Mt 22:36). (iv) Both omit Deut 6:4, cf. Mk 12: 29, i.e. a;koue( VIsrah,l( (v) the preposition evn and the sequence of the faculties they quote from Deut 6:4. Matthew lists evn..kardi,a, evn..yuch,, evn..dia,noia, while Luke lists evx..kardi,a, evn..yuch,, evn..ivscu,j, evn..dia,noia. (vi) Both Matthew and Luke remove the mutual appreciation between Jesus and the scribe in Mk 12:32-34. (vii) Both remove the repetition of the commandment of love and the statement on offering. Cf. Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 270-271, Davies & Allison, Matthew III, pp. 235-236, Bovon, Lukas 2, pp. 84-86. 151 Manuscript family 1 and Sinaitic Syriac do not supply one of the lawyers in Mt 22:35. They simply provide ei-j evx auvtw. 152 One Latin text, Sinaitic Syriac and Curetonian Syriac supply evn o[lh| th/| iscui| sou instead of evn o[lh| th/| dianoi,a| sou, while Codex Q , Manuscript 0107, Manuscript Family 13 supply both. It could be a harmonization with Mark. What Matthew quotes resembles the quotation from 2 Kings 23:25, LXX which translates wdam lkb as evn o[lh| ivscu,i auvtou. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

requires the professional opinion of a Jewish legal expert.153 The question does not serve the purpose of testing Jesus, as there is a common, widespread consensus among the Jews 145 that the most important commandment of the Torah is Deut 6:4-5 and, in its practice, Lev 19:18. 154 It is part of Matthew’s redaction to show that Jesus’ exegetical competence surpasses the most learned Jewish counterpart in Jerusalem. It is, however, possible that this piece is a later harmonisation with Luke’s version. The second variant shows that LXX uses the words dianoi,aj and ivscu/j interchangeably, whereas Matthew tends to avoid applying ivscu/j to Jesus and his disciples. It is likely that he removes this phrase from his narrative and inserts dia,noia instead.155 dia,noia, which means one’s resource, corresponds more closely to the theological motives of the last two of the seven parables, of treasure and of the pearl, in Mt 13:44-45. The seven parables are described to illustrate Deut 6:5.156 5.3.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mt 22:34-40 is placed in a series of school debates between Jesus and the different parties of Jewish authority in Jerusalem in an ascending order of competence (Mt 22:1545).157Jesus’ exegetical competence is being tested, but the teaching of Matthew’s Jesus surpasses them all. The debate is depicted as a successor to the second debate initiated by the Sadducees, who were beaten by Jesus. Their challenge of Jesus is then taken up by the stronger Pharisees.158 The debate is first formed as an inclusion by evntolh. mega,lh in Mt 22:36, 38. Jesus extends the discussion by stressing h` mega,lh kai. prw,th evntolh, and 153

Here is a literary exaggeration – the most learned of the very learned group in the Torah. Josephus points out that the Pharisees are already regarded as excelling others in law. See Jos. Vita 191. 154 Cf. b.Ber 61b, Did 1:1-2. The reason why Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 are understood together is set out in Midrash Rabbah xxiv:7, which states that man is created in the image of God. Moreover, it is noted that Hillel was also asked to summarize the Torah in one command. He provided the answer in a negative formulation (b.Sab 31a, Ab d R Nathan 2:6) db[t al $rbxl $mrgl yns tar hm hrwx lv hllb awh, an expression which is also found in Tob 4:15. What Hillel refers to are his fellow Israelites. Nevertheless, in Tobit, it refers to one fellow human being, cf. Abraham, The greatest commandment in Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, pp. 18-21. 155 Tuckett comments on Foster's study on the issue. Both suppose that Matthew follows LXX and so, Matthew should have noted that Mark's use of ivscu,j does not agree with the LXX's use of dia,noia. Cf. Tuckett, "Matthew: The Social and Historical Context –Jewish Christian and/ or Gentile" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 111-116. 156 See Gerhardsson, "The Seven Parables in Matthew XIII" in NTS 19 (1972-73), pp. 16-37. 157 First, the disciples of the Pharisees are sent to Jesus (Mt 22:16). Next come the Sadducees (Mt 22:23). Then come the Pharisees (Mt 22:34). Jesus’ question about the Christ is directed only to the Pharisees (Mt 22:41). 158 The successive round of debates is comparable to Ps 2:2. See Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 239. peira,zw (Mt 22:35) is Matthew’s redaction. Konradt suggests that the Pharisees want to trap Jesus by a question on the greatest commandment, in order to see whether Jesus marginalises the love and honour of God with other commandments. See Konradt, "Die vollkommene Erfüllung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium" in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im neuen Testament, p. 148. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

names the second in Mt 22:39. The two commandments are joined not only by the numerical words prw/toj and deu,teroj, but also by avgapa,w (Mt 22:37, 39). The summary 146 statement on tai/j dusi.n evntolai/j in Mt 22:40 shows that the issue involved is the principle on which the whole Torah depends, krema,nnumi. The removal of a;koue( VIsrah,l shows that Matthew intends this commandment to be observed by both Jews and Gentiles alike. From the positive reaction of the audiences in the preceding and following sections (Mt 22:33, Mt 22:46), the chain of debates is obviously intended to be proof of Jesus’ unsurpassable teaching and exegetical competence.159 The introductory phrase peira,zwn auvto,n, which is inserted in the second debate between the Pharisees and Jesus, shows the intention of the Pharisees to expose the limits in Jesus’ exegetical ability.160 Mt 22:34-40 is one of two debates on the order of importance of the Torah’s teachings. This is the only instance in which Jesus agrees with the Jewish leaders on the greatest two commandments, and with Hillel in particular.161 The approach with which Matthew handles the question resembles that of the contemporary Jewish school. It was common for the rabbis to condense their teachings or the commandments in the Torah into general principles so as to be educationally effective.162 5.3.2 Mk 12:28-34

5.3.2.1 Source and Text Criticisms Mk 12:28-34 belongs to one of Mark’s collection of school debates between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders (Mk 12:13-34). 163 The text contains a pre-Markan tradition on the commandment on love (Mk 10:29-31).164 The text contains two phrases that are rare in Mark, the scribe’s expansion of the two greatest commandments to perisso,tero,n evstin pa,ntwn tw/n o`lokautwma,twn kai. qusiw/n (Mk 12:33) and Jesus’ compliment of the scribe with nounecw/j and ouv makra.n ei= avpo. th/j basilei,aj tou/ qeou/ (Mk 12:34).165 The introductory frame in Mk 12:28 and the phrases for scene transition

159

Cf. Gnilka, Matthäus 2, pp. 163-164. The theme of tempting here may perhaps indicate the bad intention of Jesus’ opponents or their attempt to trap Jesus by accusing him of demolishing the law or undermining it. See Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 239. 161 Cf. b.Sab 31a. 162 Davies & Allison maintain that the rabbis may not feel the tension between admitting that all commandments must be equally obeyed and at the same time maintaining that there is an essential core among all commandments. See Davies & Allison, Matthew III, pp. 239-40, especially note 32 of p. 239. 163 Mk 12:34b is a result of Mk 12:13. 164 See discussion in Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 163. 165 In Mk 12:33 –o`lokau,twma, Mk (1); qusi,a, Mk (1). In Mk 12:34 –nounecw/j, Mk (1); ouv makra.n, Mk (1). 160

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

belong typically to Mark, 166 as does his final remark of ouvdei.j ouvke,ti evto,lma auvto.n 147 evperwth/sai (Mk 12:34b), which echoes Mk 12:13. The textual variants are deemed relatively unimportant for a detailed discussion. The major textual variant in Mk 12:28-34 is on the citation of Deut 6:4-5, which appears two times in Mk 12:30 and Mk 12:33.167 The variant shows not only the different LXX versions behind each codex, but also the variations in citing the same verse in the same codex. The first quotation of Deut 6:4-5 in Mk 12:30 shows more Hellenistic influence than the second quote in Mk 12:33. 168 It is hard to elucidate whether the variation is a literary technique to avoid the monolithic expression of the same verse, or whether it reflects the contemporary practice of explaining a quoted verse by supplying a synonym in the citation. 5.3.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mk 12:28-34 is the third and final debate placed within a series of school debates between Jesus and his critics in Jerusalem. The debate is in a dialogue between Jesus and a scribe. The allusion to Hos 6:6 is emphasised at the end of the dialogue. The discussion shows that the double commandment (Mk 12:32) is well recognised in contemporary Judaism.169 Jesus’ appreciation of the scribe can also be seen as a reconciliation with the scribes after their first conflict at the beginning of his ministry in Capernaum (Mk 2:1-12). The scribe’s response to Jesus’ answer is like a refrain. He reiterates the same view but deliberately removes the possessive pronoun sou and hence significantly reduces the 166

The participle clause in Mk 12:28 and the use of suzhte,w: Mt (0), Mk (6), Lk (2) are constructions favoured by Mark. The words used in scene transitions include: prose,rcomai, Mk (5), see also Mk 1:31, 6:35, 12:28, 14:45. evperwta,w, Mk (25), see also Mk 9:16, 21, 12:28, 14:60, 15:2, 44. poi/oj, Mk (4), see also Mk 11:28, 29, 33, 12:28. avpekri,qh o` VIhsou/j, Mk (7), see also Mk 5:9, 7:28, 9:38, 12:28, 29:34, 15:5, 15:9. 167 Codex B supplies evx o[lhj kardi,aj sou kai. evx o[lhj dianoi,aj sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j ivscu,oj sou in Mk 12:30 but in Mk 12:33, it supplies evx o[lhj kardi,aj kai. evx o[lhj th/j sune,sewj kai. evx o[lhj th/j ivscu,oj. The scribe has replaced Jesus’ dianoi,aj with sune,sewj. Codex D supplies evx o[lh|j th/j kardi,aj sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j yuch/j sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j ivscu,oj sou in Mk 12:30, but in Mk 12:33, it supplies evx o[lhj th/j kardi,aj kai. evx o[lhj th/j dunamewj kai. evx o[lhj th/j yuchj autou... The scribe has transposed th/j yuch/j to the end of the verse and has replaced Jesus’ th/j ivscu,oj with th/j dunamewj. Codex A supplies evx o[lhj th/j kardi,aj sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j yuch/j sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j dianoi,aj sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j ivscu,oj sou in Mk 12:30 but in Mk 12:33 it supplies evx o[lhj th/j kardi,aj kai. evx o[lhj th/j sune,sewj kai. evx o[lhj th/j yuchj kai. evx o[lhj th/j ivscu,oj. The scribe has swopped the position of th/j yuch/j with the position of th/j dianoi,aj and has replaced Jesus’ th/j dianoi,aj with th/j sune,sewj. 168 dianoi,a emphasizes (rational) understanding. sune,sij, which replaces dianoi,a in Mk 12:33 (in Codex A, B), means understanding, insights and knowledge. 169 See Gutenberger, Gottesvorstellung, p. 154. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

phonetic parallelism of Deut 6:5 (Mk 12:23). The rift between them caused by the theme in the first conflict (Mk 2:7) has therefore been bridged. Although Jesus claims to have 148 the power to forgive sin, he acknowledges that God is one (Mk 12:29, 32). The scribe intends the discussion to be purely theoretical, not personal. The recognition that Jesus gives the scribe, nounecw/j … ouv makra.n ei= avpo. th/j basilei,aj tou/ qeou/, shows that the scribe remains unconverted. The scribe here, who admits perisso,tero,n evstin pa,ntwn tw/n o`lokautwma,twn kai. qusiw/n in Mk 12:33, shows that in his own position he is closer to Jesus than his colleagues and the priests (cf. Mk 14:1). This is the only occasion that a critic of Jesus shares the views of Mark’s Jesus. This mutual understanding between Jesus and his critics is not found in Matthew’s or Luke’s Gospels. The gap between Jesus’ followers and the Jewish leaders may therefore be wider by the time of Matthew and Luke. Mark’s narrative about a scribe’s sympathy for Jesus suggests his opposition to stigmatisation. The text is weakly linked to the preceding debate only by the redactional note kai. proselqw.n ei-j tw/n grammate,wn avkou,saj auvtw/n suzhtou,ntwn in Mk 12:28. 5.3.3 Lk 10:25-28

5.3.3.1 Text and Source Criticism Lk 10:25-28 shares more similarities with Matthew’s text than with Mark’s, especially in terms of the preposition and the sequence of words cited from Deut 6:5.170 However, it is still uncertain whether Luke and Matthew consult Q or another Gospel of Mark (which is not the same one as we have today). Luke may also have strong redactional reasons to deviate from Mark’s text. The text contains two phrases that are atypical for Luke. Both are found in the introductory scene of Lk 10:25. klhronome,w, which is found in the lawyer’s question, is also rare, cf. Lk 18:18.171 Hence, it may be Luke’s redaction. Luke develops the narrative with his favourite question, ti, poih,saj (Lk 3:10, 12, 14, 12:17, 16:3, Acts 2:37, 16:30).172 The other phrases found in the dialogue are common in Luke’s Gospel. Another of Luke’s redactions is his insertion of the parable of the Samaritan as Jesus’ answer to the lawyer’s second question (Lk 10:29). The parable is his Sondergut. 170

The differences between Mk 12:28-34 and Lk 10:25-28 are as follows: (i) The intention of the question raised by Jesus’ opponent (a scribe in Mark’s Gospel, but a lawyer in Luke’s Gospel) –according to Mark, he asks about the first commandment. According to Luke, he asks about the way to eternal life. (ii) Luke has removed the mutual appreciation between Jesus and the scribes in Mark (Mk 12:32, 34). (iii) Luke differs from Mark in the preposition of the last three and the sequence of the last two faculties he quotes from Deut 6:4. Luke lists evx..kardi,a, evn..yuch,, evn..ivscu,j, evn..dia,noia in Lk 10:27. Mark lists evx..kardi,a, evx..yuch,, evx..dia,noia, evx..ivscu,j in Mk 12:30, cf. Bovon, Lukas 2, pp. 84-86, and p. 86, note 16. 171 In Lk 10:25 –nomiko,j, Lk (6); evkpeira,zw, Lk (2), see also Lk 4:12; klhronome,w, Lk (2), see also Lk 18:18 –zwh.n aivw,nion klhronomh,sw. 172 Wolter, Lukas, p. 392. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition Traditionofofthe theElders Elders

The textual variants are not sufficiently important to warrant a detailed discussion. The major variant in the textual witnesses is a different translation of the preposition b in (lk)b in Deut 6:5.173 The same variant is also seen in the parallel text of Mt 22:34-40, in which (lk)b is translated as e,n. In Mk 12:28-34, it is translated as e,x.174 Luke’s version shows the use of both prepositions. NA27 provides evx o[lhj Îth/jÐ kardi,aj sou kai. evn o[lh| th/| yuch/| sou kai. evn o[lh| th/| ivscu,i? sou kai. evn o[lh| th/| dianoi,a| sou in Lk 10:27, the preposition evx plus the genitive form for the first faculty and evn plus the dative form for the following three faculties.175 This may be a later attempt to make Luke’s citation align with 2 King 23:25, i.e., with the corresponding sequence of the three faculties kardi,a, yuch, and ivscu/j and with the consistently used preposition evn. 176 Why Luke uses evx instead of evn with respect to heart is unclear. It could be caused by his belief that the heart is the most important of the four faculties. People’s deeds, thoughts and words spring from the heart: o` avgaqo.j a;nqrwpoj evk tou/ avgaqou/ qhsaurou/ th/j kardi,aj (Lk 6:45). 5.3.3.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Lk 10:25-28 is placed in a completely different textual context from the parallel texts in the Synoptics. It is in the forms of a chrie and a school debate.177 Unlike Mark and Matthew, who place the narrative in the series of school debates between Jesus and his critics in the temple, Luke places it after the successful mission of the 72 disciples and Jesus’ promises of their rewards (Lk 10:20-24). Jesus’ promise to reward Christian discipleship (Lk 10:20-24) is balanced by the promise of reward for observing the Torah, i.e., eternal life. 178 The narrative is first kindled by a lawyer’s soteriological concern 173

With respect to Lk 10:27, Codex D and Manuscript family 1 supply evn o[lh kardi,aj sou, while Codices A, C, W, Q supply evx o[lh consistently. Codex D also does not contain the last phrase kai. evn o[lh| th/| dianoi,a| sou. 174 Deut 6:5 is also found in a praise to King Josiah, who surpasses all in observing all the commandments of Moses, as his expression of his return evpistre,fw to God –kata. pa,nta to.n no,mon Mwush/ kai. metV auvto.n ouvk avne,sth o[moioj auvtw/| (2 Kings 23:24). The translation of (lk)b in 2 Kings 23:24 is evpe,streyen pro.j ku,rion evn o[lh| kardi,a| auvtou/ kai. evn o[lh| yuch/| auvtou/ kai. evn o[lh| ivscu,i auvtou. It is likely that Matthew quotes from 2 Kings 23:34. 175 The supposition that this verse is a liturgical text is refuted by its different versions of the Gospels, cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 241, note 41. 176 The sequence of Luke’s quotation of the four faculties kardi,a, yuch,, ivscu/j, dia,noia resembles Mark’s with the exception of the last two, which however is set in the reverse order to Mark. It is probable that the original Luke version contains only the first three faculties, whose sequence follows closely that of 2 Kings 23:25 of LXX, with the preposition “e,n” (according to the text supplied by Codex D and Marcion). The last faculty could have been appended to it when the text was harmonized with the last faculty from Matthew’s list, without noticing that it lengthens the list of faculties to four. See also Tuckett, Griesbach, pp. 126-127. 177 Wolter, Lukas, p. 391. 178 Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, pp. 138-139. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

149

Tradition of the Elders

about the way to inherit eternal life, a question that both Luke’s Jewish and Gentile characters are equally interested in.179 Jesus gives him the standard answer of practising 150 the commandments as a way to inherit eternal life. The Christian and Jewish ways are essentially the same and lead to the same reward. This conclusion is further epitomised by the haggada of the good Samaritan, whose religious affinity is considered closer to the Gentiles than to the Jews,180 and Jesus’ meeting with Martha and Mary (Lk 10:38-42). Together they form a ring composition with the question of how to obtain eternal life (Lk 10:25-28). The lesson of the Samaritan’s story refers to the second commandment to practise love (compassion) for neighbours of the same and of different races (Lk 10:27b, cf. Lev 19:18, 34). The phrase linking Lk 10:25-28 and the story of the Samaritan immediately following is to.n plhsi,on in Lk 10:27, 29, 36, whose definition is further enriched by poih,saj to. e;leoj and su. poi,ei o`moi,wj in Lk 10:37. Jesus’ logion at his meeting with Martha and Mary reflects the priority of the first commandment: loving and listening to God comes before all of the other commandments (Lk 10:27a).181 In this episode, attending to the teachings of Jesus has priority over service (Lk 10:42). The same echo is found in the separation of the servicing of the words and the people in the early church (Acts 6:3-4). Lk 10:25-28 is an inclusion bracketed by poie,w and za,w (Lk 10:25, 28) The narrative also has a similar structure to the following parable on the Samaritan (Lk 10:29-37). The narrative unit highlights Luke’s redactional intentions. It is linked to the Samaritan’s story immediately following it by Jesus’ appeal to practise what is learnt (Lk 10:28, 10:37b).182 The content of the discussion is essentially the same as Mt 22:34-40. Luke differs from Matthew in that the answer to the question is actually provided by the inquirer himself, the lawyer. Jesus just gives him an affirmation, Orqw/j avpekri,qhj. Jesus encourages him to put his knowledge into practice, as he says at the end of the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:28b, 10:37b).183

179

The narrative is the first time where the question ti, poih,saj zwh.n aivw,nion klhronomh,swÈ is asked by the Jews. The same question is asked also by a Gentile ruler (tij a;rcwn) later in Lk 18:18. Nevertheless, the question is less likely to have been raised by Jews as (i) the answer is too obvious to them. (ii) They, as the chosen people of God, have a share in eternal life by their observance of the Torah. Cf. Abraham, "The Greatest Commandment" in Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, p.19. See also Klostermann, Lukas, p. 119, Schürmann, Lukas 2, p. 132. 180 u`polamba,nw in Lk 10:30 is a typical verb for rabbinic debate, Bovon, Lukas 2, p. 83, note 4. A story is often used to illustrate a teaching in rabbinic debate. 181 See also Marguerat, Bourquin, How to read Bible stories, p.160. Cf. Bovon, Lukas 2, p. 85. 182 Bovon, Lukas 2, pp. 82-83. 183 There are only two occasions where Jesus affirms an answer given by the disciples or outsiders. The same response is given to Peter in Lk 7:43. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

5.3.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 22:34-40

Matthew has three major items of redaction in Mt 22:34-40: Matthew removes the Old Testament citation a;koue VIsrah,l\ ku,rioj o` qeo.j h`mw/n( ku,rioj ei-j evsti,n from Deut 6:4a so that the commandment is not only binding for the Israelites but also for the Gentiles.184 Matthew changes the critics’ question from poi,a evntolh. mega,lh evn tw/| no,mw to h` mega,lh kai. prw,th evntolh,Å185 Matthew probably adds “great” in the first question due to could be caused by his redactional interest in the prime commandment. The prime commandment is fundamental to the others; the other commandments are subordinate to it. The latter shed light on the redactional theme of “testing”, which may carry a malicious tone as a rabbi would find it provocative to have the importance of the rest of the commandments relativised for the sake of upholding just one great commandment.186 The concluding answer by Matthew’s Jesus shows that the named commandment should be considered the primary commandment in the Torah and prophetic tradition, but not in the wisdom tradition, i.e., evn tau,taij tai/j dusi.n evntolai/j o[loj o` no,moj kre,matai kai. oi` profh/tai.187 All three synoptic Gospels provide slightly different versions of Deut 6:5. None are strictly aligned with the Hebrew text or with LXX.188 In quoting the second half of Deut 6:5, Matthew names three faculties (a triad, kardi,a, yuch, and dia,noia, in this order), whereas Mark names four (a quartet, kardi,a, yuch,, dia,noia and ivscu,j, in this

184

m.Tam 5:1 shows that Deut 6:4 is used in liturgy. According to b.Ber. 63a, Deut 6:4 is recited as the daily prayers of all male Jews, but they are exempted from it on their first wedding night. The quotation of the verses means taking up the yoke of the commandments (also the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven). Gnilka maintains that Matthew removes Deut 6:4a because the verse did not have the same liturgical significance to the Matthean community as to the Jewish community. See Gnilka, Matthäus 2, p. 258. Kim holds that the omission of the first line of Deut 6:4 implies that Matthew’s Jesus holds that loyalty to monotheism is not the same as loyalty to the cult. See Kim, "Jesus and the Shema" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 3, p. 2696. 185 me,gaj means important. Matthew often uses it in a comparison or in relation with another entity with similar quality. Cf. Mt 5:19, 11:11, 12:6, 18:1. The meaning of prw/toj here is similar to Mt 20:27, which means prime. 186 evntolh. mega,lh is the Greek translation of lwdg lkk, whose Hebrew original means a superlative. According to the rabbinic tradition, the rabbi would not attach a different degree of importance to the laws and their derivatives, and so they would not suggest doing the most fundamental but leaving the other law undone. However, the prophetic tradition may assign different degrees of importance to the religious cult and social morality (cf. Amos 5:21-27, Isa 1:15-17, Mic 6:7-8). Their assessment of the relative priority of the teachings in the Torah may be welcomed by the Gentile Christians. Cf. Abraham, "The Greatest Commandment" in Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, pp. 24-25, Tuckett, Griesbach, p. 130. See Davies & Allison, Matthew I, p. 496, note 41. 187 Matthew’s Jesus mentions only ~yaybn and hrwt but not ~ybwtk. It is unclear whether Matthew’s Jesus deliberately left out the wisdom writings in the scope. Matthew certainly knows the wisdom writings as he cites many quotations from the Psalms. 188 Kim provides a summary of research findings to support that Deut 6:4-9 as part of the bastion of Jewish liturgy could be dated before the destruction of the second Temple. See Kim, "Jesus and the Shema" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 2682-2690. See also m.Tam 5:1. The wide liturgical use of the Shema across regions however does not imply a fixed sequence of words employed. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

151

Tradition of the Elders

order).189 This omission is not simply caused by his fondness brevity or conformity with the form of any proto-Markan tradition. The omission of ivscu,j may be caused by 152 Matthew’s own reservations about ivscu/j, which he uses quite negatively in his Gospel.190 A minor redaction is Matthew’s removal of the reconciliation between Jesus and the scribe (in Mark’s Gospel), which may imply the growing rift between the Matthean community and its Jewish counterpart. Matthew’s redaction is different from Luke’s. Although Matthew retains Mark’s discussion on the qualitative difference in the commandments, he does not go so far as Mark in saying that there is no other commandment greater than the two. The discussion about the relative positioning of the laws with regard to each other does not form a theme in Luke’s narrative. Luke places the discussion in the context of a common concern of the Jews and the Gentiles on the inheritance of eternal life. The theme of the positioning of different commandments emerges only in Acts. Peter argues against the unbearable requirement imposed on the Gentile Christians, which is a post-Easter debate about the universal application of Jewish laws for converted Gentiles (Acts 15:10) 5.4 Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts on the Tradition of the Elders Matthew’s interest in a clear distinction between the Torah and the oral interpretation of it (the oral tradition) reflects a struggle between authority figures in his community. Only when one’s interpretation of the Torah cannot convince the others is this distinction necessary. The discussion above leads to four questions: why is the Pharisees’ emphasis on Deut 24:1 regarded as deviating from the original intention, but Jesus’ stress on Gen 1:27 regarded as faithfully abiding by it, when both teachings come from the same Torah? It is noted that Matthew places this debate before the discussion on celibacy (his Sondergut in Mt 19:10-12), in which the disciples try to apply Jesus’ logia in their pursuit of the Kingdom of Heaven and in their attempt to be more righteous. Why does Matthew describe the motive of the Pharisees as a test – peira,zw (Mt 19:3, cf. Mt 22:35) – when the question and the way it is raised by the Pharisees and the disciples are not essentially different?191 Why does Matthew try to achieve universality of the greatest commandment 189

dia,noia is likely a commentary to explain what yuch, means to Gentile readers. Tuckett maintains that the removal of ivscu/j is caused by Matthew’s harmonization of his protoversion of Mark’s Gospel with the Deut 6:5 of LXX, which mentions only three faculties. Matthew cuts out the fourth faculty without noticing that dam means ivscu/j, not dia,noia, Tuckett, Griesbach, p. 126. For a similar opinion, see Kim, "Jesus and the Shema" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 2692-2693. Luz points out that Mk 12:30 evx o[lhj th/j dianoi,aj sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j ivscu,oj sou reflects the influence of Hellenistic Judaism. See Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 279. 191 The meaning of peira,zw here could be similar to Mt 22:35, in which Jesus’ exegetical competence on the Torah is measured against or checked by his contemporaries. Matthew’s Jesus may not consider their testing him to be malicious (cf. Mt 22:18). Yet, Matthew considers Jesus’ teaching is above that of his contemporaries. Luz, however, points out that Matthew tries to imply the evil intention of the Pharisees. At 190

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

by removing Deut 6:4a (Mt 22:37), but retains Jesus’ preferential reservation of grace for the Israelites on another occasion (his initial refusal to heal the daughter of the Canaanite 153 woman)? Why does Matthew’s Jesus respond to his disciples’ casual remark on the Pharisees with triple criticism of the Pharisees’ competence? Is the response an overreaction? His redaction may show his reflection on the ministry to the Gentiles; his reflection on the relative priority given to different teachings in the Torah, i.e. according to what principle one can harmonise or relativise them, if it is deemed necessary, in applying them to the post-Easter context, especially in the ministry to the Gentiles; and that the Pharisees posed a threat to the church leadership in his community. 5.4.1 Matthew’s Jesus’ Assessment of the Torah

5.4.1.1 Which Lasts Forever, My (Jesus’) Words or the Law (Torah)? How do Jesus’ logia relate to the Torah? If the Torah lasts forever (Mt 5:18), does the same apply to Jesus’ logia? 192 Matthew’s Jesus seems to suggest so (Mt 24:35). He promises that not only his words, but his presence with the disciples will last forever (Mt 28:20, cf. Mt 1:23). What exactly is Jesus’ position on the Torah? In the Gospel of Matthew, there are two places in which Jesus uses “perpetually” to describe his logia and the Torah explicitly (Mt 5:18, 24:35). Are Jesus’ logia comparable to or competitive with the Torah? Are they in harmony or in rivalry? Mt 5:18 is Jesus’ logion in the form of prophetic sayings whose original historical context is hard to identify.193 No significant textual variant is found in the verse.194 The verse links Mt 5:17 and Mt 5:19.195 The verse is recorded in a slightly different way in Mt 24:35 (par Mk 13:31, Lk 21:33). The difference lies in what actually lasts forever, oi` de. the same time, he tries to show that their liberal position on divorce, like that held by the schools of Hillel and Shammai, is remote from what Jesus teaches about divorce. See Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 9, note 21. 192 Matthew's Jesus is very conscious of the order of importance of the Torah and tradition. He put the Torah always before the prophets. See Mt 5:17, 7:12, 22:40, 15:5-9. See also Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 518. 193 Mt 5:17-20 is primarily prokatalepsis. See also Davies & Allison, Matthew I, p. 481. Luz's comment on Mt 5:18 "die Überlieferungsverhältnisse sind hoffnungslos undurchsichtig". Luz, Matthäus 1, pp. 305-308. 194 Mt 5:18 does not have significant textual variants, except that minuscules c provides an inserted Latin reading at the end of Mt 5:18, which supplies caelum et terra transibunt, verba autem mea non praeteribunt, which is probably a harmonization of Mt 24:25. 195 Mt 5:18 uses the construction of e[wj a'n. However, the verses from Mt 5:17-19 could have independent origins and have been compiled together by Matthew, e.g. Mt 5:17 strongly hints at an origin from Greek, Mt 5:19 may have an Aramaic or Semitic origin whereas the origin of Mt 5:18 is unclear. The source of Mt 5:18 could be equally possible from a pre-Easter or post-Easter context. With respect to the pre-Easter context, it could be Jesus’ logia against the accusation of antinomism. Regarding the post-Easter context, it could be the early church's defence against the accusation that they hold a lax attitude to the Torah. Cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew I, p. 482, Luz, Matthäus 1, pp. 305-308. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

lo,goi mou or the law (i.e., the Torah, the word of God). Mt 5:18 says that it is the law, but 154 Mt 24:35 claims is oi` de. lo,goi mou that will not pass away.196 What exactly does oi` de. lo,goi mou mean in the context of Mt 24:35? Does it refer to the words of Jesus? The logia are used to support Jesus’ prophecy about the coming of the Son of Man, evggu,j evstin evpi. qu,raij, in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (Mk 13:29, Mt 24:33). For Luke, however, it is his prophecy about the Kingdom of God, h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/ (Lk 21:31).197 Nevertheless, the prophecy that Mt 24:35 refers to is not about Jesus himself, but is an allusion to the already well-known apocalyptic prophecy in Dan 7:2, 13-14 (cf. Mt 24:29-31).198 Likewise, the longing for the coming of the Kingdom of God is also mentioned in the Old Testament (Ps 17:3). In term of wording, it is a direct quotation of God’s words in the first person singular form. In terms of content, they are not new teachings by Jesus, but his retelling of old prophecies. With oi` de. lo,goi mou, Jesus just adds his confirmation to what God has promised already (cf. Isa 40:8, 51:6, Ps 119:89).199 His words derive their weight from the old but eternal promise of God. He comes to fulfil the Torah and the prophets, not to abrogate them.200 196

Codices B, D, L etc provide textual witnesses to support this reading, although Codex a* does not have this verse. 197 h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/ is a term favoured by Luke (Mt:4, Mk:10, Lk:17). Davies & Allison point out that in Mt 5:17-18, Matthew sees the coming of Jesus, the Messiah, as the fulfillment of both the Torah and prophecy, Davies & Allison, Matthew I, pp. 484-485. 198 Mt 16:27 (Mk 13:26), Mt 26:64 (Mk 14:62, cf. Dan 7:13). See Pennington,"Refractions of Daniel in the Gospel of Matthew" in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality , pp. 69-73. 199 Davies & Allison maintain that here Matthew sets Jesus’ speech above the Torah and makes his words like God’s words. Cf. Ps 119:89, Isa 40:8, Davies & Allison, Matthew I, p. 487, Matthew III, p. 368. 200 plhro,w in Mt 5: 17 may have the meaning of confirming, making complete or filling up (what is previously empty) with something. The verb is contrasted with katalu,w in Mt 5:17, which means “making invalid”. See also Wengst, "Das Tun der Tora als Kriterium der Zugehörigkeit zur Gemeinde im Matthäusevangelium" in Evangelium Ecclesiasticum, pp. 428-429, Regierungsprogramm, pp. 66-77. Tuckett maintains that Matthew refuses a simple confirmation of the validity of Law through plhro,w, Tuckett, Griesbach, p. 152. See further Deut 32:27. The meaning “confirming” of plhro,w corresponds to the Aramaic equivalent myq. The meaning of “making complete” corresponds to the Hebrew alm, cf. Luz, Matthäus 1, p. 306, footnote 8. The meaning of “filling” of plhro,w corresponds to the Hebrew equivalent of vwd, which is used in the rabbinic interpretation of the biblical verses ((vwrm) –to fill up disputable or ambiguous biblical verses with binding interpretations. See Vahrenhorst, Nicht schwören, pp. 236-237. Also Crüsemann, Wahrheitsraum, pp. 240-247, Deines, Gerechtigkeit, pp. 269-280. Davies & Allison, Matthew I, pp. 485-487. In this way, what Jesus does is not different from the other rabbis. In the context of Mt 5:17, it is plausible that the meaning is “making complete”, as Jesus continues commenting on and expanding the Torah in the following section. plhro,w appears sixteen times in different types of texts in Matthew’s Gospel, of which nine times are related to how Jesus’ words and deeds bring into realization of what has been forsaid or promised by God, through the words of the prophets: Mt 1:22, 2:15, 2:23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4. The others are more related to Matthew’s suggestion of how the Old Testament quotations may shed light on the interpretation of events that have been happening. plhro,w in Mt 26:54 means confirming, and the subject is scripture itself, not God or his promise through the words of the prophets. In all cases except Mt 2:17 and Mt 27:9 (which are in aorist indicative passive), plhro,w is in subjunctive (aorist) passive, in which the implied agent of realising one’s promise is always God himself (divinum passivum). The content of the prophecy they refer to are partly future (Mt 1:22, 2:23, 12:17, 13:35) The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

Jesus does not enthrone himself over the Torah, but over the Pharisees’ interpretation of it.201 He encourages the rich young man to keep the commandments to obtain eternal 155 life (Mt 19:17), although he adds that this is still not enough to reach perfection (Mt 19:21). Following Jesus is sufficient. Matthew also leaves room for a slight modification to the Torah for his community (Mt 5:19, cf. Deut 4:2). Those who infringe the least of the commandments will be the least in the Kingdom of God, but still in it.202 Luke seems to have double loyalty to the Torah and the words of Jesus in the preEaster era. The Torah is interpreted and universalised in the light of a new epoch of the Kingdom of God. 203 Three texts provide support for Luke’s double loyalty to the Torah and partly present (Mt 2:17, 21:4) or even aorist (Mt 2:15, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 27:9) in their prophecies in LXX. It shows that God is the chief actor in realizing what he said. Some of the promises were already experienced during the Old Testament time, while others are expected to be fully realized in the (near) future. Matthew uses plhro,w two times in an active sense, which are set in sharp contrast to each other, i.e. it is used for the Pharisees whose deeds confirm that what they did are exactly the evil deeds of their forerunners (Mt 23:32). It is also used for Jesus, who brings into effect or completes (not annuls) the law (Mt 5:17). The construction evgw. de. le,gw in Mt 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44 is not a rebuttal of the Torah but of Jesus’ commentaries on the Torah. Some of Jesus’ commentaries on the Torah are radical, when he contradicts what is commonly held, e.g. Mt 5:33-34, 38-39, 43-44. The six evgw. de. le,gw are triggered off by the contrast of plhro,w and katalu,w in Mt 5:17. They are Jesus’ commentaries on the respective texts in the Pentateuch (Mt 5:21 versus Deut 5:17-18, Mt 5:27 versus Deut 5:17-18, Mt 5:31 versus Deut 24:1-4, Mt 5:33 versus Lev 19:12, Mt 5:38 versus Deut 19:21, Mt 5:43 versus Lev 19:18. See Lambrecht, "You shall not swear falsely (Matt 5:33c)", NT 53 (2011) pp. 315-318, Allison, New Moses, p. 184. de. is not used adversatively here. It is doubtful whether this word comes from the earthly Jesus, as it is unusual in the Hebrew syntax that w or lba comes in between a subject and a verb, but does not precede the verb. The same feature of using le,gw to release the exegetical potential of the Old Testament can often be found in the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew prefers to use the different tense forms of le,gw, not gra;fw whenever he describes the exegetical debate on the Old Testament between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, e.g. Mt 15: 4,5,7, 19:4, 9, 22:43. 201 See also Davies & Allison, Matthew I, p. 490, Konradt, "Die vollkommene Erfüllung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium" in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im neuen Testament, pp. 132-137, and his Matthäus, p. 17, note 2, p. 127, pp. 131-132, also his "Rezeption and Interpretation des Dekalogs im Matthäusevangelium" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity p. 145, note 79 of 149. 202 See Windisch, "Die Sprüche vom Eingehen in das Reich Gottes", ZNW 27 (1928), p. 169. Pervo, The making of Paul, p. 190. Davies & Allison point out that rabbinic modifications on the Torah were necessary but none of the modifications questions the continuous validity of the Torah. See Davies & Allison, Matthew I, p. 492. Konradt points out that Matthew has tried to prove why someone who alters the Torah slightly is still better than the Pharisees, who observe the Torah absolutely literally. Matthew’s reason is that the Pharisees miss the true intention of the Torah; they observe the details of offering but ignore the most important commandments on justice and mercy and good faith (Mt 23:23). See Konradt, "Die vollkommene Erfüllung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium" in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im neuen Testament, p. 133. 203 Luke avoids saying that Jesus' teaching is new. He removes didach. kainh. (Lk 4:32, cf. Mk 1:27, Lk 5:38-39). See also Bovon, Lukas 1, pp. 218-219. The emphasis on the epoch-making function of John is not found in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew stresses that John has fulfilled the prophetic functions fully. The comments about John in Mt 11:13 do not suggest that the prophets (and Law) have lost its validity in the era of John but their prophecies reached (till) The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

and Jesus’ logia. Lk 16:17 and Lk 21:32 are parallel texts to Mt 5:18.204 Lk 16:17 is set within Lk 16:16-18. Lk 16:16a reflects Luke’s idea of a change of epoch by me,cri and 156 avpo. to,te. John represents the watershed between the ~O no,moj kai. oi` profh/tai and h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/ euvaggeli,zetai (Lk 16:16a, cf. Lk 3:18). 205 The good news of the Kingdom of God breaks into the era of the law and the prophets, not to end it, but to transform it so that it will be relevant for both Jews and Gentiles – pa/j eivj auvth.n bia,zetai (Lk 16:16b).206 tw/n logw/n mou in Lk 21:32 is essentially Jesus’ recitation of God’s promises in the apocalyptic era. In Lk 16:31, the words of Mwse,wj kai. tw/n profhtw/n and tij evk nekrw/n avnasth/| are set in thematic parallel. The words and teachings of the earthly Jesus are primarily interpreted as the good news (Lk 4:18, 43, 20:1, cf. Lk 16:16b).207 Luke’s discussion of the shared wish of both Jews and Christians to inherit eternal life (Lk 10:21-42) strongly hints that he puts both means, the observance of the Torah by the Jews and the discipleship of Jesus by the Christians, on an equal footing. Luke deepens the theme of the love of God with the wholeness of oneself (Lk 10:27, cf. Deut 6:6), with Jesus’ praise of Mary’s undivided attention in his presence (Lk 10:42). This thematic parallel shows that Luke equates words of God with Jesus’ logia. However, it also seems that in the post-Easter era, both the Torah and Jesus’ words play a less significant role in the lives of Christians. An open letter addressed to the Gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia on the lifting of most of the Jewish laws for the Gentile Christians (Acts 15:28-29) states that the decision is endorsed by the disciples, John. When Matthew mentions prophets before the Law in Mt 11:13, he points out that starting from John, the prophetic function of the prophet and the Torah has been fulfilled. Cf. Tuckett, Griesbach, pp. 151-152, Gnilka, Matthäus 1, pp. 417-418. A textual variant provided by Syrian texts shows that only the prophets, not the Law is mentioned in Mt 11:13. The textual witness of the Syrian text is plausible because Mt 11:13 is the only occasion in Matthew’s Gospel that a prophet is placed before the Law. Also, the verb profhteu,w fits well with the prophets, but not with the Torah (profhteu,w appears four times in Matthew’s Gospel). In Mt 15:7, the verb applies to the subject, the prophet Isaiah. On other occasions, Matthew mentions always o` no,moj h' oi` profh,tai (Mt 5:17-21, 7:12, 22:34-40). 204 Marcion provides the reading in Lk 16:17 which supports that tw/n logw/n mou, not the Law (~O no,moj), is the subject of the attribute “lasting forever”. kai. pa/j eivj auvth.n bia,zetai in Lk 16:16b is a problematic phrase whose original relationship to Lk 16:16 is unclear. Codex a* and a few manuscripts do not have it –it could be a harmonization and an improvement to Matthew’s parallel text in Mt 11:12. 205 The proclamation of the good news –euvaggeli,zw was first associated with John (Lk 3:18). Then later, the good news of the Kingdom of God –h. basilei,a tou/ qeou/ was associated with Jesus (Lk 4:43, 8:1, 9:2, 60). It is that Jesus, not John, marks the beginning of the proclamation of the Kingdom of God, which is a new epoch compared with the Law and the Prophets, cf. Lk 7:28. See Wolter, Lukas, pp. 554-5, Bovon, Lukas 3, pp. 98-99. 206 Luke’s Jesus fulfills not only single verses of prophecy in the Old Testament but also the whole of it, Cf. Lk 24:44 plhrwqh/nai pa,nta ta. gegramme,na evn tw/| no,mw| Mwu?se,wj kai. toi/j profh,taij kai. yalmoi/j peri. evmou/. Tuckett holds the opposite opinion, namely that Luke tries to modify Jesus’ radical position against the Torah. He also maintains that if Mt 5:18d belongs to Matthew’s redaction, Lk 16:16 should have been closer to the source and is therefore one of the authentic sayings of Jesus, Tuckett, Griesbach, p. 153. 207 See also Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 79. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

the elders and the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:23, 28). Moses, the prophets and even Jesus no 157 longer play a role.208 Matthew and Luke are respectful of the Torah but critical of Jewish customs. They share similar views about the transitory but still valid authority of the Torah and its fulfilment in Jesus (Mt 5:18, Lk 16:17). However, their Jesus does not share Mark’s Jesus’ intense fondness for faithful Torah observers. 209 Matthew’s Jesus criticises the custom only in words but not in deeds. Although Jesus’ critics hold that Jesus violates the law and oral traditions (Mt 5:17), Matthew clarifies that it is his disciples who breach the rules and customs (Mt 12:2, Mk 2:23; Mt 15:2, Mk 7:2). Luke’s Jesus, however, does not shy away from being a dissident against Jewish customs (Lk 11:38). 210 His Jesus is blamed for changing Jewish “customs” by a witness whose verdicts do not carry any factual weight with Jesus. The witness himself is not a live witness to the earthly Jesus’ logia (Acts 6:13). He derived it from the preaching of Jesus’ disciples (Acts 6:14). 5.4.1.2 Law or Customs? Both Matthew and Luke ponder how the Torah can be applied to their communities, but they go in different directions. Matthew chooses greater righteousness, whereas Luke chooses a Torah that is practicable for the Jews and the Gentile Christians. 211 For Matthew, Jesus, the Son of God (Mt 17:5), rivals the revered Jewish critics by his nearness to the Will of the Father and his demand for greater righteousness (Mt 5:20, 48). For Luke, Jesus, the Saviour who humbly descends to earth (Lk 2:11), would not make the Torah too difficult for his church to bear (Acts 15:10). Hence, Matthew resolves the conflicts about the Torah and the oral tradition through Jesus’ superb exegesis. Luke, however, tries to resolve the conflicts in two ways: the disciples make the Jewish Torah practical for the Gentile Christians in Acts.212 The disciples apply different terms to the Torah for Jewish and Gentile audiences. The Jewish laws become Jewish customs when 208

Wilson suggested that "when Luke wrote the Gospel Jesus' view of the law was not a live issue, whereas when he wrote the Acts the problem of Paul and the law was". See Wilson, Law, p. 111. 209 Mk 10:21 is the only verse in the synoptic Gospels in which Jesus is the subject of avgapa,w. The other place is John 3:16, where God is the subject of avgapa,w. 210 According to Matthew and Mark, the Pharisees’ accusation of Jesus’ violation of their custom was provoked by the deeds of Jesus disciples, not Jesus himself, eg. conflict on the observation of the Shabbat rest (Lk 6:1, par Mt 12:1, Mk 2:23), conflict about the custom of washing hands before meals (Mt 15:2, Mk 7:2). According to Luke, it is Jesus himself who did not wash his hands before a meal in a private setting (Lk 11:38). 211 Klinghardt suggested that Luke combined the Torah with ethics in his Gospel –for the Jews, observing the Torah means also disposing one's possession for the poor (Lk 18:22). For the Gentiles, observing the Torah means complying with the religious rituals as stated in the Apostels' council (Acts 15:29). See Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 307, p. 310. 212 Bovon points out that the ancients hold a religion that made unreasonable prescriptions superstitious. See Bovon, "The Law in Luke-Acts" in Studies in Early Christianity, pp. 72-73. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

they move across ethnic boundaries. The uses of no,moj in the Gospel of Luke all refer to Jews.213 Likewise, in Acts, no,moj is used primarily by and between Jews, not between 158 Jews and Gentiles. When the same theme is picked up in Acts, it is referred to as e;qoj, which is from the perspective of the Gentiles, not para,dosij.214 Luke’s hidden message is that the Jews make both their law (the Torah) and customs into laws, but that the Gentiles do not necessarily need to do this too. The most frequently quoted accusation by the Jews against the early Christian communities is their alteration of the laws and oral tradition. Most of the accusations, including the severest of them, are lodged against Paul, the disciple to the Gentiles.215 In a sermon on a Shabbat, Luke’s Paul stresses that the observance of the Torah is unable to justify sins (Acts 13:38), ti dia. tou,tou (Jesus) u`mi/n a;fesij a`martiw/n katagge,lletai( avpo. pa,ntwn w-n ouvk hvdunh,qhte evn no,mw| Mwu?se,wj dikaiwqh/nai, only Jesus can justify sins. Paul’s position is similar to Peter’s speech before the Jews in Acts 15:10. It is clear that Luke’s Paul and Peter express their views here from the perspective of a Gentile Christian.216 Paul does not change the Torah for the Jews, but he relativises some of the Torah and describes it as customs for the Gentiles. Hence, Paul does not refute the accusation that he changes the customs and launches new customs, or e;qoj (Acts 24:14, 25:8).217 Paul probably uses different terminology to refer to the same Torah when he talks to different audiences: nomo,j (Acts 13:38, 22:3, 23:3, 28:8) and e;qoj (Acts 213

Lk 16:16, Mt 11:13 [Q], Lk 16:17, Mt 5:18 [Q]). The term nomoj and its observance are used to describe the acts of Jesus’ parents in Lk 2:22-24, 27, 2:39. evntolh, and dikai,wma are used by Zechariah in Lk 1:6. Wilson holds that no,moj and e;qoj are used interchangeably in Luke's double work. However, he invites others to compare his understanding with those in A. George, "Israel" in Etudes sur l'oeuvre Luc (Paris 1978), pp. 88-125. George suggests that "Luke's use of places Jewish law on a par with the customs of other nations, but thinks this reflects Luke's negative judgement on Jews who do not accept the Gospel". Furthermore, he points out that an important motive of Luke's view of law is that it is the "ethos of a particular ethnos". See Wilson, Law, pp. 10-11, 103. 214 Luke uses e;qoj the most frequently among the New Testament writers. He uses it ten times, out of which seven times are found in Acts. Like Luke, the contemporary Jewish writers know the difference between no,moj and e;qoj. See Philo spec. 2:147, 148, 188, 3:13, 29, Jos. Apion 1:317, 2:139, 2:269, Jos. Ant 9:243, 290, 12:263, 20:47, 81, Jos. Bell 3:103, 5:482. Josephus tends to treat the Jewish no,moj and e;qoj as having equal importance. See Jos. Ant 5:90, 101, 113, 8:340, Jos. Bell 2:195, 160, 195, 4:102, 136, 5:237, 7:424, 11:217, 14:216, 15:254, 328. 16:172. The Gentiles may regard the Jewish tradition as custom e;qoj, not no,moj. See 2 Macc 11:25, 4 Macc 18:5. 215 The accusations are directed against Stephen (Acts 6:13), Jesus (Mt 5:17, Acts 6:14), Peter (Acts 11:3) and Paul (Acts 13:38, 18:13, 21:20, 24:4, 5, 6, 14, 25:8). 216 See Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 98. 217 Paul usually mentions the practice of the Jews to the Gentiles as customs, not Law (Acts 26:3, 28:17). However in his self-defence against the Jewish accusation of his changing the Law, he uses in his verdict before Agrippa the term “the Law” of the Jews, not the custom of the Jews (Acts 25:8). When addressing Jews, Paul mentions Law consistently instead of custom (Acts 22:3, 12, 23:3). However, for the Jews in Acts, and nomo,j and e;qoj synomyms and have the same status, cf. Acts 6:13-14, 15:1, 21:21. The lack of clear differentiation between laws and customs among the Jews in Acts is different from what Philo and Josephus hold. See Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 116, note 5 and p. 7, p. 117, note 8. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

28:17) are used in his speech to the Jews, but e;qoj is addressed to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 16:21, 26:3).218 He defends himself against the accusations of the Gentile rulers Festus 159 (Acts 25:8) and King Agrippa (Acts 26:30), from the perspective of the Gentiles. 219 Luke’s Gospel and Acts thus suggest that the conflict about the law and the oral traditions (and their relative legality) was triggered mainly by the early Christians’ post-Easter missions to the Gentiles, during which the issue of circumcision became critical. Through a switch from the Jewish to the Gentile perspective, Luke turns the absolute requirement of circumcision from the status of a law down to a custom in Acts.220 Matthew has to find another way to tackle the thorny issue of circumcision in his single volume. As discussed below, he uses the argument for the stubbornness of the heart, that the circumcision of the heart is more important than the physical circumcision of the body.221 5.4.1.3 Positioning Jesus’ Teachings Among Competing School Traditions How did the earthly Jesus position his own teachings among his contemporaries? Matthew’s Jesus does not centre his views on the halakha to one particular school. He devotes his loyalty to the Will of God alone and has his own halakha. He has similar views to Shammai in the debate on divorce, but his stance is close to Hillel’s in the debate on the greatest commandment. 222 In the dispute about the custom of washing hands before meals and dietary laws, Jesus is more relaxed than the established custom, but in another dispute about divorce, he is stricter than what the Torah actually requires. In both cases, Jesus critically assesses whether the halakha truly adheres to the spirit of the Torah. His exegesis is not radically different from that of his Jewish counterparts but is rooted in their traditions.223 What might be provocative to his contemporaries could be 218

Galilo speaks of Jewish laws only from the standpoint of the Jews –kai. no,mou tou/ kaqV u`ma/j (Lk 18:15). Wilson points out that Luke uses nomo,j nine times in his Gospel and fifteen times in Acts. The distribution of the word within Acts indicates the context wherein Luke found the law problematic. Wilson, Law, p.1 The use of e;qoj to refer to Jewish laws may presuppose the standpoint of an outsider or the knowledge of culture or custom of other folks. See also Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, pp. 116-123. 219 Barrett points out that Luke develops Paul’s defence from the perspective of Christians. Paul does not change the laws of the Jews, nor the laws for the Jews. He revises only the condition for the admission of the Gentiles. Cf. Barrett, Acts II, pp. 1126-1127. Klinghardt, by analyzing Luke’s employment of the term e;qoj and patriw-oj no,moj e;qoj, suggests that Luke’s community was "innerhalb einer nicht unbedeutenden jüdischen Gruppierung anzusiedeln". Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, pp. 120-123. 220 Circumcision is diaqh,kh in the speech of the pious man Peter in Acts 7:8 (cf. Lk 1:72). When addressing the Gentile receivers of the saying, it is e;qoj of Moses (Acts 15:3). Nevertheless, from the direct quotations of the followers of the Pharisees, it is no,moj of Moses (Acts 15:5). From the perspective of the foreign rulers, dispute about circumcision is not a serious conflict worthy of the death penalty or imprisonment –mhde.n de. a;xion qana,tou h' desmw/n e;conta e;gklhma. 221 Cf. Barn 9:1, 4, 5, 6. 222 b. Git 90a. 223 Cf. Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma, p. 50. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

the disproportionate escalation of the importance of Jesus’ teachings by his disciples, above all of his contemporaries and for all time. The former hints strongly about the 160 disciples’ beliefs about Jesus’ authority. The latter, however, may be truly offensive, as such behaviour rivals the authority not of people, but of God.224 The escalation is more likely to have happened in the post-Easter era when Jesus’ followers experienced his kerygma and tied the ultimate authority of Torah interpretation to their Christology. The three debates in the Gospel of Matthew mentioned above are presented in an ascending degree of importance in the Torah and increasing difficulties in exegesis: to position the (oral) tradition of the elders, which is considered by Pharisees and the Jews (with the exception of the Sadducees) as enjoying the same authority as the written law, to reconcile two conflicting or complementary sayings in the Torah, such as the sayings about marriage and divorce in Genesis and Deuteronomy, 225 and to identify the basis of the commandments on which all commandments hang. Likewise, Jesus and the Pharisees are also presented as rivalling for rightful authority in interpreting the Torah. Why is Matthew so keen to affirm Jesus’ authority in the Torah? It is plausible that the Matthean community altered the Torah to some extent to make way for their ministry: they were the least in the Kingdom but still in it (Mt 5:19). This alteration or relativisation could only be justified if Jesus’ exegesis is nearer to the original intention of the Torah, better than the best and most learned of the contemporary exegetes. Furthermore, the discussion on celibacy (his Sondergut) in Mt 19:10-12 reflects a post-Easter reflection on how to apply Jesus’ logion on divorce. Mt 19:10-12 shows that the disciples have an even more stringent position on the Torah than the Pharisees. They do not relativise the importance of part of the Torah for comfort, but to strive for greater righteousness than their Jewish counterparts (Mt 5:20). However, for Luke, the pressing concern about vetting the different interpretations of the Torah does not come until after Easter, when Jesus is absent. Jesus’ logia do not play a role in decisions or conflict resolution for the first generation Christians. Luke prefers to solve their conflicts through an organisation, not just through personal charisma. He records a hierarchy for decision-making in the early Christian church of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:1-29). Luke is not concerned about the positioning of the oral teachings of Jesus in relation to those of his 224

Hengel holds that Jesus has a "souveräne Freiheit" with respect to the Torah and the ethnicity of his contemporaries. His authority does not come from his role as a rabbi, but "aus seiner einzigartigen Vollmacht als Verkünder des nahen Gottesreiches ... vor allem unter eschatologischem Aspekt und im Blick auf die messianische Vollmacht Jesu", Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma, pp. 13-16. 225 The seven rules in Hillel’s exegesis do not handle the problem of seemingly contradictory verses. The last of the thirteen rules of Rabbi Ishmael (90-135 CE) specifies that when two verses seem to contradict with each other, the third verse should come up to reconcile both, cf. Tos. San 7:12, and Introduction to Sifre. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

competitors. The early Christians in Acts did not need Jesus’ logia, even though they had 161 living eyewitnesses of Jesus among them. 5.4.2 Bridge between Jewish and Gentile Ministries

Matthew remains silent on the defence of the tradition of the elders.226 He should be better informed than Mark about the purity rules in Judaism.227 His portrait of Jesus is of an observant Jew. His Jesus does not refuse to observe the purity rules.228 In all of the encounters between Jesus and those who are susceptible to the Levitical code of uncleanliness in the Synoptics, Matthew’s Jesus is the most cautious. His Jesus restricts his contact with the ritually unclean to a minimum during his healing ministry. 229 However, Matthew agrees with Mark that the true cause of impurity comes from the innermost motive of the heart and not from food, which hints that Matthew sees the need of having another criterion to supplement the established Jewish purity rules. Likewise, the early Jewish Christian communities in Acts are also highly conscious of the purity rules and the constraints they impose on the Gentile ministry. The issue of purity reaches 226

The intention of the custom of washing of hands could be an extension of the consciousness of purity in daily life in a practical way. The intention of Corban could be that if a son goes off to fight as a guerrilla against the Romans or the Herodian government, cutting off all ties with his parents might save his parents´property from being confiscated. Moreover, a person who forbids giving his property to another can nevertheless take care of that other person (cf. Peah 1:1 note 113, Mishnah 9, note 38). In addition, there are always ways to revoke the Corban (Lev 27:1-27). Cf. b. Ned 46a. 227 Actually, the dispute about purity rules can be more effectively launched against Jesus and his followers in the episodes of Jesus’ exorcism in the graveyard (Mt 8:28) or his healing of the woman with a haemorrhage (Mt 9:18) or his touching a lifeless body –a “corpse” (Mt 9:25). Moreover, why is Corban (also known as Konam in rabbinic literature) so unforgivable if the Jews are provided with the option to withdraw vows? Lev 27:1-25, b. Ned 66a allow withdrawal of vows. b.Ned 66b allows the removal of divorce. Num 30:2-3 forbids a person to cancel the vow. However according to the rabbinic interpretation, only an elder, not the person, could declare the vows void. Cf. Goldin, Living Talmud, p. 96. Luz also points out that Jesus’ accusation of the Pharisee’s oral tradition of Corban is doing injustice to them. In fact, according to rabbinic literature, they have tried to devise means to abolish immoral vows. Luz, Matthäus 2, p. 422-423. The arguments of Mark’s Jesus could only sound sympathetic in the ears of Gentiles, who knew little about the background of the Jewish Laws. They are most probably the earliest implied readers in the tradition adopted by Mark. 228 Luz summarizes the different theses on the question of how Matthew’s Jesus positions himself with respect to the Torah and ritual rules. One of the theses is that Jesus does not refuse the ritual rules per se but subordinates them to the greater commandment of love, Luz, Matthäus 2, pp. 418-419. 229 In the healing miracle of the woman with a haemorrhage, the woman is healed by Jesus’ words, not by her touching the fringe of his garment, which is an unclean act from an unclean woman (Mt 9:22, cf. Lev 15:25-27). The parallel texts in the synptics report that the healing took place through the woman’s unclean act (Mk 5:30, Lk 8:44). In the healing of the dead girl, Matthew’s Jesus sent everyone away before he touched her hand (Cf. Mt 9:25, which is an unclean act as he touched a dead body. See also Lev 11:3132, 15:9, 21:1. Num 5:2-3, 19:11-16, Philo Spec 3:205-206), while both Mark and Luke report the presence of witnesses (Mk 3:40, Lk 8:53). Unlike Mark (Mk 5:35), Matthew avoids saying that Jesus touches the dead girl. His Jesus only comments that she is not dead, but asleep (Mt 9:24). Nevertheless, it is unlikely that any normal people would mistake sleeping (or loss of consciousness) with death. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

its climax with the encounter between Peter and the first Gentile proselyte to Christianity, 162 Cornelius (Acts 10:1-11:18). Why does Matthew support another criterion for demarcating clean and unclean? Why does he make room for an alteration of the Torah (the Levitical code of dietary rules) by asserting Jesus’ exegetical competence? The answer is obviously the Matthean community’s ministry to the Gentiles. 5.4.2.1 Canaanite Woman as a Bridge to the Gentile Ministry Matthew clearly demarcates periods; his earthly Jesus’ mission activity is confined primarily to the Jews. Only in the post-Easter period does the mission to the Gentiles truly begin (Mt 28:16-20, cf. Rom 15:8). However, this does not prevent Matthew from advancing the motive of the Gentile ministry in his pre-Easter narrative. Reflections on the Jewish practice of purity are pressing in the face of the ministry to the Gentiles. Matthew tries to portray an earthly Jesus who paves the way for this ministry, as revealed by his insertion of “Sidon” and his alteration of the ethnic origin of the woman to “Canaan” (Mt 15:21-28). 230 The place Sidon (Mt 15:21) recalls the universal salvation of God in Elijah’s tradition (1 Kings 17:7-15).231 In Matthew’s Gospel, Tyre and Sidon are contrasted favourably with the unbelieving coastal towns in Galilee (Mt 11:21). The insertion of Sidon in Mt 15:21 strengthens the parallel drawn between the widow in Elijah’s narrative, who is from Sidonia, and the widow in Matthew’s narrative. The widow in 1 Kings 17:7-15 deserves God's help because she offers hospitality to a prophet of Israel even when she herself is in desperate need. The widow in Mt 15:21 deserves Jesus’ help because she has nothing more to offer than her faith, which is strong and persistent and is not worn down through her four petitions and Jesus’ three refusals. Jesus’ three refusals are strongly reminiscent of the Jewish custom of rejecting any proselyte three times when they want to convert to Judaism.232 The way the woman is 230

Davies & Allison do not think that Mt 15:1-20 serves as an introduction to Mt 15:21-28, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 517. Konradt maintains that Mt 15:21-28 does not mean support for the mission to the Gentiles, but dwells more on the far-reaching impact of Jesus’ work, which focuses primarily on Israel. See Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 54-59. Mark's placing the healing of the daughter of a Syro-Phoenician woman (Mk 7:24-30) after the dispute on the food laws (Mk 7:1-23) shows that he wants to remove the main Jewish identity marks for Gentile ministry. Likewise, the feeding of 4000 (Mk 8:1-9) after the healing of a deaf in a predominantly Gentile region serves the same literary purpose. See Konradt, Matthäus, p. 57. 231 The shared themes between the two narratives; a Gentile widow in need of help (Mk 7:25), a divine visit, and the bread (Mk 7:28). Tyre was on the border of Phoencian territory in Old Testament times. ~Ellhni,j (Mk 7:26) is always set as a contrast to Jews in the New Testament. It represents the non-Jews, Rom 1:16, 2:9,10, 3:9, 10:12, 1 Cor 1:24, 10:32, 12:13, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11, cf. Pesch, Markus 1, p. 388. 232 Hirsch, "Proselyten", JE, Vol. X, p. 222. See also Jackson, Have Mercy on me, pp. 101-102. Cf. Lawrence, Ethnography, pp. 271-274. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

introduced is also uncommon for Matthew’s Gospel: unlike in Acts, characters in the Synoptics are not introduced with their ethnicity. 233 Matthew changes Mark’s 163 contemporary, exact identification of the ethnic of origin of the woman, Syro-Phoenicia, to the classic but generic term of origin for Gentiles, Canaan.234 This change harks back to the historical, religious connotation of idol-worshippers attached to the Israelites’ Gentile neighbours in the Promised Land (Mt 15:22).235 Canaan is introduced here not on ethnic grounds, but on purely religious grounds: they are non-Israelite idol worshippers. The phrase also recalls the saying that some Canaanites are made slaves to the Israelites so that they can eat and drink from what their master possesses.236 This aspect finds an echo in Jesus calling the non-Israelites dogs in the episode (Mt 15:26); dog is a nickname for male temple servants in the temple of Astarte in ancient Canaan. 237 Nevertheless, some Canaanites who convert to Judaism do help to serve in the temple.238 Dog is also a synonym for a servant or a self-humiliating form of address before one’s Lord in the Old Testament and in ancient oriental writings.239 The humble position of the woman, who bows down before Jesus, is analogous to the attitude of a maid before the King.240

233

The way a character is introduced in the Synoptics is not through one’s political status, but through ancestral, communal or geographical links. The form in which Matthew introduces his characters is “name followed by the geographical place” or the name is given to show its geographical place of origin. The way the woman is introduced in Matthew –gunh. Cananai,a avpo. tw/n o`ri,wn evkei,nwn is however a double reminder to the readers of her foreign origin. 234 The reading of gunh. Cananai,a avpo. tw/n o`ri,wn evkei,nwn evxelqou/sa in Mt 15:22a is ambiguous. It could mean the woman comes from the region of Tyre and Sidon to see Jesus in a Jewish land (cf. Mt 8:513), or it could mean her origin is from Trye and Sidon (cf. Mt 4:23), cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 548. 235 Philo, de Sobr, 44. Philo points out that Canaan represents people who do vices, and who possess the potential of doing vices. Davies and Allison list six explanations why the ethnic origin of the woman was changed from Syrophoenician to Canaanite. They support that the change was caused by its association with the Old Testament tradition, i.e people of Canaan were Israel’s enemies, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 547. 236 b. Jom 75a. 237 See Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (CIS) i. no. 86. 238 Deut 23:19. Canaanite or Canaan in Josephus’ literature bear at least two connotations (i) in Jos. Bell, Canaanite denotes non-Israelites in a political sense. It is clear that Josephus called the Romans Babylonians (the ruling classes) specifically (Jos. Bell 6:439, 7:9 etc) but all other non-Israelites not belonging to the ruling class are called Canaanites (Jos. Bell 6:438). (ii) In Josephus’ books, Canaan denotes the first dwelling place of their fathers (Jos. Ant 1:154, 169, 237), the Canaanites are idol worshippers, people of wicked practice (Jos. Ant 5:107-108, 179) and those whom Israelites must root out from the promised land (Jos.Ant 4:300). However, some Canaanites, i.e. the Gibeonites and people from Kephivah and Kiriath Jearim, managed to become part of the Israelite society by tricks. They served as public servants to the community of Israel (Jos. Ant 5:54-56) or in some texts, temple servants. See 1 Chr 9:2, Ezra 2:43, 8:20. 239 2 Sam 9:8, EA 60:6, 61:3, 71:16. Cf. Konradt holds that dogs (and pigs) refer to the people who are unfriendly to the disciples' ministry. Konradt, Matthäus, p. 67, note 278. 240 1 Sam 24:9, EA 60:4, 61:4, 79:5, 247:7, ABL 281:94. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

Matthew’s retelling of the story about the Canaanite woman (Mt 15:21-28) may reflect the situation in the early ministry to the Gentiles. The Gentile ministry in Acts 164 starts with almsgiving, which provides the first impulse to cross the cultic, religious and racial boundaries between the Jews and the Gentiles. The first recorded internal conflict between the early Christians is about the differentiated treatment of almsgiving to the needy among Palestinian and Hellenistic Jewish Christians (Acts 6:1). It is also a reflection on the commandment to love one’s neighbours (Mt 22:39, Lev 19:18, 33): who is my neighbour? The neighbours of the Palestinian Jewish Christians in Acts are the Jews from the diaspora. The neighbours of the Jewish Christians in the diaspora are the Gentiles. They are whom the Christians are commanded to love. Like the miracle of the bread that feeds thousands of people, Jesus’ mercy is so abundant that even small crumbs can cover the the Gentiles. Among the Gentiles, the Gentile women have fewer hurdles to overcome in their conversion to Judaism. The pre-requisite to conversion, circumcision, is a great hurdle for Gentile men, but does not affect women.241 5.4.2.2 Striving for Perfection as a Mark of the Matthean Community A short analysis of how Matthew handles the question of perfection and purity also sheds light on Matthew’s reflection on the Gentile ministry. Perfection and purity are closely related concepts. They describe the relationship between God and his chosen people. They require living (or walking) according to God’s commandments.242 Matthew differs from his contemporaries in what constitutes holiness, or its synonym, perfection. To be perfect, one needs to follow Jesus and his halakha for greater righteousness, not only observe the commandments (Mt 19:21). 243 Matthew also differs in to whom the commandment to be perfect is given. The commandment is given to the followers of Jesus’ halakha (Mt 5:1ff. Mt 5:47).244 The group overrides the boundary of race and the 241

All proselytes in Matthew’s genealogy (Mt 1: 1-16) are women. Mt 23:15 shows how difficult it is even for the Pharisees to make a single proselyte, cf. Daube, Ancient Jewish Law, p. 2. 242 TestLev 3:9-12, 4:1-6, 19:2. 243 Konradt is of the opinion that "Vollkommenheit basiert für Matthäus auf der vollkommenen Erfüllung der hermeneutisch im Liebesgebot zentrierten Torah navh der Auslegung Jesu." See Konradt, "Rezeption and Interpretation des Dekalogs im Matthäusevangelium" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 153-154. Luz names three moments of perfection according to his interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew: (i) Vollkommenheit ist, wer Gottes Gebot im Sinne der Feindes- und Nächstenliebe als unbegrenzbare, unteilbare Forderung versteht und danach handelt. (ii) Vollkommenheit heisst, Schritte über das Normale und Übliche hinaus zu tun, sich auf einen Weg zu begeben, der etwas von der Andersheit Gottes und der Radikalität Jesu widerspiegelt. (iii) Zur Vollkommenheit gehört schliesslich die Bindung an Jesus, die mit dem Ruf a,kolou,qei moi ausgedrückt ist, i.e. in der Nachfolge Jesu. See Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 124-125. 244 Cf. Gen 17:1, 3-10. b. Ned 31b –Abraham is not called perfect before he is circumcised. te,leioj appears three times in the Synoptics and all are found in Mt 5:48 (two times) and Mt 19:21. The quotation of the term on both occasions is closely related to the keeping of the commandments, especially the commandment on loving one's neighbours, and radical almsgiving. It is the translation of ~ymt, which is mostly used in the cultic context of offering in Lev and Num, cf. Lev 1:3, 10, 3:1, 6, 9, 4:2, 3, 28, The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

hierarchies of religious offices and orders of the learned. The group is not restricted to the Jews, who are the chosen people of God, or the Aronite or Levitical priests, who are born 165 servants of God (Exod 19:6), 245 or the Pharisees, who are more learned and better informed.246 Matthew’s premise is that God is perfect, so Christians must be of a quality befitting them to stand in the presence of God.247 The Jews strive to observe the Torah to attain this quality, whereas all of the evangelists hold that what really matters is not the outwards observance of the letter of the law, but inner obedience from the heart. 248 Matthew deepens the theme of heart. Although Matthew uses kardi,a less frequently than Luke,249 Matthew’s heart has his own literary development. Matthew is the only one in the Synoptics who describes the kind of heart which enables one to see God and what kind of a heart Jesus has. Matthew’s Jesus talks about his own heart (Mt 11:29) and implies the “lighter” yoke that he and his followers carry. Matthew’s Jesus believes that only those oi` kaqaroi. th/| kardi,a can see 5:15, 18, 25, Num 6:14, 19:2, 28:3, 9 etc. When ~ymt is applied to people, it refers restrictively only to Noah, Abraham and the priests (Gen 6:9, 17:1, Exod 29:1). ~ymt, when applied to God in MT, refers to his wisdom (Ps 19:8), work (Deut 32:4), and his way (2 Sam 22:31, Ezek 28:15, Pss 18:31, 119:1). The most common attributes associated with te,leioj include: dikaiosu,nhn –qdz, lalw/n avlh,qeian evn kardi,a| –wbblb

o

tma rbd (Ps 15:2). The condition of heart is one of the most frequently used attributes associated with ~ymt in MT (Pss 101:2-6, 119:80, Prov 2:21, 11:20). In LXX, ~ymt is rendered into many translations besides te,leioj. They include a,kaki,a, a;memptoj (morally innocent and impeccable Pss 7:9, 25:21), eu,qu,thj (moral integrity, Pss 9:9, 99:4), o,lo.klhrioj, o;loj (whole, not curtailed, Job 9:2, Wis 15:2, Tob 13:6). In the Qumran, perfection and holiness are mentioned together. Both are attained through the observance of the Torah and the rules of the community. See 1QS 3:3, 9, 8:1-4, 20, 9:7, 20, CDA 7:5, CDB 20:1, 7. 245 See 1QS 3:7-12, 4Q 397:5-7. TestLev 18:2, 4:2, cf. Meiser, "Vollkommenheit in Qumran und im Matthäusevangelium" in Kirche und Volk Gottes, pp. 195-209. Schwartz points out that in the first century, there has been a strong demand for the breaking the Aaronite monopoly of priesthood. See Schwartz, "Kingdom of Priests –a Pharisaic Slogan" in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, pp. 60-61. 246 In Jesus' time, the more pious ones, e.g. the Pharisees, define themselves through their better informed and more faithful observance of the commandments. The name Pharisee itself is derived from the verb hrp, which means “to make distinct” or “to separate oneself”. The majority of biblical scholars, however, have understood it as “one who is separate” or “separated”, but it still remains controversial because: (i) who is separated from whom, or (ii) who is separated from what? Both the name of Pharisee and the holy people derive their meanings from the chosen status, or anything or anyone which belongs to God. The Israelites derive their status through covenant, and their status is set against and over that of the unchosen Gentiles. Later, from the time of the Maccabees, the term “holy people” is used as a synonym for the Jews when referring to themselves, cf. Baeck, "Die Pharisäer" in Leo Baeck Werke V, pp. 367-411. It is noted that the term was borrowed by early Christian communities to refer to themselves, cf. Acts 9:41, the Christian community is called the saints. In the genuine letters of Paul, he addresses the Christian communities as saints in Rom 1:7, 1 Cor 1:2, 2 Cor 1:1, Phil 1:1. A similar expression is found in the pseudo-pauline letters, e.g. 1 Pet 1:2 and in Eph 1:1 and Col 1:2. Nevertheless, the Gospel writers are more reserved. They only call the Christians the righteous on the day of judgement, cf. Mt 13:43, 49, Lk 14:14. 247 Cf. Lev 19:2, Deut 18:13. Similar formulation can be found in Mekh Rabbi Ishmael to Exod 15:2. See Flusser, "Love your neighbor" in Judaism of the second Temple period, vol. 2, p. 157. 248 See Davies & Allison, Matthew II, pp. 530-531. 249 kardi,a: Mt (16), Mk (11), Lk (22). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

God (Mt 5:8). In Matthew’s Gospel, kaqari,zw carries a ritual connotation of cleansing; a cleansed heart, not a cleansed body, can see God.250 Matthew believes that the disposition 166 of the heart, not circumcision, is the deciding factor. An analysis of sklhrokardi,a in Mt 19:8 shows that it can also mean an unmoved heart.251 sklhrokardi,a is analogous to uncircumcised (in heart) in LXX. It comes from ~kbbl tlr[, which means the unremoved foreskin(s) of (your) heart(s) (Jer 9:25).252 Even when Matthew seems only to inherit sklhrokardi,a from Mark, he deepens the theme of the uncircumcised heart in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. The structure of the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount shows that Matthew is eager to introduce a better observance of the law (i.e., better righteousness) over the contemporary halakha.253 He may even go a step further to suggest an alternative to circumcision as the most important of all of the commandments.254 Matthew ends the section on the Torah in his Sermon on the Mount with e;sesqe ou=n u`mei/j te,leioi w`j o` path.r u`mw/n o` ouvra,nioj te,leio,j evstin in Mt 5:48 (Lk 6:36 [Q]). Jesus’ command is even more demanding than the contemporary rabbinic imperative: one must be merciful because God is merciful. 255 He challenges his community to observe the commandments that are applicable only to the priests, such as Mt 5:32 (cf. Lev 21:7, 14). His logion on calling his followers to be perfect is strongly reminiscent of Gen 17:1, in which God commands the same of Abraham before entering into the covenant with him (literally, blameless, a;memptoj, in LXX, ~lv in Hebrew, cf. Gen 17:1).256 The Sermon on the Mount is a new covenant. Matthew suggests greater righteousness as an alternative to circumcision for the new covenant.257 Matthew’s Jesus

250

kaqari,zw: It is always used in active transitive sense. It means cleansing people who are ritually unclean (Mt 8:2, 10:8, 11:5) or cleansing the containers for offering Mt 23:25. The construction of oi` kaqaroi. th/| kardi,a is uncommon (it is an adjective in normative active form but it is followed with a dative substantive). The only comparable construction is Mt 5:3 oi` ptwcoi. tw/| pneu,mati. Its construction may mean a dative instrumentalis. It may imply that circumcised flesh is not a warranted condition to meet God. 251 Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 72. 252 Cf. 1QS 5:4-5, 25. For uncircumcised lips, see 1QHa 10:6, 18, 19:5. 253 Cf. Mt 5:20. The six pairs of construction –Hkou,sate o[ti evrre,qh… evgw. de. le,gw u`mi/n (Mt 5:21..22, 27..28, 31..32, 33..34, 38..39, 43..44). Cf. Vahrenhorst holds that the Sermon on the Mount attempts to contrast the behaviours of u`pokrith,j. See Vahrenhorst, "Die Bergpredigt als Weisung zur Vollkommenheit. Noch ein Versuch, die Struktur und das Thema der Bergpredigt zu finden" in Logos-Logik-Lyrik, pp. 134-135. 254 King Izate of Adiabene was reproached for breaking the principal of the Law when he declared that he resolved to follow Jewish laws entirely but stayed uncircumcised, Jos. Ant 20:38-48. 255 y. Ber. 5:3. 256 b. Ned 31a. Luz also points out that what is mentioned in an earlier position in the Torah will have more weight than what comes after it. Circumcision is found in Exod 19:5, which is earlier than the Ten commandments, Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 96. 257 Cf. Jos. Vita 112, 149. Even Josephus, a Pharisee and a priest (Jos.Vita 50), does not force circumcision on proselytes. He insists that everyone worships God according to their inclination. See also Barn 9:4. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

therefore sends his disciples to the Gentile world to teach them his logia without 167 requiring circumcision (Mt 28:19).258 Luke is also aware of the demarcation between Jews and Gentiles. He does not go into the issues of purity and circumcision in his Gospel, only in Acts. The main figures who trigger the move are Peter and Philip.259 With respect to the issue of purity, Peter breaks through the boundary between the Jews and Gentiles through a vision of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:10-17. The dietary laws that separate the pure Jews and the impure Gentiles are removed in their encounter. The issue of circumcision is first hinted at in Philip’s encounter with a Gentile eunuch (Acts 8:29-38)260 and later in the dispute about circumcision in Antioch (Acts 15:1-2), which is held in the form of a summit meeting resembling the Qumran community to legitimise a compromise for ex eventu situations (Acts 11:20).261 The two issues on dietary laws and circumcision are discussed in the Apostolic Council in Acts 15:1-33.262 In his letter addressed to the churches in Antioch, 258

Tuckett points out that the incoporation process of new members to the Matthean community in Mt 28:19 does not require baptism. See Tuckett, "Matthew: The Social and Historical Context –Jewish Christian and/ or Gentile" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, p. 127. Cf. Epiph. haer 28. Kerinth uses the Gospel of Matthew to support circumcision. He holds that pupils should not be greater than their teacher. In this way, Christians should be circumcised because their teacher, Jesus, was also circumcised. 259 Philip is a Jewish Christian with a Greek name (Lk 3:1). His name carries a strong Hellenistic background. It suggests that the bridge between Jewish and Gentile Christians was first forged by cooperation between Jewish Christians from indigenous and Hellenistic backgrounds. 260 How can the first proselyte, a Eunuch, be circumcised, when he was already castrated? 261 The summit meeting is attended by full members and resembles the full meeting of members in the Qumran community as described in 1QS 6:8-13. Cf. Steyn, "Notes on the Vorlage of the Amos Quotations in Acts" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung p. 70. With respect to the literary function of the decisions of the summit meeting in Acts, the following views are identified: (i) the minimum requirement of the Torah for Gentile Christians, so that they can live together with and be counted as the people of God, i.e. the Israelites (represented by Jervell), (ii) to enable fellowship, e.g. table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles, (represented by Kümmel), (iii) to remind Gentile Christians in the Diaspora of the way to avoid conflicts with Jews, (represented by Deines), (iv) to be a warning to Gentile Christians not to participate in the pagan temple cult in the Diaspora (represented by Witherington), (v) to set the norm in practices for Gentile Christians with reference to the proper relationship to God, thus making them eligible to become people of God, (represented by Rost), cf. Rost, "Das Aposteldekret im Verhältnis zur Mosetora: Ein Beitrag zum Gottesvolk-Verständnis bei Lukas" in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historgraphie, pp. 580- 604. 262 What Peter uses as one of the arguments for removing circumcision as the prerequisite to admittance to the early Christian community is like Paul’s, i.e. both lack the “competency of compliance to the commandments” –ti, peira,zete to.n qeo.n evpiqei/nai zugo.n evpi. to.n tra,chlon tw/n maqhtw/n o]n ou;te oi` pate,rej h`mw/n ou;te h`mei/j ivscu,samen basta,saiÈ (Acts 15:10). The stand James adopts to resolve the dispute on the necessity of circumcision for the Gentile Christians is essentially the same as Peter’s. Dio. evgw. kri,nw mh. parenoclei/n toi/j avpo. tw/n evqnw/n evpistre,fousin evpi. to.n qeo,n (Acts 15:19). Although James’ compromise seems to manoeuvre the Gentile Christians in the Diaspora according to the Jewish requirement for resident aliens, Barrett points out that the arguments of Peter and James supplied in Acts 15:1-19 are more for the Gentile Christians than the Jews. Peter’s denouncement of the Law as an intolerable burden is an unnatural improvisation reflecting the views of the author, as Peter. Paul and Barnabas, the representatives of the Antioch church, have virtually nothing to add to the discussion. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

Syria and Cilicia, the dietary law is removed for the Gentiles and circumcision is not explicitly mentioned (Acts 15:19-20, 29). The solution to the problem of circumcision is 168 inferred, but not directly referred to, in his speech, but not in his letter (Acts 15:19-21). James offers a solution that addresses the traditional problem of communal living of Jews and Gentiles rather than the admittance of Gentiles to Judaism.263 However, he does not refer to the Jewish Christians as brothers to the Gentile Christians until the letter is out (Acts 15:22-23). Whether the problem of circumcision was eventually resolved after the Apostolic Council remains highly doubtful. Peter and Paul quarrel over table fellowship between the circumcised and uncircumcised after Paul visits Jerusalem (Gal 2:1, 11-13). Paul still has Timothy, who is half Jew and half Greek, circumcised after the Apostolic Council (Acts 16:2).264 5.4.3 Alienation caused by the Pharisees’ halakha

Blindness is often depicted as a divine punishment on those who misuse or misunderstand the sacred domain.265 Both Matthew and Luke apply the literary theme of blindness to the critics who prevent others from believing. They choose the easier and honour-winning job of leading the blind, thereby causing the led’s blindness. They avoid the more difficult but self-denying mission of following the light, as they are also blind to the light.266 The underlying difference is that Luke applies this phenomenon in the postJames, who quotes Amos 9:11-12, refers to the LXX but not to the Hebrew text, which has exactly the opposite meaning of what James conveys in his speech, Barrett, Acts II, xxvii-xi. 263 James’ compromise is more or less the same as what the Jews required of alien residents –bvwt rg from their Noachic commandments in the first century. b.BM. 5.6, Jubliäen 7:20, b.San 56a-b, cf. Rost, "Das Aposteldekret im Verhältnis zur Mosetora: Ein Beitrag zum Gottesvolk-Verständnis bei Lukas" in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historgraphie, pp. 570-574. Part of the Noachic commandments may originate from the four prohibitions governing Israelites and resident aliens in the promised land in Lev 17:8-26. Avermarie points out that the solution suggested by Lev 17-18 with respect to the community life between the Jews and the Gentiles is highly relevant to Acts 15:1-33. He is of the opinion that the apostolic council in Acts 15:1-33 may imply the Jewish Christians’ reception of Lev 17-18. The phrase ~ry[ in Lev 17-18 is found also in the addressed party, together with the Jews, during their receipt of the commandments. This phrase could be used to refer to Gentile Christians, Avemarie, "Die jüdischen Wurzeln des Aposteldekrets: Lösbare und ungelöste Probleme" in Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen, p. 30. Nevertheless, Löhr disagrees with his views. He points out that there are objections to the view. It is because there is a shortage of citations from Lev 17-18 or key words shared by both texts. Also the emphasis in Acts 15:1-33 is not on the communal life between Jews and Gentiles, Löhr, "Überlegungen zu einer Bestimmung der Jakobus-Klauseln im Aposteldekret sowie zu den Geltungsgründen von Normen frühchristlicher Ethik" in Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen, pp. 57-8. The Noachic Code offers similar guidance for the Gentiles. See t.AZ 8:4. The main objection against the literary correlation between the Noachic Codes and Acts 15:23-29 is that the Code was first provided as literary evidence in 200 AD. see Ascough, "The Apostolic Decree of Acts and Greco-Roman Association" in Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen, p. 311, note 53. 264 See also Ascough, "The Apostolic Decree of Acts and Greco-Roman Association" in Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen, p. 298. 265 Jos. Ant 12:113. 266 Cf. Plut. mor. 139A, b. Sota 22b. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

Easter period, whereas Matthew applies it in Jesus’ lifetime. It is highly probable that Matthew here crams the post-Easter disputes in the Matthean community into his single 169 volume. Why? It is possible that in the absence of Jesus, different streams of halakha rocked the Matthean community and the genuine could not be differentiated from the false, nor the better from the good. The Matthean community was rocked by internal dissension caused by the rivalling halakha of the Pharisees (Mt 23:2). 267 Matthew’s shortened list of seven vices in Mt 15:19 shows hints of the conflicts in his community.268 The list follows Matthew’s development of the theme of the “mouth” in Mt 15:11, 17 and 18.269 The seven vices start and end with evil words, which are from the mouth. The first vice is dialogismoi. ponhroi, (which may mean evil thoughts, as stated in most of the modern translations but may also mean an evil dispute) and the final vice is blasfhmi,ai (in the plural form).270 The final vice, blasphemy, is the cause of the first conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees (Mt 9:3), on Jesus’ healing of a paralytic and his authority to forgive sin. Paralysis has the second connotation of an inability to walk according to the halakha. Matthew’s grave concern about the influence of the Pharisees’ halakha in his community is also shown in Mt 15:12-14. Here, Matthew records the reaction of the Pharisees from the perspective (and observations) of the disciples, not as a comment by the author or Jesus. The disciples have a conditioned respectful attitude towards the Pharisees’ halakha. Matthew’s intention to discredit the Pharisees’ authority is clear. He retains Mark’s rhetoric of choosing the easiest halakha to escalate the conflict on renouncing the traditions of the elders.271 The Pharisees accuse the disciples of Jesus of failing the easiest halakha, the cleansing custom of their time, whereas Jesus attacks the Pharisees for their negligence of one of the most important commandments of their time.272 His accusation of the Pharisees’ stubbornness of heart, blindness and blasphemy resembles the words used by the Qumran community against those with an inclination

267

Davies & Allison suggest that the Pharisees or their inspired descendants were participants with the evangelist in a real and urgent quarrel (Auseinandersetzung), Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 538. See also Wengst, "Das Tun der Tora als Kriterium der Zugehörigkeit zur Gemeinde im Matthäusevangelium" in Evangelium Ecclesiasticum, p. 429. 268 Matthew also groups the woes against the Pharisees into seven woes in Mt 23:13-32. 269 Cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 527. 270 Blasphemy is used two times against Jesus (Mt 26:65). The second time it is used to condemn Jesus to death, on the false verdict on his identity (Mt 26:66). Jesus also rebukes them as blaspheming against the Holy Spirit when they attribute the source of Jesus’ exorcism to demons. (Mt 12:31). Bock mentions two levels of blasphemy of Jesus, as assessed by his contemporary: (i) the possession of authority from God, (ii) self claim as a judge of the contemporary Jewish leadership. See Bock, Blasphemy, p. 236. 271 Cf. j.Dem 22d. 272 Honouring parents is the fourth of the Ten Commandments. It is also in most lists of the most rewardable performances of their time, which include honouring parents, the exercise of lovingkindness, effecting reconciliation between a man and his fellow, and the study of the Torah. The most serious punishable offences were idolatry, incest, bloodshedding and slander. Cf. Abraham, "The Greatest Commandment" in Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, p. 27. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Tradition of the Elders

towards uncircumcision.273 Their effect on the community is like yeast (Mt 16:12, Lk 12:1).274 Matthew’s Jesus deliberately states here that the Pharisees are not planted by 170 God (Mt 15:13, cf. Mt 13:25-30. Mt 2:6, par Lk 3:8-9, Mt 12:33-37, par Lk 6:45) but he refrains from suggesting here that they are planted by the evil one (cf. Mt 13:25, 39).275 Matthew also refrains from an immediate, premature judgment of the critics here, but gives them time be convinced by his Jesus’ arguments and repent (cf. Mt 15:14b, Mt 23:39).276 5.4.4 Pacifist Attitude of the Matthean Community towards their Critics

As a pious Jew, Matthew should have recited Shema (Deut 6:5) at least twice per day. In his Gospel, he deliberately avoids ivscu,j as one of the characteristics of an undivided love of God and replaces it with dia,noia,277 which may hint at his reservations about any demonstration of strength or his avoidance of conflicts with open opposition (cf. Mt 17:27). ivscu/ro,j is not Matthew’s favourite term to refer to Jesus. It refers to a misconception about his mission, which is characterised by non-resistance to the wicked (Mt 5:39). Even John, the predecessor of Jesus, for a long time wrongly anticipates ivscuro,tero,j in the figure coming after him. He has to seek clarification from Jesus via his disciples in his last days in prison (Mt 11:2-3). This attitude is different from that of Luke’s Jesus, who clearly distinguishes between the pre-Easter and post-Easter eras. The former is characterised by non-violence or less violence, whereas the latter is characterised by resistance necessitated by self defence (Lk 22:35, 49-51). It is possible that the Matthean community was troubled by disturbances from its critics and that Matthew tries to argue for a pacifist approach towards the critics that leaves judgment to God. The above study shows that Matthew’s redaction of the conflicts on the Torah and oral tradition is strongly influenced by his post-Easter experience. It is plausible that in his Gospel, Matthew is fighting against rival teachings on Jewish authority within his community. He may be forced to develop double strategies to defend Jesus’ rightful lineage to the Torah’s interpretation and to justify his relativising some teachings in the Torah. In contrast, Luke has a clear historical consciousness and places the named conflicts in the post-Easter era. 273

The Qumran community groups blindness, blasphemy and stubbornness of heart together as part of the features of uncircumcised inclination. See 1QS 4:9-11, 1 QS 3:3, 4:4, 7:21, 26, 9:10. 4Q 256 5:4, 4Q 257 1, 3:4-5. 274 Cf. yeast in the heart in j. Pes 49a. See Sifre Deut §131. 275 Cf. IgnPhld 3:1. 276 See also Lambrecht's exegesis on Mt 13:24-43. Lambrecht, "The Weeds in Context: Composition in Matthew 13, 24-43" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 562-567. 277 Matthew also avoids the use of the synonym of du,namij (Deut 6:5, LXX) as well. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Shabbat

Chapter 6 Conflicts about the Shabbat The Shabbat rest is one of the two main identity markers of Judaism. 1 It holds the Israelites together, especially during times of turbulence.2 It is also a frequent theme of debate between Jewish schools, who discuss among themselves the hypothetical “dos” and “don’ts” during the Shabbat rest. In contrast, Jesus and his circle did the “don’ts” on the Shabbat and challenged the principles behind them.3 Was Jesus against the Shabbat, or was he just against the contemporary halakha of Shabbat? In the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, two conflicts on the same Shabbat are intentionally placed close together, indicating that their Jesus’ breach of the Shabbat is not accidental but deliberate. The core issues involved are not only whether the Shabbat rest should be kept, but also how to keep it so as to fulfil its original intention. Can the true intention of Shabbat observance be realised only by transgressing it? Is the strict observance of Shabbat rest as equally problematic as the arbitrary breach of it? Can everyone rest in peace on the Shabbat when the needy and deprived are in want of Shalom? It is said that the tradition about Jesus challenging the Shabbat rest comes from the Hellenistic Jews, who are less rigid than their counterparts in Palestine. However, did the pious Palestinian Jews not have the same struggle?4 How did Matthew, who was faithful to the Torah, and his community see this issue?

1

The observance of the Shabbat and circumcision are the two core identity marks of Judaism, b.San 65b, 4Q 216 7:8-17. See also Exod 20:8-11, Deut 5:12-15, Neh 13:15-22, Isa 56:6, Ezek 19:12. However, contemporary Romans regarded the Jewish Shabbat as a cult influenced by the worship of Dionysius. See Plut. mor 671F, 672A. 2 1 Macc 2:29. In Old Testament times, the prophets reproached the Israelites for failing to observe the Shabbat. See Amos 8:5, Jer 17:21, Ezek 20:12-16. Eating on the Shabbat is regarded as behaving like a dog. See Hirsch, Die Frühgeschichte des Evangeliums II, p. 313. Cf. CDA 10:14-23. 3 The discussion between Jewish schools is about the concrete situations of dos and don’ts on the Shabbat. See CDA 6:18 where the Qumran community urge for an observance of the “exact” interpretation of the Shabbat. Even the Jewish schools Hillel and Shammai debated whether it is permissible to visit the sick and comfort the sad on the Shabbat, b.Shab 12a. However, what Jesus says here is about an alternative between doing good and evil on the Shabbat, i.e. Jesus is concerned about the general principle, not the details. With the extreme alternative between good and evil, one cannot help agreeing with Jesus but his concern is not the same as the Jewish schools'. 4 Pesch holds that the description in Mk 2:23 shows that the Shabbat conflicts could also be from Palestine, Pesch, Markus 1, pp. 182-183. Gnilka is of the opinion that pre-Mark tradition of the conflicts should not be from Galilee. See Gnilka, Markus 1, p. 132, cf. Doering, Schabbat, p. 406. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

171

Shabbat

6.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 12:1-8 6.1.1 Mt 12:1-8

6.1.1.1 Source and Text Criticism Mt 12:1-8 is an abridged, improved version of Mk 2:23-28.5 Matthew follows Mark’s narrative sequence faithfully and adopts many of his words.6 Mt 12:1-8 contains some words that are rare to Matthew;7 the disciples’ picking ears of corn on the Shabbat and the episode with David come from Mark. The construction of “something greater” in Mt 12:6 is from Q (Mt 12:41, 42, Lk 11:31, 32 [Q]). There are not many significant textual variants in Mt 12:1-8, except in Mt 12:6, Codices C and L supply the masculine singular comparative form of mei/zwn instead of mei/zon, which is in the neuter singular comparative form.8 However, from the context of 5

The discussion about the source of Mt 12:1-8 is highly controversial and not conclusive. See Luz’s analysis, Luz, Matthäus 2, p. 229. It is suggested that at least Mt 12:1 comes from Mk 2:23, because of the use of the plural form of sa,bbaton. However, the use of the numerical form of Shabbat interchanges considerably in Matthew’s text; the Pharisees raise the question to Jesus on the disciples’ deed on a Shabbat (in singular form in Mt 12:2). The plural form of Shabbat toi/j sa,bbasin appears again in Mt 12:5a, 10, 11, 12. The singular form of sa,bbaton is used in Mt 12:2, 5b, 8. Davies & Allison point out that the plural form could come from the Aramaic original, which means an emphatic singular. See Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 320, Doering also shows that the singular and plural forms of Shabbat are used interchangeably, Doering, Schabbat, p. 410, note 73. The same phenomenon is also found in Luke’s text: The singular form of Shabbat evn tw/| sabba,tw| is found in Lk 6:7, evn sabba,tw| is found in Lk 6:1, 6, tw/| sabba,tw| is found in Lk 6:9, 13:14, 15, 14:3, sabba,tw| is found in Lk 14:1 (see also Mt 24:20). The plural form of Shabbat toi/j sa,bbasin is found in Lk 6:2 (see also Mk 1:21, 2:24, 3:2), evn toi/j sa,bbasin is found in Lk 4:31, 13:10 (see also Mk 2:23). One of the doubts about Mark as the source of Mt 12:1-8 is Matthew’s removal of Mk 2:27 (par Lk 6:5), whose argument may fit well with Jesus’ argument. If Mk 2:27 is an allusion to Gen 1:26, referring to the creation order of men before the establishment of the Shabbat is referred to, it is hard to understand why Matthew does not adopt the argument, given his preference for biblical proof. Nevertheless, the use of dia in Mk 2:27 shows that Mark’s argument does not lie in the order of creation but in teleology. Man is much exalted in this interpretation. Perhaps this is contrary to Matthew’s anthropology and he does not follow it. Lindemann also thinks that the removing of Mk 2:27 by Matthew and Luke is caused by their worries that the autonomy of man is raised as a measure of all theological and ethical norms. See Lindemann, "Der Sabbat ist um des Menschen willen geworden" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte, p. 39. Doering is of a different opinion: Mk 2:28 points to a stronger David typology in the narratives. He holds that the omission of Mk 2:27 by both Matthew and Luke could be caused by their preference for Mk 2:28 as a stronger christological argument for the breach of the Shabbat rest. Doering, Schabbat, pp. 430-431. See also Käsemann, "Das Problem des historischen Jesus" in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen 1, pp. 206-207, Neirynck, "Jesus and the Sabbath" in Evangelia, pp. 637-680. 6 Nearly 48% of Matthew’s usage of words and their sequence follow that of Mark’s. 7 In Mt 12:1 –spo,rimoj, Mt (1); ti,llw, Mt (1); sta,cuj, Mt (1). In Mt 12:4 –pro,qesij, Mt (1). In Mt 12:5 –bebhlo,w, Mt (1); avnai,tioj, Mt (2) and in Mt 12:7 –qusi,a, Mt (2); katadika,zw, Mt (2); avnai,tioj, Mt (2). 8 In Mt 12:1, the Syrian text has an extra phrase kai. tai/j cersi,n auvtw/n yw,cein before kai. evsqi,ein. It is a harmonization with its parallel in Lk 6:1. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

172

Shabbat

the verse, it is more likely that mei/zon belongs to an earlier tradition, as the verses that 173 precede and follow Mt 12:6 refer to a principle rather than an individual. 6.1.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mt 12:1-8 is the first of the two conflict stories that take place on the same Shabbat, after which Jesus withdraws (avnacwre,w) from the place.9 The narrative is placed after Jesus’ comforting message for the teachable (nh,pioj) who are wearied (oi` kopiw/ntej kai. pefortisme,noi) by the halakha of the conservative wing of the Jews.10 Jesus offers his yoke (i.e., his cross and his teaching), which is gentle, and his burden, which is light: ~O ga.r zugo,j mou crhsto,j( kai. to. forti,on mou evlafro,n evstin (Mt 12:30). Mt 12:1-8 consists of two units of unequal length, the introduction (Mt 12:1) and the conflict scene (Mt 12:2-8). The two units are linked by the themes of hunger and eating (Mt 12:1, 3-4) and the Shabbat (Mt 12:1, 5). The conflict takes place when Jesus’ disciples breach the Shabbat’s rest by picking and eating ears of corn to still their hunger (Exod 20:8-11, Deut 5:12-15, Lev 19:9-10, Deut 24:19-22).11 The Pharisees, who hold Jesus responsible and accountable for the deeds of his disciples, raise an objection (Mt 12:2).12 Jesus provides two allusions from the Bible in their defence. Both are led by Ouvk avne,gnwte (Mt 12:3, 5). The first argument hinges on the stilling of hunger (Mt 12:1, 3). David breaches the laws for consecrated loaves in God’s temple when he and his followers are hungry.13 Matthew’s main argument is the parallel between Jesus (and his followers) and David (and his followers). Just as David takes the forbidden holy offerings In Mt 12:4a, P70, Codices C, D, L use the third person aorist singular form of e;fagen instead of e;fagon. It is hard to determine which form is earlier. e;fagen is parallel to another verb eivsh/lqen in Mt 12:4a, which refers to David only. However, from the narrative in Mt 12:1, 3 and 4b, it can be seen that a parallelism is set up between the followers of David and the disciples of Jesus. Hence, it is not totally implausible if e;fagon is used here to refer to the disciples. In Mt 12:5, P70, Codices C, D, W supply evn toi/j sa,bbasin. It is probable that toi/j sa,bbasin is correct as toi/j sa,bbasin is more often found in the New Testament without any preposition. It means on a Shabbat, e.g. Mt 12:1, 5, 10, 11, 12, Mk 1:21, 2:24, 3:2, 4, Lk 6:2. The phrase toi/j sa,bbasin can also be found, but only in 3 places, Mk 2:23, Lk 4:31, 13:10. 9 avnacwre,w is often used when danger is implied in Matthew’s Gospel, e.g. (i) the flight from Herod (Mt 2:12, 13, 14), (ii) after the tragic death of John in Mt 14:13. Matthew reports that Jesus withdraws from the place after two conflicts, i.e. (i) after the conflict on the Shabbat in Mt 12:15, (ii) after the conflict about purity in Mt 15:21. 10 For the interpretation of Mt 11:25-30, please refer to the discussion on the conflict of table fellowship. 11 Shabbat rest has been treated as a law since 170-150 BCE. See Doering, Schabbat, p. 116. Cf. CDA, col X:14-23. 12 Not all cases of hunger (or even starvation) are considered by the contemporary Jews a justifiable reason (life threatening situation) to break the Shabbat rest. 13 Matthew’s Jesus reports that David and his followers ate the consecrated loaves, which was not the case in the original narrative in 1 Sam 21:1-7. According to 1 Sam 21:1-7, David was alone on his flight (1 Sam 21:1-2). The rule governing consecrated loaves is in Lev 24:5-9. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Shabbat

when hungry, so the disciples do forbidden work on a holy rest-day when they are hungry.14 Matthew noted that David’s episode does not take place on a Shabbat.15 He 174 therefore buttresses the arguments for the breach of the Shabbat rest with two more citations from Biblical verses (Num 28:9-10 and Hos 6:6). The second argument hinges on the question e;xestin poiei/n evn sabba,tw| (Mt 12:2, 5). Matthew uses the rabbinic principle of rmxw lq (light and heavy) in Mt 12:5-6 to argue for the breach: the temple priests still offer on the Shabbat but they are not considered to breach the Shabbat rest (Num 28:9-10).16 The transition from Jesus’ first argument to the second is toi/j i`ereu/sin mo,noij (Mt 12:4-5). This transition (i.e., only the priests) shifts the question of what is allowed on the Shabbat (Mt 12:2) to who alone is permitted to do what on the Shabbat. avnai,tioi connects the innocence of the priests and the disciples (tou.j avnaiti,ouj in plural form). Jesus’ followers allude to the temple priests. Jesus then concludes his argument by providing his logion, which can serve as a hermeneutical key to the episode. Something (mei/zon, in the neuter, singular, normative form) is greater than the temple, which may point to the principle underpinning the two exceptions in the defence (Mt 12:6).17 He cites Hos 6:6 about the priority of mercy over sacrifice (in the temple) (Mt 12:7) and shows that the Son of Man is the Lord of the Shabbat (Mt 12:8).18 Matthew here reveals an extra dimension to the authority of the Son of Man, that he can alter the halakha of the Pharisees. Jesus also refers to himself as the Son of Man in the previous conflict, in which he makes the paralysed man walk (Mt 9:6). The healing of the paralytic has a hidden dimension of enabling those crippled by the Pharisees’ halakha to walk again.

14

See also Bacchiocchi, The Rise of Sunday Observance, pp. 50-52. Davies & Allison quote that some rabbis place David’s act on a Shabbat, e.g. b.Men 95b, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, 308. The same argument is found in Doering, Schabbat, p. 431. However the suggestion that the incident in 1 Sam 21:5 took place on a Shabbat is not explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament, nor in Jos. Ant 6:242-244. Also, b.Men 95b does not say explicitly that the incident took place on a Shabbat. 16 See also b.San 35b. 17 Luz interprets mei/zo,n as mercy, as cited in Mt 12:7, Luz, Matthäus 2 p. 232. Same as Konradt, "Die vollkommene Erfüllung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium" in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im neuen Testament p. 142. Doering suggests that it could relate to the impact of Jesus (Cf. Mt 12:41), Doering, Schabbat, pp.434-435. Sand interprets it as Jesus, Sand, Matthäus, p. 255. So do Davies & Allison, who hold that Mt 12:5-6, 8 has a strong christological assertion. See Davies & Allison, Matthew II, pp. 312-314. 18 The authenticity of Mt 12:8 (par Mk 2:28, Lk 6:5) is in doubt. Klostermann also finds Jesus’ saying in Mt 12:8 does not fit the narrative, Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 105. So do Davies & Allison. They suggest that it is a Christian formulation postdates Jesus' time, Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 305. Luz however finds that Mt 12:8 has a strong emphasis on Jesus' sovereignty. Jesus' teachings reflect the final, binding will of God on the issue involved. Luz, Matthäus 2, p. 233. 15

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Shabbat

6.1.2 Mk 2:23-28

6.1.2.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 2:23-28 has at least two pre-Markan traditions, Jesus’ disciples’ breach of the Shabbat rest (i.e., Mk 2:23-24, Mk 2:25-26) and Jesus’ logion (Mk 2:27-28). 19 The distribution of the rare words in Mk 2:23-28 supports this supposition. 20 The independence of the two traditions can also be shown by the absence of semantic and thematic links between them: the pericope on David does not make a direct reference to the Shabbat. Jesus’ logion in Mk 2:27-28 also does not make a reference to picking corn. The phrase o`do.n poiei/n in Mk 2:23 is Semitic.21 Although it is highly probable that Jesus’ logion is a later insertion to the pericope, it is difficult to determine whether Mk 2:27-28 is Mark’s own redaction or a pre-Markan tradition.22 The incorrect citation of Abiaqa.r avrciere,wj (1 Sam 21:2) in Mk 2:25 and its absence in Matthew’s and Luke’s texts suggest that Mark’s narrative is the source of both.23 Mk 2:23-28 does not have significant textual variants, except that some textual witnesses provide variants in Mk 2:27-28 that show that both may have been inserted later.24 19

Cf. Pesch, Markus 1, pp. 178-179, Gnilka, Markus 1, pp. 119-120. Doering points out that the pericope on David in Mk 2:25 does not relate to the pericope on the disciples’ breach of Shabbat rest and Jesus’ logion in Mk 2:27, Doering, Schabbat, p. 409. The interchange of a plural form of sa,bbaton in Mk 2:23-24, and the singular form in Mk 2:27-28 may also suggest different routes. See Pesch, Markus 1, p. 179. Doering however points out that it is not uncommon for there to be an interchange of singular and plural forms in classical literature. See Doering, Schabbat, p. 410, footnote 73. See also Jos. Ant 1:33, 3:143, 255, 12:274, 13:252. 20 In Mk 2:23 –spo,rimoj, Mk (1); ti,llw, Mk (1); sta,cuj, Mk (3). In Mk 2:25 –peina,w, Mk (2). In Mk 2:26 –VAbiaqa,r, Mk (1); i`ereu,j, Mk (2). 21 Doering, Schabbat, p. 427, note 167. 22 For a detailed discussion on the problem of the authenticity of Mk 2:27-28, see Neirynck, "Jesus and the Sabbath" in Evangelica, pp. 637-680. Lindemann holds that Mk 2:27 and Mk 2:28 should be interpreted together. The logion of Mk 2:27 reduces the possible accent of the absolute autonomy of man and makes it a consequence of their faith in the Son of Man. See Lindemann, "Der Sabbat ist um des Menschen willen geworden" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 36-39. Mk 2:27 has a parallel in b.Yoma 85b. Mark’s Jesus however removes the Jewish undertone of (i) giving the commandment on Shabbat to a chosen nation. (ii) The pericope on promulgating the commandments in Sinai (cf. Exod 24:12..Exod 31:12). See Doering, Schabbat, p. 418. 23 If the pericope on David (1 Sam 21:1-7) came from a later insertion, Matthew’s Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees' ignorance of the Bible (Mt 12:3, 5) could be postdated the insertion of 1 Sam 21:1-7 into the narrative. 24 In Mk 2:23, Codices B, D supply diaporeu,esqai, Codex W supplies poreu,esqai, instead of paraporeu,esqai. There is no great difference between the choices of verb. It is because regardless of the disciples’ going through or going along the field, their plucking the heads of grain is the cause of the critique. The choice of verbs however may have a bearing on the verb that follows, i.e., o`do.n poiei/n, where Codex B supplies o.do.poiein and Codex W supplies o`do.n poiei/n ti,llein. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

175

Shabbat

5.1.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mk 2:23-28 is the first of the two conflict stories on the Shabbat. It is placed after Jesus’ logion about the incompatibility between the old and the new. The conflict stories on the Shabbat may provide examples of the incompatibility between the Christian and Jewish praxis that made compromise impossible (Mk 3:6).25 Mk 2:23-28 consists of the introductory scene (Mk 2:23) and the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees (Mk 2:2428). The conflict takes place on a Shabbat when Jesus is walking through the cornfields.26 The breakers of the Shabbat rest are Jesus’ disciples, who, according to the critics’ understanding of halakha, breach the rest by a forbidden form of harvesting (Exod 34:21).27 Jesus’ defence is perplexing. He justifies the disciples’ breach of the Shabbat rest with David’s breach. David is not the King of Israel when he breaches the rules on forbidden offerings in the temple, but, like Jesus, he will become the King of Israel.28 However, David’s eating of a forbidden offering does not take place on a Shabbat. David’s breach is initiated by hunger, whereas the disciples’ breach is not.29 The conflict ends with two of Jesus’ teachings: gnomic, to. sa,bbaton dia. to.n a;nqrwpon evge,neto kai. ouvc o` a;nqrwpoj dia. to. sa,bbaton in Mk 2:27,30 and Christological, ku,rio,j evstin o` ui`o.j In Mk 2:25a, Codices D and W make a correction and remove evpi. VAbiaqa.r avrciere,wj. In Mk 2:25b Codices A, C, D, supply toi.j i`ereusin, Codex D, Manuscript 33 supply toi.j i`erei/j monoij and Manuscript 28, 579, 1241 supply tou.j avrci`erei/j instead of tou.j i`erei/j. All are attempts to correct Mark’s narrative according to the respective Old Testament tradition (Lev 24:9). In Mk 2:27/28, Codex W supplies le,gw de. u`mi/n o[ti to. sa,bbaton dia. to.n a;nqrwpon e;ktisqh\ w[ste instead of kai. e;legen auvtoi/j\ to. sa,bbaton dia. to.n a;nqrwpon evge,neto kai. ouvc o` a;nqrwpoj dia. to. sa,bbaton\ w[ste. The difference in objects as shown in Codices W and D and the version stated in NA 27 show that both sayings could be a later insertion to the text, where some variants inserted it as the protagonists’ saying in the scene (kai. e;legen auvtoi/j in Mk 2:25, 27) and some textual witnesses, e.g. W and D, inserted it as teaching for the listeners, i.e. le,gw de. u`mi/n. 25 Mark usually uses kai. evge,neto to imply a continuation of the previous section with a new focus, rather than the start of a new section, e.g. Mk 1:9, 4:4, 39. 26 Klostermann points out that Jesus’ walking through a cornfield on the Shabbat is however not seen as breaking the Shabbat rest, Klostermann, Markus, p. 30. Perhaps the cornfield is smaller than 2000 yards, i.e. it is shorter than the maximum distance one can go on foot on the Shabbat. 27 Doering is of the opinion that their act of picking corn (vlwt) is not considered a major act of harvesting. See Taanaitic teaching in m.Shab 7.7 and m.Shab 10:6. However, the same act is considered to be harvesting in b.Shab 73a, t.Shab 9[10], 17, y.Shab 7:2 [9c, 10a]. It shows that there is no unified interpretation of the breach of Shabbat by picking corn. There is also a regional difference in its application. See Doering, Schabbat, pp. 425-429. Pesch holds that the disciples pluck the grain to still their hunger. Pesch, Markus 1, p. 180. 28 Guttenberger suggests that Mark may use the narrative of David to describe a confrontation between the future King of Israel and the temple aristocracy. See Gutenberger, Gottesvorstellung, p. 128 and note 18. 29 Gnilka is of the opinion that the narrative points out that each individual should not be enslaved by the rules of Schabbat. Gnilka, Markus 1, p. 122. 30 A similar saying is also found in Mekh Exod 31:12-14. See Berndt, "Sabbat III", TRE 29, pp. 525527, Gnilka, Markus 1, p. 123, Klostermann, Markus, p. 31, also Jub 2: 1, 17, 24, 28-33, b.Joma 85b. Doering notes a universal dimension in the use of a;nqrwpoj instead of the more Israelite-oriented “you” in Mt 2:27. In this way, Shabbat is not an identity mark for the Israelites, but a day made for mankind, Doering. Schabbat, pp. 417-419. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

176

Shabbat

tou/ avnqrw,pou kai. tou/ sabba,tou in Mk 2:28. His argument for giving man priority over the Shabbat rest may be based on the purpose of creation, when the Shabbat was created 177 for man.31 Mark’s attempt to link the two sayings with the conjunction w[ste is awkward; a;nqrwpoj in Mk 2:27 is not a morphological parallel to o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou in Mk 2:28, but the two verses are joined by w[ste.32 6.1.3 Lk 6:1-5

6.1.3.1 Source and Text Criticism Lk 6:1-5 is an abridged piece of Mark’s text.33 The distribution of the rare words shows that the breach of Shabbat rest by the disciples and David’s episode come from Mark’s text.34 Lk 6:1-5 contains some important textual variants relevant to the understanding of the text. However, they only present a significant change to the interpretation of Lk 6:2. NA27 is used in this study, except that the third person plural masculine present active

31

Doering holds that Mark may argue that man was created before the Shabbat, see Doering, Schabbat, p. 418, note 119. Two little weaknesses of his argument are (i) dia, (with accusative) in Mk 2:27 does not imply the temporal order of creation incidents, but teleological. (ii) According to rabbinic understanding, man was created at the end of the creation (just before the Shabbat) so that he could not be proud of himself. It is because even the smallest insects were created before him. Cf. Midrasch Bereshit Rabba, Parascha VIII, cap 1:26. 32 Cf. Pesch, Markus 1, pp. 183-186. Cf. Mk 2:5, 17, 19, 12:35-37. Gnilka supposes that Mk 2:27 is older than Mk 2:28. The later is inserted to the former to buttress its argument: He suggests that Mk 2:27 was used originally by the Christians in defence of their freedom not to observe the Shabbat. Only when this argument is not strong enough do they insert the second christological statement. See also Gnilka, Markus 1, pp. 119-121. Doering holds that o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou could come from the Aramaic phrase avn(a)rb, which means the man. However, the early Christian communities (i.e. the writers of the Synoptics) interpret this phrase christologically. See Doering, Schabbat, pp. 422-424. Doering also suggests that there could be an eschatological dimension on Jesus´ position on Shabbat. See Doering, Schabbat, p. 26. Guttenberger however disagrees that the narrative suggests eschatological interpretation on Shabbat. Cf. Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, p. 125. 33 Both Luke's and Matthew's texts could be the abridged and improved versions of Mark’s: Both remove o`do.n poiei/n (Mk 2:23). Both put o] ouvk e;xestin before Shabbat (Lk 6:2, Mt 12:2, cf. Mk 2:24). Both remove crei,an e;scen (Mk 2:25c) and evpi. VAbiaqa.r avrciere,wj. Both have inserted mo,nouj or mo,noij (Lk 6:4, Mt 12:4). Both do not have Mk 2:27. o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou is placed after tou/ sabba,tou (Lk 6:5, Mt 12:8). An argument against Mark's text as the source of Luke's is Luke’s omission of Mk 2:27. See discussion in Bovon, Lukas 1, p. 268. No satisfactory answer to this challenge can be found. 34 In Lk 6:1–diaporeu,omai, Lk (3); spo,rimoj, Lk (1); ti,llw, Lk (1); sta,cuj, Lk (1); yw,cw, Lk (1). In Lk 6:3 – avnaginw,skw, Lk (3). In Lk 6:4 –pro,qesij, Lk (1). Luke follows Mark’s word usage and sequence by slightly over 48%. Lk 6:2 probably comes from Mk 2:23 because of the plural form of sa,bbaton. The rest of the words are all in a singular form in this narrative (Lk 6:1, 5). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Shabbat

form of poie,w is preferred to the second person plural masculine present active form in 178 Lk 6:2. The following are important textual variants in Lk 6:1-5. i. The meaning of deuteroprw,tw| in Lk 6:1 and whether the phrase belongs to an earlier text witness.35 ii. The verb form of poie,w in Lk 6:2.36 iii. The additional text provided by Codex D after Lk 6:4.37 iv. In Lk 6:5, some textual witnesses provide versions that resemble Mk 2:27 or Mt 12:8.38 6.1.3.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Lk 6:1-5 is a narrative whose original context is hard to identify.39 It is the first of the two conflict stories on the Shabbat. Like its source, Mark, the narrative is placed after 35

Codices A, C, D, Q supply the reading Ege,neto de. evn sabba,tw| deuteroprw,tw| in Lk 6:1. The discussion about deuteroprw,tw (a hapax legomenon) has a long history and it is not yet conclusive. The meaning of the phrase is obscure. Literally it means second-first. Epiphanios postulates that it may mean the second Shabbat after the first one, which is a sensible attempt, given that Lk 6:1 is the second Shabbat which Luke has mentioned in his Gospel. Cf. Lk 4:31. Bovon summarises many possible explanations of the phrase but two of them are more plausible: (i) It is a mistake by the scribe correcting the text: The first scribe added an adjective prw,tw to the Shabbat narrative in Lk 6:1 to distinguish it from the following one in Lk 6:6. However, another scribe discovered that the Shabbat in Lk 6:1 is in fact the second one in Luke's Gospel (cf. Lk 4:31). Hence, he made a correction to prw,tw and added a remark deu,teron. Then a third scribe, who was not so meticulous to details, put the remark deu,teron and the inserted adjective prw,tw together and wrote deuteroprw,tw. (ii) It involves a spelling mistake in deuteroprw,tw. Instead of a word in dative form, it should be two words in dative form, deu,terw prw,tw, i.e., the early morning of the second (Shabbat). The Latin text provides a variant “sabbato mane” which supports this hypothesis. This reading provides the reason why the disciples are hungry. Bovon, Lukas 1, pp. 266-267, Schürmann, Lukas 1, p. 302. Klostermann holds that the technical term refers to a date in the Jewish calendar, which locates the second Shabbat between 24 and 30 Nissan (Num 15:22). See Klostermann, Lukas, p. 75. 36 In Lk 6:2, Codex D supplies i;de ti, poiou/sin oi` maqhtai. sou toi/j sa,bbasin o] ouvk e;xestinÈCodices (a), A, C3, W, Q, y, Manuscript Families, 1, 13, majority texts and Syriac texts supply i;de ti, poiou/sin oi` maqhtai. sou toi/j sa,bbasin o] ouvk e;xestin poieinÈ As Lk 6:1 has already pointed out that Jesus is not involved in the plucking, eating and rubbing the heads of grain himself, it is unlikely that the Pharisees would raise an objection using a second person masculine plural form rather than a third person masculine plural form. The reason why they use a second person masculine plural form may imply that Jesus should be accountable for his disciples’ behaviour. 37 Codex D supplies the additional reading to Lk 6:4, i.e., th/| auvth h`me,ra qea,samenoj ti,na evrga,zomenon tw/| sabba,tw| ei=pen auvtw/|. a;nqrwpe, eiv me,n oi=daj ti, poiei/j, maka,rioj eiv. eiv de. mh. oi=daj, evpikata,ratoj kai. paraba,thj eiv tou/ no,mou. The verb evrga,zesqai refers to all sorts of works. Also, Lk 6:5 is found between Lk 6:10 and Lk 6:11. Bovon holds that it is a later interpretation influenced by Marcion's text. Bovon, Lukas 1, p. 267. The phrase carries a strong Apophthegma and apocalyptic features. 38 In Lk 6:5, Codices A, D, L, Q, Y supply ku,rio,j evstin o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou kai tou/ sabba,tou (which resembles Mk 2:27) instead of ku,rio,j evstin tou/ sabba,tou o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou (which resembles Mt 12:8). 39 Bovon points out that the anecdote is "ein Musterbeispiel für eine örtlich und zeitlich nicht festgelegte Einzelerzählung". Bovon, Lukas 1, p. 269. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Shabbat

Jesus’ teaching about the incompatibility of the old and the new (Lk 5:37-39). The Shabbat conflicts can be seen as an example of this incompatibility.40 Lk 6:1-5 consists of 179 the introductory scene (Lk 6:1) and the conflict (Lk 2:2-5). The conflict is provoked by Jesus’ disciples’ rubbing corn on the Shabbat (Lk 6:1).41 The Pharisees raise an objection to this.42 Luke’s Jesus’ defence is similar Mark’s Jesus’ defence (Lk 6:3, Mk 2:25-26). As in Mark’s text, the emphasis on David’s initiative is no great help in bridging the narrative and the conclusion. Luke’s gap between argument and conclusion is even greater than Mark’s. Neither Shabbat nor hunger is hinted at in the analogy with David’s exceptional deeds. 43 The conflict ends with Jesus’ logion, Ku,rio,j evstin o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou kai. tou/ sabba,tou (Lk 6:1, 5).44

40

On some occasions in the use of evge,neto de., Luke tries to imply a continuation between the preceding text and the text in question, e.g. Lk 1:8, 2:6, 3:21, 6:1 etc. The Pharisees’ accusations regarding the disciples’ breach of the Shabbat rest on Shabbats (in plural form, Lk 6:2) may imply that the breach is frequent. Cf. Jesus’ continuous teachings on Shabbats (Lk 4:1), Lindemann, "Einheit und Vielfalt im lukanischen Doppelwerk" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte p. 235, note 45. 41 Exod 34:21. Rubbing the heads of corn in their hands may imply a readiness to eat them or preparation for the Shabbat meal, which is a more authentic description of breaching the Shabbat rest. Jub 2:29, CDA 10:22, b.Shab 73a-74b, m.Shab 7:2. Rabbi Jehuda maintains that the same act is allowed on the Shabbat. See b.Shab 128. It seems that the "dos" and "don’ts" on Shabbat are not universally normative, but dependent on the teachings of different rabbinic schools. Doering, who cites the study of Flusser with the same rabbinic sources, suggests that there could be a regional difference in the interpretation of corn-picking as a breach of the Shabbat rest (b.Shab 128a); in Galilee, it is allowed to rub the corn with one's hands on the Shabbat. However, in other regions, one is only allowed to rub corn with the fingers, Doering, Schabbat, p. 426, footnote 156, pp. 436-438. 42 According to NA27, Luke uses the second person plural present active indicative form (poiei/te) in the Pharisees’ direct speech in their objection. It is not clear whether the words are addressed to the disciples alone or to Jesus and the disciples. The study here assumes that the objection is addressed to the disciples. This is because (i) Luke tries to separate the act of Jesus and the disciples in Lk 6:1 by employing different verbs to describe their movement, diaporeu,esqai auvto.n (Jesus), e;tillon oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ (disciples). (ii) There is a quite a large number of textual witnesses who supply the third person plural present active indicative form. This reading is preferred as Jesus himself is not involved in the breach of the Shabbat rest (Lk 6:1). Bovon however follows the version of NA27. Jesus, as the teacher of the disciples, is held responsible for their behaviour, Bovon, Lukas 1, p. 269. 43 The analogous proximity between Jesus and David would be nearer if Jesus also breaches the Shabbat rest. However this is not the case in Lk 6:1. Perhaps the eagerness to show the proximity between David and Jesus has induced some textual witnesses to provide the version of the second person plural active form of poie,w in Lk 6:2. 44 Lk 6:5 could be a later insertion. Like other logia of Jesus in the Synoptics, the logia would only be convincing to the Christians. It could have been inserted by later Christian readers as harmonization with Mark’s and Matthew’s texts, or by someone who is supposed to be present in the previous episode where Jesus carries out his first exorcism on a Shabbat (Lk 4:34). Schürmann holds that the christological saying is secondary. It belongs to Luke’s redaction, Schürmann, Lukas I, p. 305. Wolter is of the opinion that Luke is attempting to appeal to the right of David of overriding the Torah and set up a parallel between David and Jesus, see Wolter, Lukas, p. 235. Bovon holds that Luke’s Christian community has broken off the contact with the Jews. They respected the Shabbat but they did not subject themselves to the opinions of the Jews. That is why his Jesus' saying reveals a strong and confident christological emphasis. Bovon, Lukas 1, p. 271. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Shabbat

6.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 12:1-8

The main justification for the breach of the Shabbat rest, as pointed out by many exegetes, can be found in Mt 12:8 and is Christology (see Mt 12:8).45 Nevertheless, as discussed before, the gap in the arguments for the breach provided by Mark is not easy to bridge.46 Matthew’s major redaction in Mt 12:1-8 is his justification of a breach by citing other breaches. He provides two biblical justifications for breaking the holy rest on the Shabbat with breaches of norms in another holy domain, the temple: the priests’ offering in the temple is not halted by the Shabbat rest and mercy is more important than any temple offering (Hos 6:6).

6.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 12:9-14 6.2.1 Mt 12:9-14 6.2.1.1 Source and Text Criticism Mt 12:9-14 probably has Mk 3:1-6 as one of its sources.47 Mt 12:9-10, 12-14 are based on Mk 3:1-6 (cf. Lk 6:6-11). There are only a few words in the text that are not frequently found in the Gospel.48 The distribution of the rare words shows that the falling of a sheep into a hole (Mt 12:11) may not come from Matthew, but probably comes from Q (cf. Lk 13:15, 14:5).49 The text of Mt 12:9-14 does not have significant textual variants.50

45

Ratzinger, Jesus I, pp. 143-144. Doering finds it difficult to see how the disciples’ corn-picking on the Shabbat to still their own hunger is an allusion to serving God, Doering, Schabbat, p. 433, note 196. The point here is not whether stilling one's own need is a way to serve God, but how the peripatetic ministry could be empowered to serve God. 47 Matthew follows Mark’s words and sequence by up to 40%. 48 In Mt 12:10 –xhro,j, Mt (2); kathgore,w, Mt (2). In Mt 12:11–evmpi,ptw, Mt (1); bo,qunoj, Mt (2). In Mt 12:12 –diafe,rw, Mt (3). In Mt 12:13 – avpokaqista,nw, Mt (2); u`gih,j, Mt (2). 49 Cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 316. 50 In Mt 12:9, Codices C, N supplies the subject o` VIhsou/j to the verse. It shows that Mt 12:1-8 and Mt 12:9-14 could have been separately transmitted before their compilation into the present whole. In Mt 12:12, Codex Q, Manuscript family 13 supply an extra ma/llon before diafe,rei to stress the difference between a man and a sheep. 46

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

180

Shabbat

6.2.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mt 12:9-14 is a mixture of conflict and miracle stories. It is the second conflict on the same Shabbat. The narrative is bracketed by eiv e;xestin toi/j sa,bbasin.51 The episode is related to the first scene by Jesus’ movement (in Mt 12:9), the shared word “Shabbat” (Mt 12:10, 11, 12, see also Mt 12:1, 2, 5, 8) and the non-specific pronouns that presuppose the presence of all of the protagonists in Mt 12:1-8.52 The narrative consists of three parts of almost equal length, the introductory scene (Mt 12:9-10a), the conflict scene (Mt 12:10b-12) and the final scene (Mt 12:13-14). The conflict starts with the Pharisees’ question to Jesus,53 which is linked to the first conflict in the preceding section by e;xestin. This link marks the strong legal correlation between the two (Mt 12:2, 10). Jesus rebukes the Pharisees by posing the emphatic question “any one of you, ti,j e;stai evx u`mw/n a;nqrwpoj” and the danger that one’s “only sheep, o]j e[xei pro,baton e[n” (Mt 12:11) is encountered on a Shabbat.54 The answer to his question can hardly be negative. Jesus then gives his answer and concluding teaching on the greater importance of a man over a sheep. His answer in Mt 12:12b is syntactically parallel to the Pharisees’ question in Mt 12:10c, but his answer of kalw/j poiei/n is a correction of qerapeu/sai. With the principle of a minori ad maius, Jesus justifies the legitimacy of doing any kind of good, not only healing (toi/j sa,bbasin in plural form), on the Shabbat (Mt 12:12). The episode ends with the Pharisees’ departure and Matthew’s heterodiegetic remark on the Pharisees plan to destroy Jesus, avpo,llumi. Their destructive response is ironic in light of both the teaching of Jesus (Mt 12:12) and the intention of the Shabbat.

51

Luz comments that Mt 12:9-14 is in the ring composition of ABCDC’B’A’, A and A’ are the introduction and the end; Jesus comes into the synagogue (Mt 12:9) and the Pharisees go out (Mt 12:14). B, B’and C, C’ contains the key words a;nqrwpoj cei/ra, and e;xestin toi/j sa,bbasin. The conflict with the Pharisees is D, see Luz, Matthäus 2, p. 237. 52 The protagonists in Mt 12:9-14 are all in third person singular or plural form. Only in Mt 12:14 do the Pharisees reemerge on the scene. If Mt 12:8 is discounted as a later insertion, then the word Shabbat appears four times in both narratives. 53 The Jewish tradition maintains that rescuing lives in life-threatening situations takes priority over the Shabbat rest. Cf. b.Joma 83a. The healing of a withered hand does not belong to this category. 54 The scenario supposes a spectrum of limited activity is permitted on the Shabbat. The stricter side forbids the lifting of a fallen animal from the hole. See CDA 9:13, 4Q 270 6, 5:18, 4Q 271, 5, 1:9 and also Gnilka, Matthäus 1, p. 448. Luz is of the opinion that the example Jesus quotes is primarily for the common people, e.g. the farmers, but not for the learned Jews. The example recalls also 2 Sam 12:3, Luz, Matthäus 2, pp. 238-239. Konradt points out that this shows the irrationality of Pharisees' halakha. See Konradt, Matthäus, p. 121. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

181

Shabbat

6.2.2 Mk 3:1-6

6.2.2.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 3:1-6 is a combination of a conflict narrative and a healing miracle. The text contains a few words that are rare in Mark’s Gospel.55 The distribution of the rare words shows that the man with the withered hand, the ethical alternative and Jesus’ emotion are probably pre-Markan traditions. Whether the healing scene was already linked with the ethical alternative is uncertain. 56 yuch, (Mk 3:4) appears for the first time in Mark’s Gospel without a possessive pronoun or an article.57 Mk 3:1-6 does not have significant textual variants.58 6.2.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mk 3:1-6 is the second of the two conflict stories on the same Shabbat. It may be a representation of Jesus’ hectic healing ministry, even on Shabbat days.59 The pericope is related to the first conflict by pa,lin and the many unidentified pronouns.60 The narrative is bracketed by Jesus’ entrance (eivsh/lqen) in Mk 3:1 and the Pharisees’ departure (evxelqo,ntej) in Mk 3:6. The episode features a pregnant silence by the Pharisees. Jesus asks them a question with two syntactic parallels and morphological contrasts about his readiness to heal the man with a withered hand (Mk 3:4).61 No response is given. Jesus’ anger and grievance swell up due to their obstinate silence (Mk 3:5). The hardened attitude of the observers forms an ironic parallel with the withered hand of the sick man, 55

In Mk 3:2 –parathre,w, Mk (1); kathgore,w, Mk (3). In Mk 3:3 –xhro,j, Mk (1). In Mk 3:4 – kakopoie,w, Mk (1). In Mk 3:5 –ovrgh, Mk (1); sullupe,omai, Mk (1); pw,rwsij, Mk (1); evktei,nw, Mk (3); avpokaqista,nw, Mk (3). In Mk 3:6 –sumbou,lion, Mk (2). sumbou,lion dido,nai and o[pwj are also hypax legomena of Mark. 56 Pesch maintains that Mk 3:1-6 belongs to the same stage of the tradition of Mk 2:23-28, Pesch, Markus 1, pp. 187-188. 57 Doering, Schabbat, p. 452. 58 In Mk 3:1, Codices a, B and NA25 do not supply an article for sunagwgh,n. Since Mark provides an article for the synagogue in Mk 1:21. It is also possible for the synagogue here to have an article. In Mk 3:3, Codex D supplies an extra kai. sth,qi before eivj to. me,son. It could be a harmonization with Lk 6:8. In Mk 3:4, Codices L, W supply avpolesai instead of avpoktei/nai. There is no great difference between the two verbs. In Mk 3:5, Codex W does not supply sullupou,menoj, Codex D supplies ne,krwsei th/j kardi,aj instead of pwrw,sei th/j kardi,aj, which is a stronger verb describing their hardness. 59 Doering, Schabbat, p. 445. 60 The protagonists in Mk 3:1-6 are all anonymous, i.e. in the form of third person singular or plural. Only in Mk 3:6 do the Pharisees reemerge. They are seeking an alliance with the Herodians. 61 Jesus’ act of healing (with his words alone) and related teachings are considered to be a breach of the Shabbat rest from the perspective or interpretation of the Pharisees. See Doering, Schabbat, p. 446. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

182

Shabbat

which must also be dry and lifeless.62 Their silence is only broken by their departure and 183 Mark’s heterodiegetic remark, o[pwj auvto.n avpole,swsin (Mk 3:6).63 Mark swops the protagonists of the breach of the Shabbat from the disciples to Jesus in this second conflict on the Shabbat. The focus also shifts from breaching the Shabbat for one’s own sake (hunger in the first narrative) to contravening it for the sake of others (a man with a withered hand). It would be more logical to place Mk 3:1-6 before Mk 2:23-28, as it seems to be an extension of the principles in Mk 3:1-6. Mark may use his existing ordering as it comes from the pre-Markan tradition; Jesus and his disciples are on their way through the cornfields to the synagogue. Alternatively, Mark may want to balance the arbitrary breach of the Shabbat for egocentric needs with the care of the needy.64 Jesus’ grief and anger towards the obstinate silence of the Pharisees in the face of the needs of others underpins the loss of a common basis for dialogue between the two camps. Their destructive reaction contrasts with the positive reaction of the crowd, which sees Jesus’ first miracle of healing on the Shabbat (Mk 1:22, 28).65

6.2.3 Lk 6:6-11, 13:10-17 and 14:1-6 6.2.3.1 Source and Text Criticism Lk 6:6-11, 13:10-17 and 14:1-6 present three healing miracles on the Shabbat. All of them share the narrative theme of Mk 3:1-6, but the latter two are from Luke’s Sondergut. They may reflect the criticisms the earliest Christian community faced as they proclaimed the Gospel in synagogues and ministered on the Shabbat.66 6.2.3.1.1 Lk 6:6-11

Lk 6:6-11 has Mk 3:1-6 as its source. Luke follows the literary form,67 sequence and word usage of Mark’s text.68 The text entails a few words that are rare to Luke.69 Their

62

Ernst, Markus, p. 107. pwrw,sei th/j kardi,aj is a synonym for sklhrokardi,a (Mk 10:5, cf. Mt 19:8). Both refer to the fixed, inhuman interpretation of the Torah. 63 Pesch holds that Mk 3:6 is the original ending of both conflicts on the Shabbat, Pesch, Markus 1, p. 188. See also Doering, Schabbat, pp. 447-449. 64 Lindemann sees the same point but argues it differently. See Lindemann, "Der Sabbat ist um des Menschen willen geworden" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 15-39. 65 Mk 3:5 is the only window to Jesus’ emotion towards the Pharisees in the whole Gospel. It reflects more the frustrated feeling of the redactor toward the Jewish camp. 66 Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 308. 67 Bovon describes the pericope as "Ein Wunderbericht dient als Argument in einem Streitgespräch", Lukas 1, p. 273. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Shabbat

distribution suggests that the healing scene and the response of the observers come from 184 Mark. Lk 6:6-11 has many textual variants,70 but they do not deserve detailed discussion. 6.2.3.1.2 Lk 13:10-17

Lk 13:10-17 contains many words that are rare to Luke.71 The crippled woman and the act of healing show that the source comes from Luke’s Sondergut. As the healing precedes the conflict about the Shabbat, Luke may turn the healing narrative into a conflict about the Shabbat in his redaction. Lk 13:10-17 has a few textual variants,72 but they do not deserve detailed discussion.

68

Luke follows Mark’s words and sequence up to 37%. Lk 6:1 must be based on Mk 3:1 because of the use of a;nqrwpoj. It is noted that Luke changes it to avnh,r in Lk 6:8, a term he prefers more than a;nqrwpoj (cf. Lk 1:27, 2:36, 9:14, 16:18, Acts 5:9, 10, 14, 8:3, 12, 9:2, 17:12, 22:4). Some minor agreements between Matthew’s and Luke’s texts are: xhra, in Lk 6:6 (cf. Mt 12:10), the removal of auvto.n after qerapeu,ei in Lk 6:7 (cf. Mt 12:10) and the removal of Jesus’ emotion in Mk 3:5. 69 In Lk 6:6 –xhro,j, Lk (3). In Lk 6:7–parathre,w, Lk (3). In Lk 6:9 –avgaqopoie,w, Lk (3); kakopoie,w, Lk (1). In Lk 6:10 –perible,pw, Lk (1); evktei,nw, Lk (3); avpokaqista,nw, Lk (1). In Lk 6:11 –a;noia, Lk (1); dialale,w: Lk (2). 70 In Lk 6:6, Codex D supplies kai. eivselqontoj auvto.u pa,lin eivj th.n sunagwgh.n sabba,tw evn h. h=n a;nqrwpoj xhra,n e;cwn cei.ra instead of evge,neto de. evn e`te,rw| sabba,tw| eivselqei/n auvto.n eivj th.n sunagwgh.n kai. dida,skeinÅ kai. h=n a;nqrwpoj evkei/ kai. h` cei.r auvtou/ h` dexia. h=n xhra,Å The meaning of the verse in Codex D is essentially the same as what is supplied by NA27. In Lk 6:7, Codex D supplies eu[rwsin kaqhgorh,sai and Codex Y supplies kathgorh,swsin instead of eu[rwsin kathgorei/n. The meaning is essentially the same as what is supplied by NA27. In Lk 6:9, Codices A, Q supply avpoktei,nai instead of avpole,sai. The meaning is essentially the same as what is supplied by NA27. In Lk 6:10, Codices A, D stress the obedience of the sick man to Jesus' command. They supply evxe,teinen instead of evpoi,hsen. Codices A, K, Q insert also w`j h; a;llh and Manuscript Family 13 inserts u`gih,j w`j h; a;llh at the end of the verse. In Lk 6:11, Codex D supplies dielogi,zonto pro.j avllh,louj pw/j avpole,swsin auvto,n instead of diela,loun pro.j avllh,louj ti, a'n poih,saien tw/| VIhsou/. The meaning is essentially the same as what is supplied by NA27. 71 In Lk 13:11 –dekaoktw,, Lk (2); sugku,ptw, Lk (1); avnaku,ptw, Lk (2). In Lk 13:13 –avnorqo,w, Lk (1). In Lk 13:14 –avrcisuna,gwgoj, Lk (2); avganakte,w, Lk (2); evrga,zomai, Lk (1). In Lk 13:15 –bou/j, Lk (3); o;noj, Lk (1); poti,zw, Lk (1). In Lk 13:16 –desmo,j, Lk (2). In Lk 13:17 –kataiscu,nw, Lk (1); avnti,keimai, Lk (2); e;ndoxoj, Lk (2). 72 In Lk 13:15, Codices D, N, Q supply vIhsou/j instead of o` ku,rioj. In Lk 13:17, Codex D supplies oi/j eqewpoun evndo,xoij u`pV auvtou ginome,noij/ instead of toi/j evndo,xoij toi/j ginome,noij u`pV auvtou/. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Shabbat

6.2.3.1.3 Lk 14:1-6

185

Lk 14:1-6 is a pericope that may be an expansion of Jesus’ logion in Lk 14:5 (par Mt 12:11[Q]).73 The text contains a few words that are rare to Luke.74 Their distribution also suggests that the sick man with dropsy and Jesus’ logion in Lk 14:5 do not belong to Luke. avntapokri,nomai appears only once in Luke’s Gospel. Lk 14:1-6 has a few textual variants,75 but they do not deserve detailed discussion. 6.2.3.2 Texts, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features 6.2.3.2.1 Lk 6:6-11

Lk 6:6-11 is the second of the two conflicts on the same Shabbat, in which Jesus continues to teach (Lk 6:6). 76 Luke deliberately retells this episode with his favourite theme of caring for the poor and links the two conflicts with the shared theme of hunger (Lk 6:3, 6:6). He hints at a justification for the healing in his redaction on the man’s situation: finding sufficient food is a pressing daily challenge for anyone with a withered right hand at that time. The Shabbat is no exception. Like his source, Luke’s Jesus puts a question to the observers with two highly polarised ethical extremes in two syntactic parallels and morphological contrasts: avgaqopoih/sai h' kakopoih/sai( yuch.n sw/sai h' avpole,saiÈ(Lk 6:9).77 An answer in favour of h' kakopoih/sai h' avpole,sai is impossible. 6.2.3.2.2 Lk 13:10-17

Lk 13:10-17 is a combination of a healing miracle and a chrie.78 It is inserted between Jesus’ parables of the barren fig tree and the mustard seeds and breaks up the

73

Doering holds that the phrase ui`o.j h' bou/j in Lk 14:5 is unusual, as there are different instructions on how to handle cases wherein a man or an animal falls into a well on the Shabbat. The phrase could be caused by an extension of the wordplay on Aramaic arb and aryb in the later tradition. Doering, Schabbat, pp. 279-280, p. 459 74 In Lk 14:1 –parathre,w, Lk (3). In Lk 14:2 –u`drwpiko,j, Lk (1). In Lk 14:4 –h`suca,zw, Lk (2). In Lk 14:5 –bou/j, Lk (3); fre,ar, Lk (1); avnaspa,w, Lk (1); avntapokri,nomai, Lk (1). 75 In Lk 14:5, Codice A, K, L supply onoj and Codex D supplies pro,baton instead of ui`o.j. The narrative could be wordplay between the Aramaic words arb (field), ary[b (beast with load), rb (son). See Black, Aramaic Approach, pp. 168-169. Also, son and ox appear as parallels in Exod 20:10 and Deut 5:14. See Doering, Schabbat, p. 458. 76 Like their teacher, Jesus’ disciples also preach on the Shabbat (Acts 13:14-16, 42). 77 To heal and not to heal should not be equivalent to to save life or to destroy it. See also Bovon, Lukas 1, p. 275. 78 Wolter, Lukas, p. 481. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Shabbat

homogeneity of the parables. Its content has many expanded parallels with Lk 6:6-11.79 Again, Jesus teaches on the Shabbat (Lk 13:10). The conflict is provoked by Jesus’ 186 healing of a crippled woman who has been suffering from an illness for 18 years.80 His healing (Lk 13:13) is opposed by the ruler of the synagogue, who does not see the need to disturb the Shabbat rest, as the healing could have been postponed until the next working day (Lk 13:15). Jesus rebukes him with the discrepancy (u`pokritai,) between the permitted practice of giving water to an animal (one’s herd) on the Shabbat and the requirement to rest on the same day (Lk 13:15). 81 His refutation is formulated in an asymmetric syntactic parallel between an animal kept bound and the daughter of Abraham who has also been kept bound (Lk 13:15-16). The extra information that makes the syntactic parallel in Lk 13:15-16 asymmetric is h]n e;dhsen o` satana/j ivdou. de,ka kai. ovktw. e;th and avpo. tou/ desmou/ tou,tou (Lk 13:16). These two extra pieces of information make any postponement of the healing on the Shabbat absurd. The conflict scene ends with the adversaries’ confusion and the crowd’s admiration (Lk 13:17). 6.2.3.2.3 Lk 14:1-6

Lk 14:1-6 is placed at the beginning of a Shabbat meal given by a leading Pharisee. The meal is probably open to the poor82 and an impure man with dropsy is present.83 The 79

In Lk 6:6-11, the sick person is a man with a withered hand. The critics are Pharisees. In Lk 13:1017, the sick person is a woman with crippled limbs. The critic is a ruler of the synagogue. 80 Bovon interprets that the crippled woman was deprived of contact with people and God. She could not stand up and give praise. Bovon, Lukas 2, p. 398. Nevertheless, isn’t bowing down a more common expression of praising God than rising? Can’t the crippled bow down to praise God? Cf. The number eighteen appears in Lk 13:4; eighteen people were killed when the tower in Siloam fell on them. 81 Untying the knot which ties up the animal for it to still its thirst is allowed on the Shabbat, b.Shab 111b. 82 b.Pes 68b. The joy of a meal consists of delicious cuisine and also pleasant fellowship with dialogues and teaching. Two observations on the text support the suggestion that the meal is open for the poor: (i) The introductory verse Lk 14:1 is syntactically awkard: The AcI clause evlqei/n auvto.n eivj oi=ko,n tinoj tw/n avrco,ntwn Îtw/nÐ Farisai,wn is inserted into the middle of evn tw/| sabba,tw|, which results in its being broken into two halves, evn tw/| and sabba,tw|. It may suggest that Jesus’ joining the leading Pharisees’ meal on the Shabbat is awkward. (ii) Equally awkward is the appearance at the meal of a man with dropsy. Dropsy is regarded as being similarly contagious to leprosy. Both make a person ritually unclean. Is it plausible that the meal could have been open to the poor (Lk 14:12-14)? Otherwise, the presence of a man with dropsy at a meal given by a leading Pharisee is unusual. 83 See Midrash Rabbah Lev XV:2, where dropsy is regarded as a parallel to leprosy. The symbolic meaning of the man with dropsy is unclear. Wolter points out that dropsy is often compared with greed in classical literature. Wolter, Lukas, pp. 501-502. Braun is of the opinion that the sickness reflects the consequence of sumptuous dining, i.e. it is criticism of the extravagant dining culture of the classical Roman period, Braun, Feasting, pp. 41-42. Bovon holds that it means sick. It is because man is made of a balanced proportion of blood and water. A shortage of water means sickness. Alternatively, dropsy could mean a punishment for those who commit adultery or idolatry. Cf. Exod 32:30, 27-28, Bovon, Lukas 2, pp. 472-473. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Shabbat

conflict is set off by Jesus beginning to heal and teach. He raises a question on the Shabbat with an alternative, qerapeu/sai h' ou; (Lk 14:3). The silence of the Pharisees and 187 lawyers, who should be quick to point out the rules governing purity and healing on the Shabbat, shows tolerance (Lk 14:1). Jesus heals the man first, then gives his emphatic teaching on a situation in which one’s son is in danger (Lk 14:5). The scene ends with the continued silence of the Pharisees and the lawyers (Lk 14:4, 6), who cannot find any reason to object to Jesus’ practice. 6.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 12:9-14

Matthew’s redaction in Mt 12:9-14 is his insertion of a haggadic example (Mt 12:1112) to support Jesus’ logion on doing good on the Shabbat (Mt 12:12). The same haggadic motive is found in Lk 14:4 [Q].84 In fact, Jesus’ logion in Mt 12:12 echoes his quotation from Hos 6:6 in the preceding conflict on the Shabbat (Mt 12:7). It turns the second conflict into an example or an application of the principle in the first one. Like his source, Mark, the good that is done in the second conflict is for the sake of the needy. It balances the egocentric overtone of the first conflict, the stilling of one’s own hunger. Mt 12:9-14 has a similar literary motive to its source and the parallel text in Lk 6:6-10: Jesus, not his disciples, challenges the Shabbat rest by doing good. Jesus does not actually break the Shabbat rest, as his healing is done by a command. Unlike in the other Synoptics, Jesus’ challenge of the Shabbat rest is provoked by a question from the Pharisees (Mt 12:10), not by his own initiative to first heal (Mk 3:3, Lk 6:8). Only Matthew’s Jesus announces the concluding remark that e;xestin toi/j sa,bbasin kalw/j poiei/n (Mt 12:12), which trumps the Pharisees’ question of eiv e;xestin toi/j sa,bbasin qerapeu/sai (Mt 12:10). Although doing good surely suggests a much wider spectrum of activity than just healing, Mark’s and Luke’s Jesus only imply this. 6.3 Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts on the Shabbat The Jewish halakha permits the Shabbat rest to be disrupted to save life. The conflicts on the Shabbat further Jesus’ healing ministry for the Kingdom of God,85 which overrides the temporal boundary between the holy and the profane, i.e., holy rest on the Shabbat versus work during the rest of the week.86 Should the second most important identity 84

The reiterated motive includes: (i) The stress on the only sheep that falls into danger and the unique value of a person (Lk 13:6). (ii) The stress on the danger facing the one who has fallen (Lk 14:5). 85 Jeremias, Neutestamentliche Theologie I, p. 201. Doering points out that Jesus’ act of healing on the Shabbat transgresses what his contemporaries understand as Shabbat commandments, although by that time there is a lack of consensus on Shabbat halakha among the Jews, Doering, Schabbat, p. 477. 86 Back, "Jesus and the Sabbath" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 3, p. 2624. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Shabbat

marker of Judaism, the Shabbat, have been retained uncritically by the early church? The writers of the Synoptics take different positions. Mark’s Jesus does not observe the 188 Shabbat, although his earthly followers do (Mk 15:42, 47, 16:1). Mark deliberately places Jesus’ first two healings, one public and one private, on a Shabbat (Mk 1:21-28, 29-31).87 Of the writers of the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew shows the highest respect for the Shabbat.88 Only Matthew does not report Jesus’ first miracle (in the form of an exorcism by command) on a Shabbat (cf. Mk 1:21-26, Lk 4:31-37, Mt 4:23).89 He also does not report the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law on the Shabbat (cf. Mk 1:29-32, Lk 4:38-40, Mt 8:14).90 Matthew’s and Luke’s Jesus, who refuses to turn stones into bread even in times of great hunger (Mt 4:2, Lk 4:2), does not join his disciples in plucking heads of grain on the Shabbat. Moreover, only Matthew’s Jesus expresses the wish that the great tribulation will not take place on the Shabbat (Mt 24:20, cf. Mk 13:18). Some of his female followers on earth postpone visiting Jesus’ grave until after the Shabbat (Mt 28:1, cf. Mk 16:1, Lk 23:56). However, the Torah-loyal Matthew and his Jesus also suggest the guiding principles for overriding the Pharisees’ halakha on holy rest-days. Why?91 What was the earthly Jesus and his followers’ real attitude towards the Shabbat? Was the Matthean community lax in observing the Shabbat and what factors motivated them contextually and theologically?

87

Doering, Schabbat, p. 401. Lührmann, Markus, p. 49, p. 52. Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, p. 126, note 44. Some hold that the first two healings are already embedded in pre Mark tradition. Gnilka, Markus 1, p. 77. 88 There is discussion whether Matthew’s Jesus is antinomistic. Gnilka points out that only if one could prove that Matthew’s Jesus really calls for the abolition of the Shabbat could the thesis be established, Gnilka, Matthäus I, p. 446. 89 Cf. Varenhorst, Nicht schwören, p. 381, Doering, Schabbat, p. 401, Lanfranchi, “Attitudes to the Sabbath in Three Apostolic Fathers: Didache, Ignatius, and Barnabas” in Jesus, Paul and Early Christianity, pp. 247-250, 256. 90 A synagogue is not a closed building opened only on the Shabbat for the Jews. It is a centre of communication and administration for the local Jews and travellers. All the writers of the Synoptics mention the synagogue as the first place where Jesus exercises his ministry (Mt 4:23, Mk 1:26, Lk 4:15). This reflects the pattern of early Christian ministry, which took place weekly in the synagogue (Lk 4:44). However, only Matthew does not mention that Jesus performs his first miracle on the Shabbat. It is supposed that Matthew postpones the challenge of the Shabbat until after justification has been given. 91 Bultmann holds that the early Christian community has two phases of development in the attitude toward the Shabbat rest. In the first phase, they have a more liberal attitude toward the Shabbat. Later, those who are faithful to the Torah gain the upper hand and the community observes the Shabbat rest more stringently. Bultmann, Theologie, p. 57. Müller however suggests that the conflicts on the Shabbat are a reflection by the Jewish Christians on their mission to the Gentile Christians; fellowship with each other calls for a more relaxed attitude to the Shabbat rest. Müller, "Zur Rezeption gesetzeskritischer Jesusüberlieferung im frühen Christentum", NTS 27 (1981), p. 179. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Shabbat

6.3.1 Matthew’s Motive of Mercy Underpins the Theological Intention of the Shabbat Rest

The writers of the Synoptics handle the observance (or breach) of the Shabbat rest quite differently. Mark uses the argument of the purpose of creation. Luke uses Christology. Matthew argues exegetically within the framework of halakha. He closely follows the guiding principles for establishing Jewish halakhic practices by providing another Biblical incident (Mt 12:5) and another Biblical citation (Mt 12:7) to the pericope in Mt 12:1-8.92 He uses Hos 6:6 to trump Num 28:9-10 (Mt 12:5) to show that breaching the Shabbat can be motivated as much by a faithful attitude to the Torah as keeping it.93 The citation of Hos 6:6 restores the guiding principle of God’s mercy in setting up the Shabbat rest, primarily to liberate the weak from slavery and suffering (Deut 5:12-15), not just to follow the order of creation (Exod 20:8-11). The Shabbat rest, no matter whether it is in the form of one day a week, or one in seven years, is understood as a merciful, egalitarian provision by God for all creatures alike, irrespective of their position in creation or society (Exod 23:12, Exod 23:11, Lev 25:6). The Creator God is not a God who rests on the Shabbat. He is above the rule to rest and is the sovereign over creation.94 He provides for his creatures even during their Shabbat rest (John 5:17 versus Gen 2:2, Exod 20:11, Exod 31:17).95 Matthew quotes Hos 6:6 twice in his Gospel in opposition to the learned Jews (Mt 9:13, Mt 12:7).96 For Matthew, genuine observation of the Torah cannot be separated from the guiding principle of compassion, the realisation of which is more important than abiding by the Torah literally.97 The Torah-loyal Matthew and his Jesus therefore explicitly state that it is permissible to do good on the Shabbat. 6.3.2 Matthew’s Disciples Take up the Function of the Priests

Just as God does not rest on the Shabbat, the priests also do not rest on the Shabbat. They continue honouring God on behalf of the Jews by offering sacrifices. Matthew tries to draw a parallel between the disciples and the priests in the conflict over the Shabbat 92

Daube points out that a halakha could not be established with just one example, but by two. See Daube, The New Testament and the Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 67-71. Mt 12:8 does not provide textual support for the halakha as it does not come from the Old Testament. Also, the verse is extremely radical compared with the rabbinic interpretation of the status of man in the whole of creation; a man should be low and humble as he was created just before the Shabbat. Even an insect was created earlier than man. Cf. b.San 38a. 93 Matthew's motive is to strengthen the observation of the true intention of Shabbat, not to undermine it. See also Hill, "On the Use of Hosea vi.6 in Matthew’s Gospel", NTS XXIV (1978), p.114. 94 Doering, Schabbat, p. 477. 95 The argument is first given by Philo Legat 1:5-6. 96 Mt 23:23 is an allusion to Hos 6:6. 97 Cf. Theissen, "Gesetz und Goldene Regel : Die Ethik des Matthäusevangeliums zwischen Regelund Empathieorientierung" in Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog, Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäusevangelium, p. 249. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

189

Shabbat

(Mt 12:1-8). Matthew hints that the disciples (and early Christians) are taking up the function of priests in their service to God (cf. Exod 19:6), even in their ministry on the 190 Shabbat: w[ste e;xestin toi/j sa,bbasin kalw/j poiei/n.98 This is the third time in Matthew’s Gospel that he hints at the disciples taking up the function of priests. This could reflect an anachronistic concern of the post-70 AD Christian communities, when the temple was no longer in place, so offerings had to be made to God in a different form, through Christian ethics practised in their daily lives. The disciples’ assumption of the function of the priests has three implications: they can teach, as one of the chief duties of the priests is to teach about the Torah (Mt 28:20).99 They can make modifications to the halakha, as a change in the priesthood means corresponding changes in the law (Heb 7:12).100 For example, the destruction of the temple in 70 AD meant the end of the office of the priests in the temple. It also allowed new manifestations of the function of the priesthood. If the disciples are supposed to take up the task of the priests, a change in the law is warranted. For Matthew, the change is the reinstatement of the core values of the Torah to an elevated degree (Mt 5:19) for greater righteousness, perfection and the priority of mercy over cultic sacrifices, etc. Luke points out in his sequel to his Gospel that there are priestly members in the Christian communities (Acts 6:7) and that there have been changes to the contemporary halakha. The changes are not endorsed by the priestly members or any other individual,101 but by the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-33). They can declare someone clean, as the priests are empowered to judge whether someone is healed and can begin their reintegration into the community (Mt 8:4). 102 The authority to declare someone clean is analogous to the authority to forgive sin. The latter is given to the community (Mt 9:8). It should be noted that no dispute or conflict between the early church and the Jewish communities about the Shabbat is mentioned in Acts. Does this mean that the dispute about the Shabbat was not so acute in the early church? Luke does not deeply reflect on the theological grounds for breaching the Shabbat like Matthew. However, he places more stress on removing the Shabbat as a reason for 98

Cf. 1 Pet 2:5, 9, Rev 1:6, 5:10. Saldarini also holds that the Matthean community sees itself replacing the religious leaders (Mt 21:43). See Saldarini, Matthew, pp. 6, 45, 59-63 99 See also 4Q 175:17-18, 1Q pHab 2:2-3, 4Q 171, col. Iii, 13, 16, 17. 100 There is no absolutely centralized halakha in Judaism. Even before the fall of the temple, local and regional differences prevail in halakha. See also Gerhardsson, Memory, pp. 255-256. Schäfer points out that some streams of Judaism hold that the Torah can be changed in the apocalyptic era. See Schäfer, "Die Torah der messianischen Zeit", ZNW 65 (1974), pp. 39-42. 101 Paul made his short halakhic statements to his churches, see 1 Cor 7:1-7,12,15 102 CD 13:4-7, 4Q 272 1, 1, 5-19, 4Q 273 4, 2, 1-11. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Shabbat

postponing a healing ministry. He includes three Shabbat healing miracles (Lk 6:6-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6), which have in common the contrast between the readiness of Jesus to 191 heal the sick immediately and the widely held, obstinate belief that healing should be postponed until after the Shabbat.103 Jesus’ healings also reflect the increasingly relaxed attitude of Luke towards the Shabbat rest. Luke’s Jesus first only heals by giving a command, which does not breach the Shabbat rest (Lk 6:10). His healing is then heightened to an action (Lk 13:13), which could be a breach. Finally, Luke reports that Jesus heals the man suffering from dropsy, just as on any other day he heals people with skin diseases; evpilabo,menoj iva,sato auvto.n (Lk 14:4, cf. 5:12-14, 17:11-17). Luke tries to describe diseases with a broad spectrum of suffering, a withered right hand, being crippled for 18 years and the dropsy, which is a ritual impurity similar to leprosy. Both sexes are involved (Mt 6:6, 14:2, Mt 13:12). The scope of the suffering is matched with descending resistance from the Jewish side, the scribes and Pharisees in Capernaum (Lk 6:7), the layman president of a synagogue in Galilee (Lk 13:14) and a leading Pharisee and his learned guests (Lk 14:1, 3), who remain silent when Jesus heals (Lk 14:4, 6). He also points out that the strict upholders of Shabbat observance are shamed (kataiscu,nw) by Jesus’ arguments (Lk 13:17) and fail to respond (avntapokri,nomai in Lk 14:6). The Shabbat itself gives additional opportunities to preach the Gospel (Acts 13:14, 42, 44).104 Hence, Luke’s Jesus’ healing on the Shabbat is often accompanied by his teaching (Lk 4:38, 13:10, 14:1-24). The pattern of preaching in the synagogue on the Shabbat is repeated in Acts by his disciples and Paul in almost every Jewish town that they visit (Acts 13:14, 27, 42, 44, 15:21, 17:2, 18:4). Both Matthew and Luke recognised that the lifting of the laws on Shabbat rest was essential for the Gentile ministry, as the Gentile Christians, who are from lower working classes (1 Cor 1:26), could not keep the Shabbat rest as strictly as the Jews. However, unlike Matthew’s Jesus, who proclaims the legitimacy of doing good on the Shabbat (Mt 12:12), the description of the gradual relaxing of Luke’s Jesus’ handling of the Shabbat may show that Luke’s Christian community no longer regarded the Shabbat to be a problem (Lk 14:4-6). For Luke, the breach of the Shabbat rest belonged to conflicts in the past. It was no longer a problem 105 worth mentioning in the early Christian communities.

103

The Shabbat rest is firmly upheld by Pharisees and scribes in Lk 6:7, the president of the synagogue in Lk 13:14 and leading Pharisees in Lk 14:1. The sick persons they encounter are (i) a man who is deprived of the means of subsistence, i.e. his right hand is withered (Lk 6:6), (ii) a woman (another gender) who has been bound by a crippling disease for 18 years (Lk 13:11) and (iii) a man with dropsy in the midst of a celebratory meal at the end of a Shabbat day (Lk 14:2). 104 See Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, pp. 227-230. 105 Doering, Schabbat, p. 445. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

Chapter 7 Conflicts in/about the Temple in Jerusalem The prophetic tradition in the Old Testament does not fall short of criticising the discrepancy between the ostensible temple cult and inner religiosity.1 Jesus also follows this tradition. The conflicts between Jesus and his critics in and about the temple are the hottest of all of the conflicts recorded by the Synoptists. The temple is the object of Jesus’ criticisms twice, once by his deeds (Mk 11:15-17, Mt 21:12-13, Lk 19:45) and once by his words (Mk 13:1-2, Mt 24:1-2, Lk 19:44). His attitude towards the temple regards one of the false accusations against him laid before the Sanhedrin (Mk 14:58, 15:29, cf. Mt 26:61, 27:40) of blasphemy against the temple.2 The same accusations are also directed at Stephen and Paul (Acts 6:13-14, 12:17-18, 21:26-30).3 On all of these occasions, Jesus and the early Christians are accused of enmity against the temple, but not against God. The doubt in presuming to equate the residence of God with the temple prevails as ever. The Synoptists are reluctant to treat the observance of the temple cult as being equivalent to genuine religious faith. Essence is more important for them than form. The conflicts in and about the temple are not only conflicts between different representations of religiosity, but also concern the essence of true or better religiosity. This chapter focuses on three conflict stories that take place in the temple (Mt 21:12, 14, 23). They are Jesus’ expulsion of the traders from the temple court (Mt 21:10-17 and par.), the debate about Jesus’ authority (Mt 21:23-27 and par.) and the debate about the relationship between David and the Messiah (Mt 22:41-46 and par.). The chief priests are the protagonists in two of these conflicts (Mt 21:15, 23). All of the conflicts are primarily about the source of Jesus’ authority (Mt 21:23) or his role as the Son of David (Mt 21:15, 42).4 Two additional texts are studied to throw light on Matthew’s redaction of these three conflict stories. They are Jesus’ conclusion of the parable of the wicked tenants in the vineyard and the response of the Jewish leaders (Mt 21:41-46) and Jesus’ prophecy about the fate of the temple (Mt 24:1-2). These two non-conflict narratives (Mt 21:41-46, 24:1-2) are studied because Jesus’ conclusion in the first narrative is directed at the chief priests and the Pharisees (Mt 21:45). The chief priests do not leave the scene after their 1

See Isa 1:11-17, Jer 7:3-11, Amos 5:21-27. See also Sib 4:4-11 which contains criticism on the temple, i.e. a “stone set up as a temple” versus the true “house” of the “great god”, which “was not fashioned by moral hand.” 2 Blasphemy against the temple should not be strong enough to lead to the death penalty in the Old Testament. See Jer 26:18-19. 3 The Gentiles are only allowed in the outer but not the inner courtyard of the temple in Jerusalem, cf. Jos. Ant 15:417, Jos. Bell 5:193, 6:125, and the temple inscription discovered by Clermont-Ganneau in 1871. See Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, p. 63. 4 Konradt holds that the motive of the Son of David forms an inclusion in Mt 21-22, Konradt, Matthäus, p. 145. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

192

Temple

debate with Jesus about the source of his authority (Mt 21:23-27). The five texts may also contain a wordplay on the Aramaic words child (!b), stone (!ba), building (!ynb) and temple 193 (tyb) (Mt 21:15, 42). 5 The second non-conflict narrative is studied as it contains the shared words “temple” and “stones” (Mt 24:2).6 7.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 21:10-17 7.1.1 Mt 21:10-17

7.1.1.1 Source and Text Criticism The narrative in Mt 21:10-17 records Jesus’ protest in a symbolic deed and prophetic words against the existing practice of giving offerings in the temple.7 It is a composite piece with at least two traditions and Matthew’s redaction. It contains mostly Matthew’s favourite words, except those used in the expulsion of the traders. The foreign words show his reliance on Mark’s text. 8 The preceding scene of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Mt 21:10-11),9 the immediately subsequent scenes of the healing of the blind and lame in the temple in Mt 21:14, 10 the greeting of the children and Jesus’ debate with the Jewish leaders in the temple in Mt 21:15-17 all belong to other traditions or are Matthew’s own redactions.11 5

Eusebius mentions in his church history that there is a version of the Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic. Hence, it is plausible that Matthew uses wordplay in Aramaic to convey his thoughts. Eus. H.e. 3:39, 16. See also Baum, "Ein aramäischer Urmatthäus im kleinasiatische Gottesdienst. Das Papiaszeugnis zur Entstehung des Matthäusevangeliums ", ZNW 92 (2001), pp. 257-272. Even Matthew’s Sondergut on the parable of the two sons (Mt 21:28-32) preceding the parable on the wicked tenants (Mt 21:33-46) has the motive of !b behind it. 6 Mt 24:1-2 could be an anachronistic projection after the destruction of the temple. 7 The episode is usually known as the Cleansing of the Temple, whose theme is nearer to “sanctifying –vdq” in Zech 14:20-21. Nevertheless, Jesus’ intention is not restricted to cleansing, but it is criticism and a restoration of the function of the temple. Jesus’ protest is symbolic. The scale could be so localized and insignificant that he was not stopped on the spot by any temple police or the Jewish authorities. Cf. Acts 4:1-3, 21:27-36, Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 137. 8 In Mt 21:12-13, over 80% of the words and their sequence are the same as Mark’s. Mark’s priority in Matthew’s text can be seen in Matthew’s removal of Mk 11:16 and pa/sin toi/j e;qnesin in Mk 11:17. Mathew knows the destruction of the temple in 70AD. In Mt 21:12 –tra,peza, Mt (2); kollubisth,j, Mt (1); katastre,fw, Mt (1); kaqe,dra, Mt (2); peristera,, Mt (3). 9 The reaction of the crowd to Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem is not recorded in other synoptic Gospels. Moreover, the verse is in Matthew’s style, e.g. the use of Genitivus Absolutus in Mt 21:10a, the choice of words used eivse,rcomai: Mt (36), sei,w: Mt (3). 10 Jesus points out the function of the temple –House of Prayer– by his mixed citation of Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11(Mt 21: 13). The healing of the blind and the lame in the temple is Matthew’s Sondergut. It echoes the other healing miracles in Mt 9:27-28, 11:15, 12:22, 15:30-31, 20:30. 11 Cf. Lk 19:39-40. Davies & Allison point out that the Aramaic words for children and stones are almost the same, cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew III, pp. 133-134 and p. 133, note 4. It is possible that Mt 21:15 comes from an independent tradition of Ps 118:25-26. Luke puts the citation into the mouths of the The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

The text does not have significant textual variants. However, there are three interesting 194 textual variants in Mt 21:10-17: (i) (ii) (iii)

Does the crowd view Jesus as one of the prophets or as the prophet?12 The emphasis on Jesus’ entry into the temple of God, not just a temple.13 Is Jesus’ action a spontaneous reproach of the transaction activities he sees or is he taking action against transactions in the temple in general?14

The manuscripts show different degrees of enthusiasm in the crowd in receiving Jesus as a prophet, or Jesus, the prophet from the insignificant village of Nazareth. Another textual variant concerns Jesus’ entry into the temple. Codices C, D and W, etc., emphasise that when Jesus first enters the temple, he enters the temple of God. However, these codices do not provide the temple in Jerusalem with the genitive attribute “of God” in the narrative on the demon’s second temptation of Jesus (Mt 4:5).15 The third textual difference concerns Jesus’ reproach of the temple transactions. Is it a particular, isolated incidence driven by Jesus’ impulse or does it reflect Jesus’ disapproving attitude towards all temple transactions? Poiei/n in Mt 21:13 appears in the present, aorist and perfect tenses in the Synoptics and their textual variants. The tense differences show that different emphases are placed on the duration, during which the temple professionals undermine the legitimate function of the temple. 7.1.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mt 21:10-17 is the first episode during Jesus’ stay in the temple in Jerusalem (Mt 21:1-24:1). Jesus’ stay in the temple is bracketed by two mixed citations of Ps 118:26 as an inclusion,16 wherein the debates on Jesus’ identity and authority (Mt 21:23-27, 22:41disciples and Matthew applies it in the praise of the children in the temple. Children also means the little ones and is also applied to the discples in early Christian tradition (Mt 10:42). 12 In Mt 21:11. Codices C, L, W, textual family 1, 33 supply the reading of VIhsou/j o` profh,thj, instead of o` profh,thj VIhsou/j provided by Codices a, B, D, Q. 13 In Mt 21:12, Codices C, D, W, Manuscript Family 1 supply the reading to. i`ero.n tou/ qeou. 14 In Mt 21:13, Codices C, D, W, Manuscript Family 13 supply evpoih,sate in aorist tense, while Manuscript Family 1 supplies pepoih,kate in perfect tense. The former shows that the temple transaction was brought to Jesus’ attention at that very moment. The latter shows that the temple transaction had been carried out long before. 15 Mt 4:5: eivj th.n a`gi,an, evpi. to. pteru,gion tou/ i`erou/. 16 awb in Ps 118:26 is a participle in Qal, pointing to an act in the near future, whose implication can be felt in the present. Pss 113-118 are known as Hallel Psalms, which are sung during the offering in the temple, at Passover and during the Feast of Tabernacles. Ps 118:26 is often used by the priests to greet the pilgrims from the East Gate of the temple, through which those travelling along the road from the Mount of Olives enter the temple. Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 184. It is chanted in more than one Jewish festival, e.g. Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles and the Festival of Lights (Hanukkah), Davies & Allison, Matthew III, pp. 125-6. The spreading of the clothes on the road for Jesus in Mt 21:8 is redactional and is not realistic, cf. Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 183. However, both Luz and Davies & Allison maintain that the people interpret Jesus’ The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

46) and the criticism of his rivals (Mt 23:1-36) reach their climax. Here Matthew supplements the discussion with three parables (Mt 21:28-46, 22:1-14) and four debates 195 (Mt 22:15-45) to enrich the motive. The citation of Ps 118:26 represents the people’s perception of Jesus’ identity (Mt 21:9, cf. Mt 21:10, Rom 1:3-4, John 7:42).17 It appears twice in the context of the conflicts in Temple. The citation is first sung by the crowd, which asks a core question about Jesus’ identity but is given a commonly held, anticlimactic answer (Mt 21:11).18 The second time the citation appears is in a broken refrain bracketing the three parables of the heirs to the Kingdom of God (Mt 21:28-32, 33-46, 22:1-14), the three conflicts between Jesus and the most learned Jewish critics (Mt 22:1522, 23-33, 34-46), Jesus’ woes on the Pharisees (Mt 23:1-36) and his lamentation on Jerusalem (Mt 23:37-38). The first half of the refrain of Ps 118:26 is begun by the children when they see Jesus’ miracle of healing the blind (Mt 21:15): w`sanna. tw/| ui`w/| Daui,d.19 However, they are interrupted by the rebuttal by the chief priests and the scribes. The refrain is continued by Jesus when he departs the temple (Mt 23:39): uvloghme,noj o` evrco,menoj evn ovno,mati kuri,ou. The structure of the inclusion suggests that the narratives within it could be interpreted with respect to the same motive, the duel between Jesus and his critics regarding his identity and their rivalry in religious authority.

act as implicitly messianic and they react accordingly. See Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 183, Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 123. 17 The people’s understanding of the identity of Jesus is qualitatively similar to what the others thought before. It is more respectful than the opinion of fellow villagers from Jesus’ hometown, Nazareth (Mt 13:54, 16:13, 21:11). With respect to the title Son of David (Mt 21:9), Karrer points out that there is not a strong insistence among the Jews that the legitimate rule of Israel should come from the physical descent of David. His reasons are (i) there is a loss of geneaology of 400 years after the downfall of the Southern Kingdom, i.e. Judah, (ii) In the period, Israel has other rulers who were not of Davidic origin but still enjoyed legitimacy, i.e. Hasmonean. Even the Qumran did not expect a ruler from David, but from the high priest (another priesthood, which is different from Jerusalem’s established hierarchy of priesthood). See Karrer, Gesalbte, pp. 267-270. Two problems are: (i) The Hasmonean may not associate their epoch as the apocalyptical period. The Messiah of the end time is still believed to be of David origin. (ii) There was a revivial of the stress of Davidic origin of the Messiah after the Hasmonean's rule. It was an attempt to delegitimize various messianic movements, which leaders claimed to be the Messiah but not of Davidic origins. See also Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 170. Davies & Allison maintain that the crowd thought Jesus was not just the Son of David, i.e. the christological perception of the crowd is expanded through the increase in the parallel between Jesus and Moses. The parallel is already seen in their both riding on an ass (Exod 4:19-20), Davies & Allison, Matthew III, pp. 121-127. See also Konradt, who maintains that the Son of God is the Son of David, Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 31. Luz however maintains that their first reaction could be related to the fulfilment of Moses’ promise in Deut 18:15, or the reaction is related to Jesus’ role as a prophet in Mt 16:14. He prefers to leave the question open, Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 184. See also Ratzinger, Jesus I, p. 27. 18 Cf. Konradt, Konradt, Matthäus, p. 147. 19 The blind are not forbidden to enter the temple, cf. Acts 3:1-2. They are only forbidden to enter the priesthood (Lev 21:18). It is because the lame are incapable of travelling to the temple, and the blind cannot distinguish pure from impure offerings in the temple. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

Jesus’ protest against the temple in Mt 21:10-17 takes place on the first day he enters Jerusalem. It is followed by his cursing a fig tree, which leads to its immediate withering 196 (Mt 21:18-22).20 His procession is described as an exact realisation of the Old Testament promise of a gentle king entering his territory (Zech 9:9, Isa 62:11). Matthew changes Mark’s euvloghme,nh h` evrcome,nh basilei,a tou/ patro.j h`mw/n Daui,d to w`sanna. tw/| ui`w/| Daui,d to show that Jesus is the object of the crowd’s applause (Mk 11:10, Mt 21:9). A strong epiphany expression, sei,w, is applied to the crowd’s response to Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem in Mt 21:10.21 However, Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem is followed by an anticlimax. The question about Jesus’ identity is provided by a construction of the double places of origin, profh,thj VIhsou/j o` avpo. Nazare.q th/j Galilai,aj (Mt 21:11), showing that the crowd despises Jesus. 22 The development after his entry contrasts with the enthronement tradition, wherein the king is welcomed by the high priests (1 King 1:3334).23 The chief priests do not receive Jesus with honour. They rather rebuke the children 20

Luz maintains that fruit here may metaphorically refer to human good deeds, which are also not guaranteed to be found in people, cf. Mt 7:16-20, 12:33, 13:8, 26. In the Old Testament, a fig tree is often a metaphor for Israel. The withering of the tree refers to judgment on Israel, cf. Isa 34:4, Ps 105:33, Jer 24:110, 29:17, Hos 2:14, 9:10, Joel 1:7, Mi 7:1, Jer 18:3, cf. Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 201. According to the Old Testament tradition, the picture is that God sees the early fruit in the fig trees metaphorically to illustrate his divine favour with the patriarchs of Israel (Hos 9:10). The absence of early fruit shows that the cause of the divine favour is not found in the Jews in Jesus’ time. Matthew retains Jesus’ curse against the fig tree after Jesus protests against the temple. However, he twists the traditional theme of loss of divine favour by adopting Mark’s redaction and takes it as an occasion to build up the faith of the disciples (Mt 21:21-22, cf. Mk 11:22-25). Matthew’s love of his fellow Jews and his hope of their repentance are very deep and subtle. 21 sei,w: Mt (3). The verb is also found in Mt 27:51 and Mt 28:4, where both are preceded by miraculous acts of God (theophany) or an appearance of an angel. 22 Nazareth is insignificant (John 1:46). Matthew usually only uses one place-name to introduce a person’s place of origin, not two. Cf. Mt 2:23, 27:32. Here Nazareth comes first and is further supplemented by Galilee, which is well known as a cradle of numerous Jewish political uprisings under the rule of Rome. 23 Zech 9:9 is quoted in Mk 11:2, Mt 21:5 and John 12:15. It is about the greeting of the crowd to welcome the one coming in the name of God. It provides the background to the crowd’s reception of Jesus in Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels. In Mt 21:5, Matthew draws a contrast between the glamorous patrol of the earthly King and a humble servant-king, Jesus, who enters Jerusalem as (the) Son of David to fulfill the promise in the Old Testament. Jerusalem is considered to be the City of David. The crowd’s spreading of the clothes and branches on Jesus’ path could be analogous to a ritual of enthronement (cf. a contrast to the enthroning of Jehu in 2 Kings 9:13). The redaction places a strong emphasis on the literal fulfillment of the Old Testament promise: Matthew changes one donkey to two in his narrative (Mt 21:7) –he may have mistaken the parallelismus memborum of the same donkey in Zech 9:9 as two donkeys. His inadvertent failure to correct Jesus' riding on two donkeys (Mt 21:7) shows that Matthew is quoting directly from Mark while consulting Zech 9:9, Gen 49:11 and even Exod 4:20 at the same time. Klostermann however argues that Matthew is not so careless. He is fond of using “two” but treating them as one entity in the narratives, eg. Mt 8:28, 9:27, 20:30, cf. Mk 5:2, 10:46, Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 165, Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 179. Common motives between the triumphal patrol of an earthly king and Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem are: (i) The patrol of a king (Mt 21:7), (ii) open acclamation (Mt 21:8-9), (iii) his entry into the city (Mt 21:10), (iv) a cultic celebration (Mt 21:15). Here Jesus is contrasted with a worldly king by (i) his entry into Jerusalem as a Galilean pilgrim before the Passover. There is no military triumph. (ii) His riding on two donkeys, not a horse as ridden by a king in war. However it should be noted that pilgrims usually go to Jerusalem on foot, not riding on an animal. (iii) His criticism of the temple cult. See Davies & Allison, The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

who honour Jesus after his healing miracles (Mt 21:15).24 The praise comes from the pai/j in the temple, not the throng as in the other healing miracles, whose presence might also 197 be easily found in the temple. The chief priests’ complaints about Jesus reveal their triple incompetence: they facilitate the turning of the temple into a den of robbers. They fail to recognise Jesus as one sent from God and fail to greet him and they fail to intercede for the needy in God’s temple. Mt 21:10-17 contains three scenes. Each starts with the root e;rcomai and uses different prepositional prefixes and subjects. The first two scenes contain the place attribute evn tw/| i`erw/| (Mt 21:12, 14, 15). The last scene infers the temple, but does not mention it (Mt 21:17). The explict expression of departing from the temple, avpo. tou/ i`erou, reappears in Mt 24:1. Jesus’ temple action is expressed in two syntactic parallels, in which the second (Mt 21:12c) is a sub-section of the first (Mt 21:12b); it provides the details of the action. The parallel ends with an insertion in Mt 21:13, in which the emphasis is put on the function of the temple in a mixed citation of Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11. The present tense poie,w (Mt 21:13) shows that the turning of the temple into a den of robbers is an ongoing, not yet completed act.25 qauma,sioj is used only on this occasion for the reaction to Jesus’ healing (Mt 21:15, cf. Mt 15:31). 26 The driving out of the traders in the temple is contrasted with the healing of the blind and lame.27 Matthew III, pp. 112-114, 119, Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 178-179, Gnilka, Markus 2, pp. 117-120. See le Donne, "Diachic Symbolism in Matthew" in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, p. 88. 24 Allison holds that the children’s praise, together with Jesus’ citation of Ps 8:3, suggests an allusion to Exod 15:2, cf. t.Sota 6:4, Allison, New Moses, pp. 250-251. 25 The interpretation of Jesus’ protest against the temple remains divided in New Testament research. Several proposals have been made: cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew III, pp. 135-136, Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 186-187, (i) replacement of the temple by a new place of atonement –however this view does not match Jesus’ explanation of his acts in his citation in Mt 21:13. Also it carries a strong post-Easter interpretation, where the death of Jesus is theologically interpreted and reflected on as being the ultimate atonement. (ii) Jesus’ possible attack on the Zealots –sph,laion lh|stw/n in Mt 21:13 may apply to Zealots, cf. Jos. Bell 4:270-287. Zealots are not mentioned in this text as Jesus’ opponents, only the chief priests and the scribes are. (iii) Jesus is militant. However, this image does not match with the image the evangelist portrays of Jesus in Mt 21:1-5, not to mention the image portrayed throughout the whole Gospel. (iv) Jesus’ symbolic expression of judgment against the temple, i.e. foretelling the destruction of the temple. However, it is difficult to see how Jesus’ protest against the temple is relevant to its final destruction; does it mean that the protest should be made even though Jesus knows for sure that the protest is in vain, as the temple will be destroyed in 40 years time? (v) Jesus’ protest against corruption in the temple or their abuse of the temple system for offering sacrifices. This view is more convincing as the subsequent flow of the text provides support for it. 26 The reaction of the children here can be compared to Mt 15:31. Other descriptions on reactions to Jesus’ healing miracles include qerapeu,w in Mt 4:23, 8:7, 16, 9:35, 15:35, kaqari,zw in Mt 8:3, a[ptw in Mt 8:15, 9:29, 14:36. Matthew always mentions that the consequence of a healing miracle is that more sick people swarm to Jesus for healing, not a wonder of the act itself (Mt 4:24, 8:16). 27 The trading and money-changing in the front court of the temple enable the pilgrims to offer sacrifices, as they may not have access to clean shekels for the temple dues. Nor could they bring along ritually clean, perfect animals to offer up during their pilgrimage (on foot!) to Jerusalem. Eppstein points out that in 30 AD, the high priest, Joseph Caiaphas, set up a temple market in the front court of the temple to compete against the four markets set up on the Mount of Olives by Bene Hanan. See Eppstein, "The The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple Temple

7.1.2 Mk 11:11, 15-18

7.1.2.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 11:11, 15-18 has at least two pre-Markan traditions: Jesus’ actions in protest against the transactions in the temple (Mk 11:15b-16) and the resultant protest by the chief priests and scribes (Mk 15:18a).28 However, it remains uncertain whether Jesus’ protest (Mk 11:17), in which Isa 56:7 is cited, is Mark’s redaction or a pre-Markan tradition. Jesus’ protest contains words that are not often used by Mark,29 but Mk 11:18b is probably Mark’s redaction.30 The omission of the scale of the expulsion is unusual, as Mark is fond of describing scale and magnitude in a fairly dramatic way.31 There are three interesting textual variants in Mk 11:11, 15-18: i. ii. iii.

Does Jesus also expel the buyers from the temple?32 Do the chief priests and the scribes or the Pharisees and the scribes want to plot against Jesus?33 As with one of the textual variants of Mt 21:10-17, does the temple become a den of robbers when Jesus sees it or had it become one long before?34

Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple", ZNW 55 (1964), pp. 49-54, Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 47. The Mount of Olives is about 1 km away opposite the temple in Jerusalem. It is the place where God’s feet will rest in his Day (Zech 14:4). Some Jewish eschatological writings suppose that the Messiah will appear on the Mount of Olives, cf. Jos. Ant 20: 169-170, Jos. Bell 2:262. Matthew retains the strongly negative term for a money-changer kollubisth,j (which means taker of provision), and the seat of the dove-sellers ta.j kaqe,draj tw/n pwlou,ntwn ta.j peristera.j from Mark's text. The doves were the animals offered by the poor. The formulation provides a strong hint of their exploitation of the poor’s religiosity for their own benefits. Also, sph,laion lh|stw/n (Mt 21:13, Mk 11:17) do not only mean thief, but also organized crime. Tuckett points out that the term usually refers to nationalist rebels or guerillas. Luz, Matthäus 3, p.187, Tuckett, Griesbach, p. 116. It is also well known that in classical texts the leaders of the temple profited handsomely from the trading in the temple, see Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 187, note 76, Jos. Ant 20:205, BS, Kommentar I, p. 937. 28 See Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 134, Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 127. The critical and defensive response from the temple authorities to Jesus’ action can also be found in John 2:18-22. 29 In Mk 11:15 –pwle,w, Mk (3); tra,peza, Mk (2); kollubisth,j, Mk (1); kaqe,dra, Mk (1); peristera,, Mk (2); katastre,fw, Mk (1). In Mk 11:16 –diafe,rw, Mk (1); skeu/oj, Mk (2). 30 The way Mark’s Jesus uses Old Testament citations –kai. e;legen auvtoi/j… w`j ge,graptai –can also be found in Mk 7:6, 14:26. However, Mk 11:17 is the only place where this introductory phrase is negatively formulated. 31 Mark favours the use of pa/j. The word appears sixty-seven times in his Gospel. In Mk 11:15-18, Mark does not include any terms that describe the scale of Jesus’ expulsion of the traders. 32 In Mk 11:15, Codex W does not supply the clause that describes Jesus’ expulsion of those who were buying goods in the temple –h;rxato evkba,llein tou.j pwlou/ntaj evn tw/| i`erw/.|. 33 In Mk 11:18, Manuscript 1424, pc supply that it was oi farisai/oi kai. oi` grammatei/ who plot to kill Jesus, not oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` grammatei/. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

198

Temple

Some textual variants do not contain the presence of the buyers, showing that the scribes of some texts are not entirely hostile towards the pilgrims. All of the versions 199 support criticism of institutionalised transactions in the temple. 7.1.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features The episode in Mk 11:15-18 occurs on the second day after Jesus enters Jerusalem on a colt. Mark stresses three times that the colt is released (Mk 11:2, 4, 5).35 The stress on this “liberated” colt foretells Jesus’ three actions to release the temple from malpractices.36 Jesus’ protest against the temple represents a judgment (Mk 11:17, cf. Isa 56:7, 60:7, 1 Macc 7:37, Jer 7:11). 37 The protest is sandwiched between a postponed and a pre-empted judgment. Jesus postpones his acts of protest against the temple at his first entry, when the daily sacrifice has not yet started (Mk 11:11). 38 In the pre-empted judgment, Jesus curses the fig tree because it only has leaves, not early fruit, which could be used for offerings (Mk 11:13). 39 Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and the temple is presented with the phonetic parallel of eivj and evn (Mk 11:15). The parallel leads to the climax of his cleansing action. A contrast is found in Mk 11:17, in which oi=koj proseuch/j klhqh,setai pa/sin toi/j e;qnesinÈ is contrasted with auvto.n sph,laion lh|stw/n. The reproach of the chief priests is emphasised, as they have turned the temple into a den of robbers.40 Their action is set in the perfect tense (pepoih,kate in Mk 11:17), indicating that it is a completed state and conveying the impression that the temple has long been deviating from its ideal.

34

In Mk 11:17 Codices a, C, D, W supply evpoih,sate in aorist tense, not pepoih,kate in perfect as provided by Codices B, L, D etc. 35 Cf. b. San 98ab. 36 evkba,llein, katastre,fein, ouvkavfi,hmi in Mk 11:15. 37 Gnilka postulates an eschatological dimension of building a new temple. See 1 Hen 90:28-30, Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 128. 38 The offering of the sacrifices in the temple was done in the morning and in the afternoon, although the prayers –Shema (Deut 6:4) were started in the evening. (b.Ber 1:1, cf. Lev 22:29). perible,pw in Mk 11:11 appears six times in Mark’s Gospel (Mk 3:5, 34, 5:32, 9:8, 10:23, 11:11). Its usage in Mt 3:5, 5:32 expects a response of correction of misbehaviour. 39 Hab 3:17 –a fig tree that does not blossom denotes the day of anguish. The state of a fig tree may provide an indicator to the season (Mk 13:28). Figs could be used for offering tithes (Lev 27:30, Jer 24:1, 2). 40 Cf. Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, pp. 159-160. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

7.1.3 Lk 19:45-48

7.1.3.1 Source and Text Criticism Lk 19:45-48 is a condensed version of Mk 11:11, 15-18. Luke’s narrative is the shortest of the parallel texts in the Synoptics.41 What Luke omits can be explained by his theological intentions.42 Luke, like Matthew, deletes pa/sin toi/j e;qnesin in the citation of Isa 56:7 in Mk 11:17.43 The mixed citation of Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11 contains words that are not often used by Luke.44 Lk 19:45-48 does not have any major textual variants. Insignificant variants include: i. ii.

Does Jesus also expel the buyers in the temple, a change that is very likely a harmonisation with Mk 11:15?45 The emphasis on the strong intention of the crowd to hear from Jesus.46 7.1.3.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features

Jesus’ protest against the temple (Lk 19:45-48) takes place on the same day as his entry into Jerusalem (Lk 19:28-40) and his lament over the future tragedy to the city (Lk 41

Luke may want to distance Jesus from the Zealots. See Horn, "Die Haltung des Lukas zum römischen Staat im Evangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte" in The Unity of Luke-Acts, p. 207, note 12. 42 Unlike Mark (Mk 11:11 and 11:15), Luke does not include the parts which record Jesus’ lodging overnight in Bethany, his cursing of the fig tree and the two Hosanna praises. Luke does not see the need to spread Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem over two days to disrupt the tempo of his narrative. Likewise, he does not see the point of repeating the praise twice if the first time has already served the purpose (Lk 19:38, which echoes Lk 2:14). He inserts Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem when Jesus approaches the city. Bovon explains that the omission of the cursing of the fig tree could be because Luke has a parable about a fig tree in Lk 13:6-7. He may want to avoid repetition. See Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 41. Cf. Wolter, Lukas, pp. 627-628. However, Luke’s omission of the cursing of the fig tree could be caused by his theological and narrative consistency about Jesus’ character, which forbids the disciples to curse the inhospitable Samaritans (Lk 9:51). Luke has more minor agreements with Matthew’s than with Mark’s text, e.g. Lk 19:46a (cf. Mt 21:13a) is presented as a saying rather than a question (Mk 11:17). Also, au.to,n is put before poie,in in Lk 19:46 (cf. Mt 21:13), while Mark puts them in the reverse order. 43 Their deletion of Mk 11:16 and the omission of the last phrase of the citation of Isa 56:7 show that the compilation of Matthew and Luke is after the destruction of the temple in AD 70. The prophecy that all nations will come to pray in the temple in Jerusalem could not be realized. See Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 49. Tuckett, Griesbach, p. 115. 44 The verb evkkrema,nnumi is also rare. It occurs only here in Luke’s Gospel. 45 In Lk 19:45, Codices A(C), W, q provide the expansion of en autw kai. tou.j avgora,zontaj. Codex D further supplies en autw kai. avgora,zontaj/|\ kai. ta.j trape,zaj tw/n kollubistw/n execeen( kai. ta.j kaqe,draj tw/n pwlou,ntwn ta.j peristera.j. 46 In Lk 19:48, Codex D supplies the reading with an infinitive construction evxekre,mato akouein autou, instead of the Genitivus Absolutus evxekre,mato uvtou/ avkou,wn. Codex D shows a stronger intention by the crowd to hear from Jesus. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

200

Temple

19:41-45). 47 Although Luke describes three incidents on a single day, the process is slowly paced so that the reader can follow Jesus on his way. 48 The praise of Jesus’ 201 disciples at his humble entry to Jerusalem echoes the praise of the heavenly choir on the day he is born humbly on earth (Lk 19:38, cf. Ps 118:26, Lk 2:14).49 Luke shortens Jesus’ protest against the temple to four words, h;rxato evkba,llein tou.j pwlou/ntaj (Lk 19:45b), which is one sixteenth of the length of his woes for Jerusalem (Lk 19:41-44).50 Luke’s Jesus expels only the sellers, not the buyers; he is only against those who take the chance to reap benefits for themselves.51 The mixed citation of Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11 that is placed at the end of the narrative is three times longer than his act of protest. Luke deliberately dampens Jesus’ protests down. No reaction to Jesus’ action is recorded from the Jewish leaders and his protest goes unnoticed. For Luke, a further description of Jesus’ protest in the temple may be politically and religiously dangerous. The action is used only as a context for the mixed citation of Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11, which reminds the reader of the true function of the temple52 and prepares them for its destruction.

47

Lk 19:41 is the first time Jesus cries over the pending tragedy to Jerusalem. It imitates the prophetic lament, Jer 9:1, 26:1-6, Ezra 10:1, Neh 1:4. The action of cleansing the temple is also symbolic. Else, Jesus should have met with intervention from the temple police and the Roman soldiers, who were stationed on Mount Antonia near to the temple. See Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 49. Luz also points out that the foreground of the temple is a very wide area (ten hectares), wherein Jesus’ action would hardly have been noticed and regulated by the authorities. See Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 185-186. 48 evggi,zw appears three times in Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem: Lk 19:29, 37,:41. See also Bovon, Lukas 4, pp. 31-34, 43. 49 euvloghme,noj o` evrco,menoj( o` basileu.j evn ovno,mati kuri,ou is spoken twice by Jesus in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 13:35, par Mt 23:29, Mk 11:9 and in Lk 19:43). This greeting is usually used by the priests for welcoming the pilgrims to the temple in Jerusalem. In Lk 19:38, Luke removes the introduction of Hosanna and introduces o` basileu.j as an apposition to o` evrco,menoj. Luke also removes basilei,a tou/ patro.j h`mw/n Daui,d. (Mk 11:10a). Wolter points out that Luke wants to echo the Doxology in Lk 2:14a. Jesus will be crowned in heaven, not on earth. See Wolter, Lukas, p. 631. Here, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their request to stop the disciples, whose praise they are unable to hold back (Lk 19:40). Luke may share the same Q tradition with Mt 21:15. This is because the Hebrew form of li,qoj (i.e. !ba) in Lk 19:40 is similar to the Hebrew form of Son (i.e !b), as implied in Mt 21:15. 50 See also Lindemann, "..und trieb alle aus dem Tempel hinaus (John 2:15) –"Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit im Jesusbild der Evangelien" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 213-215. 51 Cf. Matthew treats buyers and sellers as a single group with one article (Mt 21:12) –pa,ntaj tou.j pwlou/ntaj kai. avgora,zontaj evn tw/| i`erw/|, while Mark treats them as two different groups (Mk 11:15) tou.j pwlou/ntaj kai. tou.j avgora,zontaj evn tw/| i`erw/|( Mk 11:15). See Tuckett, Griesbach, p.114. Bovon, Lukas 4, p.47. 52 For Luke, Temple is a place where man prays, perceives and proclaims God's will (Lk 1:10, 2:37, 18:19, 19:46, Acts 3:1, 8:27, 22:17, 26, 24:11). The first sermon about Jesus' resurrection took place also in the temple (Acts 3:1..13, 4:1-2). Luke tries to demonstrate the disciples’ faithful allegiance to the Jewish religious cult and their respect for the temple. See Wolter, Lukas, pp. 635-636, Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 48. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

7.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 21:10-17

Matthew’s major redaction in Mt 21:10-17 is his positioning of the conflict in the light of the failing competence of the chief priests. The conflict is stationed in and with the double inclusions of the mixed citation of Ps 118:26 (Mt 21:9, 15, 23:39). The priests have a threefold incompetence; they fail to recognise and greet Jesus as the one who is from God. The mixed citation should be sung by them, not just by the crowd and children. They administer the offerings in such a way that the temple is turned into a den of robbers (Mt 21:13) and they fail to intercede for the blind and lame in the temple (Mt 21:15-16). The priests stand in contrast to the children, who emerge as those who truly recognise Jesus (Mt 21:15). They try to sing the same praise to Jesus as the crowd does but with a correct perception of Jesus’ identity. The crowd’s praise is mixed with a tunnel vision of Jesus’ identity; he is a prophet from Galilee and Nazareth (Mt 21:10-11). Although the children’s praise using the mixed citation of Ps 118:26 is truncated by the chief priests, Jesus acknowledges their praise (Mt 21:16) and completes the refrain in a subjunctive formulation in Mt 23:39. Unlike Matthew, Luke tries to make Jesus’ protest against the temple as insignificant as possible. His extremely condensed report of the protest, using only four words, supplies proof of this suggestion. No effect is felt by the immediate stakeholders of the temple in the narrative. Luke is determined to portray a pacifist Jesus who poses no threat towards the established religious and political authorities. His Jesus is not accused of blaspheming against the temple in the trial against him (cf. Mk 14:58, 26:61). 7.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 21:23-27 7.2.1 Mt 21:23-27

7.2.1.1 Source and Text Criticism Mt 21:23-27 records a conflict about Jesus’ authority between the chief priests, the elders of the people and Jesus. It is highly probable that the primary source is Mark’s text (Mk 11:27-33), as Matthew’s content and structure follow that of Mark’s. Although his text also has some minor agreements with Luke’s text (Lk 20:1-8), their shared features are mostly stylistic improvements on Mark’s.53 The text does not contain words or terms 53

Matthew has his source in Mark’s text, e.g., Matthew picks up the following themes from Mark's text: Jesus’ overnight stay in Bethany (Mt 21:17, cf. Mk 11:11b), his return to Jerusalem on the following day (Mt 21:18, cf. Mk 11:11b), the curse against the figtree (Mt 21:18-22, cf. Mk 11:12-14, 20-25) and the discussion with the Jewish leaders (Mt 21:23-27). What Matthew and Luke share in common but what is not found in Mark's text: (i) Both make the crowd’s recognition of John the Baptist into an internal The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

202

Temple

foreign to Matthew, except the less frequently used to. ba,ptisma and dialogi,zomai (Mt 203 21:25).54 There are no significant textual variants of Mt 21:23-27. Insignificant variants include: i. ii.

Stressing the temple as the place where the dispute takes place.55 Whether there is a definite article for John the Baptist with reference to his baptism.56 7.2.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features

Mt 21:23-27 recalls the earliest conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders. The central issue in the debate, evxousi,a, also emerges in the first conflict between Jesus and the scribes in Capernaum (Mt 9:6).57 It is the only conflict narrative in the Gospel of Matthew wherein Jesus ends the debate with a refusal and does not provide an immediate answer. His unsaid answer is embedded in his comments on the heavenly origin of John’s mission (Mt 21:23, 32)58 and revealed at the end of the parable of the two sons (Mt 21:28-32). The text is in a narrative unit bracketed by the question evn poi,a| evxousi,a| tau/ta poiei/jÈ (Mt 21:23c, 27b). 59 tau/ta may refer to Jesus’ teaching in the temple (Mt 21:23a).60 Jesus poses the question of the source of John’s baptism in a morphological contrast of a word-pair, evx ouvranou/ versus evx avnqrw,pwn (Mt 21:25). The dilemma of the dialogue between Jesus opponents, while Mark reports it as a remark by the author (Mt 21:25, Lk 20:6, versus Mk 11:32). (ii) Jesus teaches (Mt 21:23, Lk 20:1). (iii) They both have le,gontej (Mt 21:23, Lk 19:2), avpokriqei.j de. ei=pen, evrwth,sw, kavgw, ei;pate, moi (Mt 21:24, Lk 20:3), oi` de. (Mt 21:26, Lk 20:5), eva.n de. (Mt 21:26, Lk 20:6). (iv) They do not have i[na tau/ta poih/|j in Mk 11:28 avpokri,qhte, moi in Mk 11:30. See Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 206, Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 156, Wolter, Lukas, pp. 639-640. 54 to. ba,ptisma, Mt (2); dialogi,zomai, Mt (3). 55 In Mt 21:23, Codices K, W, D supply the reading DcP evlqo,nti (eivselqo,nti by K) auvtw/|, instead of the Genitivus Absolutus evlqo,ntoj auvtou/. 56 In Mt 21:25, Codices D, L, W do not supply an article to the baptism of John the Baptist To. ba,ptisma VIwa,nnou but Codices B, C, Z supply the article to. ba,ptisma to. VIwa,nnou. 57 evxousi,a, Mt (10) 58 The construction ,Iwannhj ou,k evpisteu,sate auvtw/| reappears in both narratives (Mt 21:25, 32). See Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 205. 59 Cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 156. 60 tau/ta in Mt 21:23c may refer to Jesus’ teaching in the temple (Mt 21:23a). If the chief priests reacted so swiftly to the children’s short praise in the temple, it is hardly imaginable that they did not react to Jesus’ cleansing of the temple until a day later. Also, Mt 21:23 sets off a series of Jesus’ teaching in the temple (Mt 21:23-39). His long lecture cannot be possible without the permission of the leaders of the temple, given how attracted the crowd is to it (Mt 21:46, 22:33). Cf. Luz holds that tau/ta refers to what Jesus did in the temple, i.e. primarily his teaching but also his protest and his healing, Mt 21:12, 14. See Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 209. Davies & Allison suggest that it may also include Jesus’ messianic entry into Jerusalem, Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 159. The chief priests and elders of the people are analogous to the Sanhedrin, the "Supreme Court" in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 21:23, 26:3, 27:1). See also Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 169. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

inquirers’ answer is conveyed through a syntactic parallel of eva.n ei;pwmen. The text is also the third time that Jesus positively aligns himself and his mission with that of John the 204 Baptist.61 7.2.2 Mk 11:27-33

7.2.2.1 Source and Text Criticism New Testament scholars remain divided on the extent to which Mark redacts Mk 11:27-33.62 John 2:18 describes how Jesus’ cleansing of the temple is later confronted by his critics, who ask about his authority. Mk 11:27b-28 may reflect the same tradition (Mk 11:27-33). However, a counter-argument can be found: the unspecified tau/ta in the question raised by Jesus’ critics (Mk 11:28) may refer merely to the source of his teaching authority.63 If this is true,64 the question raised by the Jewish leaders regarding Jesus’ authority can take place in any context, not necessarily in the temple.65 As the text does not include rare words of Mark, except the adverb o;ntwj in Mk 11:32,66 it is very likely that Mark retells the debate in the constructed context of the temple to fit his redactional interest.67 Mk 11:31-32 also contains features of a rabbinic school debate.68 There are four textual variants in Mk 11:27-33, listed below. They are not deemed necessary for detailed discussion.

61

Mt 11:7-14, Lk 7:24-28 [Q]; Mt 11:16-19, Lk 7:31-35 [Q]; Mt 21:23-27. Q tends to place Jesus within John the Baptist’s eschatological teachings about the Kingdom of God. Nevertheless, Jesus’ message about the Kingdom of God (Mt 13:18-52) is not the same as John the Baptist’s (Mt 3:1-12) but he still holds that the two belong to the same divine origin. See also Backhaus, "Echoes from the Wilderness: The historical John the Baptist" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 2, pp. 1782-1784. 62 See the discussion in Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 157. 63 See Bultmann, Geschichte, p. 18, Gnilka, Markus 2, pp. 137-139, especially note 4 of p. 139, SB, Kommentar I, pp. 859-861, Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 57. 64 Mk 11:18-19 reports that the chief priests and the scribes were informed of Jesus’ cleansing act and they reacted negatively. Hence, it is also possible that tau/ta in Mk 11:28 refers to Jesus’ cleansing act. Also, Mark does not mention that Jesus teaches in the temple before the chief priests and the scribes raise the question in Mk 11:28. Why should they be disturbed by his teaching and ask about the source of his authority to teach? Jesus does not teach in the temple until after the debate (Mk 12:1-12:44). 65 Even though tau/ta in Mk 11:28 could refer to Jesus’ cleansing act, it is still possible that the context of the debate is a literary construction for a pseudo-Sanhedrin process on the source of the authority of Jesus and John the Baptist. 66 o;ntwj, Mk (1). 67 Mk 11:30 could be a school debate between the disciples of John the Baptist and Jesus about the origin of John’s baptism, not be between Jesus and the Jewish authority in Jersualem, who might not be fully aware of John’s impact in Jordan. See also Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 140, Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 60. 68 See Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 136, Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 56. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

i. Do the chief priests, scribes and elders ask one or two questions?69 ii. Does Jesus have a prime motive or question to ask his critics about their attitude 205 towards the baptism of John the Baptist?70 iii. How strong is Jesus’ reproach of his critics’ disbelief in John the Baptist?71 iv. How strong is the crowd’s opinion of John the Baptist as a prophet?72 Codex D takes a relatively stronger, more positive position on John the Baptist. However, the section on the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist in Mark’s Gospel still upholds Jesus’ supremacy over John the Baptist. 7.2.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features The query about Jesus’ authority by his critics (Mk 11:27-33) takes place a day after Jesus’ protest against the temple, after his curse on the fig tree has been realised. The debate is followed by Jesus’ parable of the wicked tenants (Mk 12:1-11), which ends in God’s warning about the change in the tenancy of the vineyard. Mark depicts the scene as a pseudo-process by the Sanhedrin on hearing of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple.73 The debate is an inclusion bracketed by evn poi,a| evxousi,a| (Mk 11:28, 33). The first question, evn poi,a| evxousi,a| tau/ta poiei/jÈ, is further explained by the second question, ti,j soi e;dwken th.n evxousi,an tau,thn. Jesus’ counter-question contains a syntactic parallel with a wordpair in morphological contrast, evx ouvranou/ h=n h' evx avnqrw,pwn; The inquirers perceive that they are cornered by a paradoxical situation of either-or and they choose to say neither-nor. The inquirers’ two questions are therefore not answered. This is also the first time that Jesus openly affirms his solidarity with John the Baptist and states the unity of their source of authority before his critics.74

69

In Mk 11:28, Codex D, a few Greek witnesses and k do not have the second question h' ti,j soi e;dwken th.n evxousi,an tau,thn i[na tau/ta poih/|jÈ 70 In Mk 11:29, Codices a, D, W, q manuscript family 1, 13 do not have the phrase u`ma/j e[na lo,gon. 71 In Mk 11:21, Codices A, C*, L, W, D, y do not supply the adverb ou=n while Codices a, B, C2, D, manuscript families 1 and 13 have ou=n. 72 In Mk 11:32a, Codices D,W, q supply the past perfect tense of h;de,isan and manuscript 700 supplies the aorist tense of oivda,si, instead of ei=con supplied by A, B, C, N, etc. Also, in Mk 11:32b, Codex D adds the adverb avlhqw/j to the sentence, i.e., a[pantej ga.r h;de,isan to.n VIwa,nnhn( o[ti avlhqw/j profh,thj h=nÅ It seems that Codex D thinks highly of John the Baptist. 73 Mark describes that Jesus’ cleansing of the temple came to the ears of the chief priests and the scribes (Mk 11:18). The query of Jesus’ protest against the temple could not start without the presence of the elders (cf. Mk 11:18, 27), who, together with chief priests and the scribes, form a representation of the Sanhedrin (Mk 8:31, 14:53, 55, 15:1), cf. Pesch, Markus 2, p. 210. They engineer the whole process of Jesus' execution later on a false verdict on Jesus’ claim to destroy the temple (Mk 14:55, 58, 15:1). 74 There are two occasions when Jesus and John the Baptist are mentioned together: (i) Herod’s impression of who Jesus is (Mk 6:14-16). (ii) The crowd’s impression of who Jesus is (Mk 8:28). This is also the first and the only occasion in Mark's Gospel where Jesus mentions his relationship with John the Baptist, and its quality is more of equality than of superiority. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

7.2.3 Lk 20:1-8

7.2.3.1 Source and Text Criticism It is highly probable that Mk 11:27-33 is the source of Lk 20:1-8.75 Lk 20:1-8 does not contain any rare words, except sullogi,zomai in Lk 20:5. 76 With this verb, Luke inserts a Hellenistic tone into the debate. Luke’s redaction includes the introduction in Lk 20:1, which follows his style. He also strengthens the Jews’ respect for John the Baptist with kataliqa,zw and pei,qw in Lk 20:6. There are no significant textual variants in Lk 20:1-8. Insignificant variants include: i. ii.

Are the chief priests the critics of Jesus?77 Similar to the textual variant in the parallel text in Matthew’s Gospel, the question of whether Jesus has a prime motive or question to ask his critics, which is condensed in his question about their attitude towards the baptism of John the Baptist, is found in some textual witnesses.78 7.2.3.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features

Lk 20:1-8 is placed in Jesus’ daily routine of teaching in the temple (cf. Lk 19:47, see also Lk 21:37). It is followed by the parable of the wicked tenants, which ends in the vineyard’s change in tenancy (Lk 20:9-19). 79 This sandwich arrangement shows that Jesus’ conflict with the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem on evxousi,a is an expected outcome of his daily routine of teaching and ministry there (Lk 19:45, 20:1, 20-21, 21:37, 22:53, 23:2).80 The use of a;rcw at the beginning of the parable (Lk 20:9) shows that Luke also wants his reader to read the debate and the parable together. Like his source, Mark, Luke’s Jesus refuses to give the critics an answer to their question.81 Luke attempts to relieve the tension of the either-or in Jesus’ question (Lk 20:4), by allowing the origin of 75

See the discussion in Wolter, Lukas, pp. 639-640, Bovon, Lukas 4, pp. 55-57. Sullogi,zomai: Lk (1) carries the feature of philosophical reflection, Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 61. 77 In Lk 20:1, Codices A, W and the majority of the texts supply the reading oi` i`erei/j kai. oi` grammatei/j su.n toi/j presbute,roij( instead of oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` grammatei/j su.n toi/j presbute,roij. 78 In Lk 20: 3, Codices C, D, Q, Y, Manuscript Family 12 supply lo,gon instead of e[na lo,gon. 79 Teaching is a favourite theme in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 4:31, 5:17, 11:1, 19:47, 20:1, 21:37, 23:5). What Jesus does in Jersualem is no different from what he does from the beginning of his mission and in all the places he visits. See Wolter, Lukas, p. 640. 80 evxousi,a refers to sermons and teachings. See also Bovon, Lukas 4, pp. 58-9, Wolter, Lukas, p. 640. Klostermann maintains that the crux of the debate is about Jesus’ protest in the temple and his teaching, Klostermann, Lukas, p. 193. 81 Jesus’ opponents want Jesus to give them an answer of “from heaven”, so that they can accuse him of blasphemy, Wolter, Lukas, p. 640. 76

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

206

Temple

the authority of John’s baptism to be both earthly and heavenly. How? Luke adds a Sondergut account of the close maternal family ties between John and Jesus. They are 207 cousins and both receive their missions from God. John’s ministry is a preparation for Jesus’ and Jesus’ mission is a continuation of John’s, after John’s imprisonment (Lk 3:20, cf. Mt 11:12-13, Lk 16:16 [Q]).82 The shared origin of their ministry of the Kingdom of God is not only earthly, i.e., familial on their mothers’ side (Lk 1:35-36), but also heavenly (Lk 3:2, 22).83 In the same way, Luke’s insertion of this Sondergut on their relationship also helps to relieve the tension of the rivalry between Jesus and John.84

7.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 21:23-27

Mt 21:23-27 is the last debate on Jesus’ authority. The debate on Jesus’ authority is the most important theme of the debates between Jesus and the Jewish critics in the Synoptics. It spreads across the whole ministry of Jesus, from the debate on the authority to forgive sin at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in his home-town (Mk 2:10, Mt 9:6, Lk 5:24), to the debate on the authority to carry out exorcism, in the middle of his ministry (Mk 2:22, Mt 12:24, Lk 11:15), and to the debate on the authority to teach in the temple, in the last phase of his ministry in Jerusalem (Mk 11:28, Mt 21:23, Lk 20:2).85 Matthew makes two redactions in Mt 21:23-27. It is highly probable that tau/ta (Mt 21:23) refers to Jesus’ teachings, not to his expulsion of the traders from the temple. Also, Matthew postpones Jesus’ unspoken answer to the end of the parables, when he mentions John again (Mt 21:31-32). The tax collectors and prostitutes are ahead of the chief priests and elders of the people on their way to the Kingdom of God, because they believe in John. Matthew points out that the Jewish leaders have lost their rights to the Kingdom of

82

Cf. Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, p. 81. The earthly and heavenly origins of tasks assigned can co-exist, e.g. Moses and Aaron are brothers. They are from the same family, from the tribe of the Levites and their mission is assigned to them by God (Exod 2:1, 4:14-17). 84 Luke could also be well aware of John the Baptist’s potential to rival Jesus. John's priestly lineage matches the Qumran’s expectation of a priestly Messiah. Also, the Israelites were under the priestly reign during the second temple period. See 1 Macc 14:41. See also CDB 20:1. Nevertheless, the Qumran also has a king as messisah: 1QS 9:10, 2Q Test 9. The competition between the baptism of John the Baptist and the temple cult is even more subtle in Luke’s Gospel, as Luke mentions that God calls John to take up the task evpi. avrciere,wj {Anna kai. Kai?a,fa( (Lk 3:2). If the high priest has done his job competently and satisfactorily in the temple, why must (Luke’s) God commission John to carry out a similar task in the desert? 85 For Mark, the last debate on authority is probably about Jesus’ cleansing of the temple (Mk 11:28). 83

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

God because they are unwilling to recognise the divine origins of the missions of John 208 and Jesus.86 Similar to Matthew, the theme of the debate on the source of Jesus’ authority in Lk 20:2 is more likely to refer to his teachings, not to his expulsion of the temple traders. Luke may not want to see the act of cleansing emerge again in the debate a day later. Luke prefers a pacifist Jesus; his concise narrative of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple contains only the bare essentials for the mixed citation of Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11. Jesus’ unspoken answer to the inquiries about the origin of his teaching authority is already known to Luke’s readers, who believe that Jesus’s ministry shares the same earthly (familial, from his mother’s side) (Lk 1:35-36) and heavenly (Lk 3:2, 22) origins with John’s ministry. 7.3 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 21:42-46 7.3.1 Mt 21:42-46

7.3.1.1 Source and Text Criticism Mt 21:42-46 is a deliberate improvement of Mk 12:10-12.87 The text resembles the concluding part of an old form of synagogue address.88 ouvde,pote avne,gnwte in Mt 21:42 is Matthew’s imitation of a rabbinic school debate. 89 Rare words are only found in the citation of Ps 118:22-23 in Mt 21:42.90 Jesus’ comment on the citation in Mt 21:43 is Matthew’s redaction.91 The comment is only loosely linked with Mt 21:44.92 It could be a

86

Davies & Allison point out that the purpose of the narrative is not to highlight a pronouncement by Jesus but rather to add to the dramatic tension between Jesus and his opponents, and to characterize the latter, Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 157. 87 Matthew adds the historical present form of le,gei in Mt 21:42 to the commentary on the parable, and simplifies ouvde. …avne,gnwte in Mk 12:10 to ouvde,pote avne,gnwte. He adds his favourite expression dia. tou/to, karpo,j in Mt 21:43. 88 The old form of a Synagogue address includes three parts: (i) daily scriptural lesson, (ii) exposition, mostly with a parable, (iii) concluding part where the core words of the exposition are stressed by quoting a further biblical passage, Ellis, Prophecy, pp. 251-252. 89 Matthew uses a negative with avnaginw,skw often (cf. Mt 12:3, 5, 19:4, 21:16, 42, 22:31). 90 avpodokima,zw, Mt (1); gwni,a, Mt (2); qaumasto,j, Mt (1). 91 Mt 21:43 is so closely interwined with the text that it cannot be redaction. See Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 217. Cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 175. 92 Gnilka includes Mt 21:44 in his study. He maintains that the stone metaphor in Mt 21:44 comes from Dan 2:44-45 and Isa 8:14, Gnilka, Matthäus 2, p. 231. See also the discussion on the text critical problem of Mt 21:44 in Oppong-Kumi, Parables, pp. 200-203. Aland, Kyoung and Trilling consider Mt 21:44 to be secondary. See K Aland/B Aland, Der Text des Neuen Testaments, p. 241, Min, Die früheste Überlieferung, p. 237, Trilling, Das wahre Israel, p. 57. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

later interpolation influenced by Lk 20:18 [Q]. The same theme is also found in the 209 Gospel of Thomas.93 There are two textual variants in Mt 21:42-46: i. ii.

Is Mt 21:44 (cf. Lk 20:18) part of the original text?94 Does the crowd view Jesus as one of the prophets, or is he just like any prophet?95 7.3.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features

Mt 21:42-46 is the epilogue of the parable of the wicked tenants. 96 It features oppositional rhetoric to deliver threatening criticisms of the chief priests, the elders of the people and the Pharisees (Mt 21:45).97 The insertion of Ps 118:22-23 in the parable is odd. It has a very weak semantic connection with the parable, with the exception of two shared words. 98 However, Matthew strengthens the transition between the parable and the citation of Ps 118:22-23 with a stronger allusion to other Old Testament traditions on 93

Discussion about how the parallel text in EvThom 65-66 relates to the Synoptics is still inconclusive. Some think that it is more primitive than the Synoptics because the vineyard parable in the EvThom is not so fully developed in terms of the plot and its allegorical interpretation. However, the allegory from Ps 118:22 “Show me the stone that the builders rejected, etc.”, even without the subsequent citation of Ps 118:23 in EvThom 66, shows that it could be a harmonization with the Synoptics, e.g. Lk 20:17c. Wolter holds that it is subjected to the influence of the Synoptics, while Davies & Allison think that it may come from an independent tradition. Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 187, Wolter, Lukas, p. 644, Gnilka, Markus 2, pp.142-143. 94 Codices a, B, D, L, W, Z, Manuscript Families 1, 13 etc supply Mt 21:44, which resembles Lk 20:18: kai. o` pesw.n evpV to.n li,qon sunqlasqh,setai\ evfV o]n dV a'n pe,sh|( likmh,sei auvto,n, while Codex D does not include this verse. 95 In Mt 21:46, codices C, D, W supply the reading w`j profh,thn auvto.n ei=con instead of eivj profh,thn auvto.n ei=con 96 It is widely accepted that what the wicked tenants did in the parable was not unusual at that time in Palestine. The first readers would not have been surprised by their murderous act, Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 218-219. 97 There is not a change of audience in the debate (Mt 21:23-27), the parable of the two sons (Mt 21:28-32), and the parable of the wicked tenants (Mt 21:33-46). u`mi/n in Mt 21:27 is the same group as u`mi/n in Mt 21:28. The introductory statement to the parable of the wicked tenants (Mt 21:33) –:Allhn parabolh.n avkou,sate –presumes the same group as in Mt 21:28. See also Oppong-Kumi, Parables, p. 231. 98 There is no logical connection between the other tenants in Mt 21:42 and the stone rejected by the builders. The shared words are oivkodome,w (which is found in Mt 21:42. oivkodespo,thj, oivkodome,w are found in Mt 21:33) and li,qoj (which is found in Mt 21:42, 44. liqobole,w is found in Mt 21:35). Ps 118 is one of the processional hymns for the Feast of Tabernacles. It has already been quoted three times during Jesus’ stay in Jerusalem (Ps 118:26 in Mt 21:9 and Mt 23:39, Ps 118:22-23 in Mt 21:46). Jeremias points out that Ps 118 is a hallel hymn sung at the Feast of Tabernacles. The stone in Ps 118:22 could originally have referred to a critically ill person who was healed and restored by God. In the Jewish tradition in 100 AD, it is widely interpreted that the stone could mean the Messiah. This is because the citation might potentially be a play on words between stone and son, which are !ba versus !bh in Aramaic. Jeremias, "li,qoj" in ThWNT IV, pp. 272-283. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

vineyards. He re-orders futeu,w and a;mpeloj in Mk 12:1 to make their order resemble the beginning of the song of the vineyard in Isa 5:2 (Mt 21:33). The vineyard symbolises 210 Israel in the Old Testament (Isa 5:1-7) and the temple in the time of Jesus.99 Matthew shifts the focus of the parable from the vineyard to the tenants and the judgment on them. 100 Matthew presents the necessity of changing tenants by emphasising the incompetency of the wicked tenants. He cites “cornerstone” in an inclusion bracketed by karpo,j (Mt 21:41, 43), a key task that the wicked tenants are expected to deliver but which they fail to do. This literary arrangement makes the parable of the wicked tenants and the enclosed citation of the cornerstone structurally and thematically close to Isa 28:7-16. Matthew retells the parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard (Mt 21:42-46) and associates it with the critics of drunken priests and prophets in Isa 28:7. The priests and prophets are drunk on wine (from the vine) and fail in their tasks (Isa 28:8) by teaching lies and falsehood (Isa 28:7-9, 14-15). God himself will lay a cornerstone in Zion (Isa 28:16). No one who relies on this will hasten (stumble), even in storms (Isa 28:16-17; see also the metaphor of a house in a storm in Mt 7:24-27, Lk 6:48-49 [Q]).101 karpo,j represents the legitimate entitlement of the owner of the vineyard, the failed assignment of the tenants and the criteria for the next tenants of the vineyard. The necessity of transferring the tenancy to a new group that will bear fruit is suggested by those listening to the parable and is confirmed by Jesus (Mt 21:41, 43), which hints at a consensus within the Matthean community. The insertion of the metaphor of a cornerstone within the inclusion of the metaphor of karpo,j (in the form of a syntactic parallel) forms a ring composition.102 God’s miracle in the rejected but resurrected Jesus is the nexus of the inclusion. The e;qnoj, who bear witness to Jesus and his words (Mt 21:43) and bring karpo,j, will be entrusted with the tenancy of the vineyard (cf. Isa 28:16).103

99

Isa 5:1-7. The parable of the wicked tenants introduces a new element to the vineyard metaphor in Isa 5:1-7, i.e. the wicked tenants who are an allegory for the Jewish leaders, who are supposed to lead the people to God. See b.Suk 49a and 4Q 500, which allegorizes the vineyard as the temple in Jerusalem. There is an understanding among Israelites in 100AD that Isa 5:2 refers to the temple in Jerusalem. See also Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 180. 100 See also Konradt, Matthäus, p. 190. 101 vwh (in hifil form vyxy in Isa 28:16) means hasten. In causative sense, it may mean stumble. 102 The feminine singular form of au[th and e;stin qaumasth. in Mt 21:42 refer to the rejected stone (as the subject of the change) and cornerstone (as the end product of change, the subject of the adjective qaumasto,j) respectively, which in their original Hebrew !ba, hnp var are both feminine nouns. Their translation into Greek li,qoj, kefalh, gwni,a are however in masculine and feminine forms respectively. Stanton maintains that the stone refers more to the Christian community than to Jesus, Stanton, New People, pp. 151-152. 103 e;qnoj is defined by those who bring fruits, not by election. See also the discussion of e;qnoj in Vahrenhorst, Nicht schwören, p.8, Konradt, Matthäus, pp.194-200, Oppong-Kumi, Parables, pp. 233-234, 239-242, 263-264, 272-278 and the reception of the verse in 1 Pet 2:7-9. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

7.3.2 Mk 12:10-12

7.3.2.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 12:10-12 is part of Mark’s redaction. It shows a post-Easter reflection on the blooming Christian ministry from its scandalous and almost extinguished start, the crucifixion of Jesus. 104 ouvde. th.n grafh.n tau,thn avne,gnwte sounds rabbinic. 105 The rare words are all in Mk 12:10-11, the citation from Ps 118:22-23.106 There are no significant textual variants in Mk 12:10-12. Codex W supplies a tighter connection between the questions of Jesus’ critics against him in Mk 12:10-12 and the following debate on paying taxes to Caesar.107 7.3.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mk 12:10-12 is the epilogue of the parable of the wicked tenants (Mk 12:1-12). The text is preceded by Jesus’ first conclusion of the parable: a transfer of the tenancy to others, a;lloij (in the plural form), is deemed necessary. The first conclusion is not elaborated on. The quality of the new tenancy (a;lloij) is not reflected upon. Rather, the text flow shifts to Jesus’ second conclusion to the parable, in the form of a citation of Ps 118:22-23 (Mk 12:10-11) and the reaction of the Jewish leaders (Mk 12:12). The citation on the cornerstone (Ps 118:22-23) in Mk 12:10-11 is weakly linked with the transfer of the tenancy (Mk 12:9) semantically and thematically. 7.3.3 Lk 20:17-19

7.3.3.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 12:10-12 is the source of Lk 20:17-19.108 The rare words are mainly found in the citation of Ps 118:22 in Lk 20:17 and the proverb in Lk 20:18.109 104

Gnilka maintains that the contexts where the citation of Ps 118:22-23 are applied could be many, e.g. the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and the conflict between Jesus and the Sanhedrin, and also the rift between the Christians and Jews, which leads to their final separation, Gnilka, Markus 2 p. 148. Pesch maintains that the citation represents the reflection of the early Christian community about Jesus’ death, resurrection and the impact on Christian mission and the formation of the Christian community, Pesch, Markus 2, p. 222. 105 ouvde. th.n grafh.n tau,thn avne,gnwte: Mk (3). 106 In Mk 12:10 – avpodokima,zw, Mk (2); gwni,a, Mk (1). In Mk 12:11 –qaumasto,j, Mk (1). 107 Codex W does not supply the reading kai. avfe,ntej auvto.n avph/lqonÅ 108 Lk 20:19b has a very high resemblance to Mk 12:12b both in the words and their sequence. The agreement of Lk 20:18 and Mt 21:44 is not considered in the study. Rather, it is highly probable that Mt 21:44 does not belong to the original text, but is a product of harmonization. Bovon postulates that Luke The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

211

Temple

There is no textual variants in Lk 20:17-19.110 7.3.3.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Lk 20:17-19 is part of Jesus’ teaching routine in the temple. It provides the hermeneutical key to the preceding parable of the wicked tenants (Lk 19:9-16). Those listening to the parable and its lessons are primarily the people in the temple.111 However, at the end of the parable, a change in the target audience takes place when Jesus casts his gaze over the chief priests and scribes, who have been listening to the parable with the people (evmble,pw in Lk 20:17).112 Their unmoving reaction to the parable contrasts with the crowd’s reaction of deep empathy. The crowd cries out mh. ge,noito in Lk 20:16. The chief priests and the scribes react only when they realise that the parable is targeted at them. Their reaction, evpiba,llw (Lk 20:19), shares the same root as the verb evkba,llw describing the tenants’ murderous intent in the parable (Lk 20:15). Through this shared verb, a parallel between the chief priests and scribes and the wicked tenants is established. Luke’s citation of Ps 118:22 and the proverb (Lk 20:17-18) are linked by li,qoj.113 li,qoj in Lk 20:17-18 does not refer to one stone, but two. li,qon is a conundrum. It will be transformed into a cornerstone (Lk 20:17), but it can also be a millstone (Lk 20:18, cf. Isa 8:14). Millstones are used to separate the grain from the chaff. The verbs sunqla,w and likma,w supplement each other in describing harvested crops falling onto a (mill)stone (Lk 2:34, cf. Mt 11:6) or harvested fruit pressed by stone tools (Lk 20:18, cf. Lk 3:17).114 has Mark as his source but at the same time he has consulted other Sondergut. As the EvThom (Logion 66) is very near to Luke’s version, Bovon maintains that the EvThom also has Luke as one of its sources. Bovon, Lukas 4, p.69 109 In Lk 20:17 –evmble,pw, Lk (1); avpodokima,zw, Lk (1); gwni,a, Lk (1). In Lk 20:18 –sunqla,w, Lk (1); likma,w, Lk (1). The question whether Lk 20:18 is an insertion by early Christians or by Jesus is still hotly debated among New Testament scholars, Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 67. 110 The only textual variant in Lk 20:17-19 is the reverse order of oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` grammatei/j as provided by Codices a, D, Y over against oi` grammatei/j kai. oi` avrcierei/j provided by NA27. 111 to.n lao.n in Lk 20:1 is the same group as to.n lao.n in Lk 20:9. 112 evmble,pw means see but it also means a turn in the direction of gazing, i.e. look there, see MengeGüthling, Wörterbuch, p. 188. The verb appears the second time in Lk 22:61, where it very obviously has the meaning of looking somewhere. 113 The proverb in Lk 20:18 is ambiguous in its meaning, because its sentence structure offers an alternative reading. evfV o]n dV a'n pe,sh|( likmh,sei auvto,n can mean (i) anyone on whom it falls will be crushed, i.e. an antithesis to Lk 20:18a or (ii) anyone who falls on it will be broken to pieces, a parallel to Lk 20:18a, but not in indicative mood but in prospective, eventual mood. The meaning of (ii) presupposes that sunqla,w and likma,w supplement each other in describing the fate of one who encounters the rock (a millstone). In LXX, sunqla,w and likma,w are also used in context of plants and vegetations, though very occasionally. The derivative of sunqla,w –teqlasme,non means crushed in Isa 42:3. likma,w means winnow in Isa 30:24, Ruth 3:2. 114 li,qoj in LXX does not usually mean millstone (mu,loj –xlp, see Jud 9:53). However, in Jer 18:3, li,qoj means a wheel made of stone. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

212

Temple

7.3.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 21:42-46

Mt 21:42-46 is the Matthean community’s reflection on the essential quality for the future tenancy of the vineyard (i.e., the temple, where the presence of God is experienced): a life that bears fruit (Mt 21:41). This quality is first mentioned by those listening to the parable, then confirmed by Jesus. Mark does not reflect on the point.115 Mk 12:10-12 supplies a reflection by first and second generation Christians; they saw the rejected but resurrected Jesus becomes the foundation of the church. They saw the downfall of the temple in Jerusalem and the blossoming success of the early Christian ministry. Matthew, as a member of the second or third generation Christians, faces a different problem. He sees the challenge of sustaining the early success of the ministry through the weathering of competitive contemporary teachings. He perceives the major weakness of his critics, which is the discrepancy between their words and deeds, i.e., their inability to bear fruit (Mt 3:10, 7:15-20, 12:33, 15:13).116 He uses karpo.j to forge a stronger bond between the curse of the fig tree and the parable of the wicked servants.117 karpo.j provides the cause of judgment, the reason for the transfer of the tenancy, the quality needed by the new tenants and the criteria to tell the difference. Luke reflects more on the Christian ministry. The consequence of the ministry of the Gospel about the Christ is one of his main concerns; the rejected but resurrected Christ is the foundation of the church. However, the Gospel about Jesus functions like a

The millstone symbolizes the function of winnowing, i.e., sorting (the grain) and dispersing (the chaff). According to Midrash Rabbah Esth 7:10, Israel is the rock and the other nations are like potsherds and they will be broken into fragments if they stumble and fall on Israel. Cf Jeremias, "li,qoj" in ThWNT IV, pp. 272-283, Wolter, Lukas, p. 649, and Bovon, Lukas 4, pp. 80-81. Wolter sees also that Lk 20:18 does not refer to the cornerstone in Lk 20:17. He maintains that the stone in Lk 20:18 is a combination of Isa 8:14 and Dan 2:34, Wolter, Lukas, p. 649. The study here also holds that the stone in Lk 20:17 has an extended function of the stone as in Lk 20:18. The function of the stone in Lk 20:18 is like what Peter quotes again in Acts 4:11-12: the confession of the resurrected Jesus as the Christ will have a “winnowing” function; those who confess to it will be saved. This is because likma,w means winnow, not just crush, li,qoj can mean a millstone or a stone tool, where the grain is winnowed (cf. Lk 17:2). 115 The people replied that the vineyard should be given to those who could deliver the grapes to the Lord. Jesus, however, omits the Lord as the legitimate recipient of the grapes but emphasizes the duty to harvest the grapes and pay a portion of them as tribute, Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 186. 116 karpo,j appears three times in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt 21:34, 41, 43). doqh,setai is in future indicative passive form on the e;qnoj. It implies divinum passivum. The Parable of the Two Sons provides a further allegory about fruits, i.e. the good deeds done by the first son. See also Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 186, Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 226-227. Gerhardsson holds that bearing fruit means to do the will of the Father, Gerhardsson, "An ihren Früchten sollt ihr sie erkennen, die Legitimitätsfrage in der matthäischen Christologie" in The Shema in Early Christianity, pp. 178-179. 117 The Cursing of the Fig Tree (Mt 21:18-19) and the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt 21:43) have the shared word karpo.j (Mt 21:19, 43). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

213

Temple

millstone.118 An encounter with Jesus (and his Gospel) has a winnowing effect: one has to decide whether to accept him or not. One is either saved or crushed. Lk 20:17-19 is 214 expanded in Acts 4:1-18 (cf. Acts 5:21-33). Many parallels are found between the two texts. Jesus and Peter are both questioned by the Sanhedrin about the authority for their actions (Lk 20:1-2, Acts 4:7). In defending their cases, Jesus and Peter both quote Ps 118:22 (Lk 20:17, Acts 4:11). At the end of both narratives, the leaders are called to decide for themselves whom to obey, God or man (Lk 20:19, Acts 4:19-20), and whether to be saved or crushed (Lk 20:19, Acts 4:12) 7.4 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 22:41-46 7.4.1 Mt 22:41-46

7.4.1.1 Source and Text Criticism Mt 22:41-46 has its source in Mk 12:35-37. The text follows the main line of Mark’s narrative. It does not contain any words that are rare in Matthew, except u`poka,tw in the citation of Ps 110:1 in Mt 22:44.119 The introduction in Mt 22:41 and the ending scene in Mt 22:46 are taken from Mk 12:35 and Mk 12:37, respectively, and are paraphrased using Matthew’s favourite words.120 The text also has some minor agreements with Lk 20:41-44,121 which may be caused by coincidental editing. Matthew’s redaction is clearly seen in the introduction and the way that Jesus starts the discussion.122 There are no significant textual variants in Mt 22:41-46. Two minor observations are made: i. ii.

Does the Holy Spirit play a role in David’s ecstatic speech?123 How promptly do the critics reach the end of their questions against Jesus?124

118

Cf. b.San 97a. See also Barn 6:2-4. u`poka,tw, Mt (1). 120 suna,gw, Mt (24), Mk (5), Lk (6); avpokri,nomai, Mt (55), Mk (30), Lk (46); lo,goj, Mt (33), Mk (24), Lk (33); evkei/noj, Mt (54), Mk (23), Lk (33). 121 Matthew and Luke share primarily the omission in Mark’s text, e.g dida,skwn evn tw/| i`erw/|…pw/j le,gousin oi` grammatei/j o[ti in Mk 12:35. 122 The formulation of the introduction: evperwta,w + object + subject + participial form of le,gw is Matthew’s favourite way, peri, + Genitive construction is also typical of Matthew’s style (Mt 2:8, 9:36, 12:36, 16:11, 17:13, 18:19, 21:45 and 26:28). See Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 251. The way Jesus raises his question, ti, u`mi/n dokei/, appears three times in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 18:12, 22:42, 26:66). 123 In Mt 22:45, Codices D, K, D, Q supply the reading eiv ou=n Daui.d evn pneu,mati kalei/ auvto.n ku,rion, instead of eiv ou=n Daui.d kalei/ auvto.n ku,rion as provided by NA27. 124 In Mt 22:46, Codices D, W supply the reading avpV evkei,nhj th/j w;raj evperwth/sai auvto.n ouvke,ti while NA 27 edition provides the reading avpV evkei,nhj th/j h`me,raj evperwth/sai auvto.n ouvke,tiÅ 119

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

7.4.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mt 22:41-46 resembles a rabbinic school debate with almost no elements of conflict between the two parties. It is a debate between Jesus and an assembly of Pharisees on the relationship between the Messiah and a/the son of David.125 The narrative is bracketed by evperwta,w, but the subjects are reversed. In the opening scene, Jesus (as the subject) raises the question and at the end of the discussion, no one dares to further question Jesus (as the object). This is the end of a series of debates between Jesus and the different groups of learned Jewish leaders in the temple (cf. Mt 21:23-24:1). The dialogue marks Jesus’ triumph over the three queries raised by the Pharisees, covering politics, religious ethics and exegetical competence (Mt 22:17, 28, 35).126 The text in its present form presupposes that Jesus is both the Lord of David and a/the son of David.127 During his ministry, Jesus is addressed as a/the son of David (Mt 9:27), Lord (Mt 8:2) and the Son of God (Mt 8:29) by demons, his disciples and those who seek his help. The Matthean community and the reader already know the answer to the puzzle, as Matthew supplies athe clue in the opening, the middle and the end of his Gospel (Mt 1:1, 24, 3:17, 16:15-16, 27:54).128 The narrative underlines Matthew’s hope and his major redactional intention, the dawning realisation of Jesus’ identity, from a superficial understanding of him as a prophet to the knowledge that he is the Messiah, both a son (descendent) of David and the Son of God. This realisation is created as the reader accompanies Jesus through the taxing debates with the Jewish authorities.129 125

Unlike Mark's, Matthew’s narrative does not contain any information on the messianic title (i.e. the Son of David [with an article]). Matthew focuses strictly on the relationship between David and the Messiah. Matthew uses a possessive adjective instead of a title in Mt 22:45. 126 Jesus asks one core question about an ancient Jewish tradition which maintains the Davidic origin of Christ (John 7:42). He breaks down the question into three parts (Mt 22:42, 43, 44-45). Again this shows Matthew’s (Mark’s) ridicule of the Jewish leaders; while Jesus alone is asked all possible questions about politics (Mt 22:15), ethical and religious doctrines (Mt 22:23-32) and scriptural understanding (Mt 22:3440), the assembly of his most learned Jewish contemporaries could not answer one single question in a tradition they claim to have specialized in (Mt 22:45, cf. Mt 2:5, Mic 5:1). 127 In Mt 1:16, Matthew tries to insert Mary, the mother of Jesus, into the adoptive Davidic lineage of Joseph, so that Jesus can fulfil the criterion for the Messiah –being a descendent of David. (cf. John 7:4044). In Mt 2:1, Matthew tries to describe the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, so that he can fulfill the prophecy of Mic 5:1, although Jesus is called a Nazarene (from Nazarath), see Mt 2:23. In Matthew’s opinion, Jesus is from the very beginning the Son of God and a son of David. His status as Son of God is not subsequently a consequence of his being raised by God after his resurrection. See also Strecker, Weg, p. 120, Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 289, note 24. 128 Luz points out that the identity of Jesus has been revealed by the author (Mt 1:18-25), by scripture (Mt 2:15), by God (Mt 3:17, 17:5, cf. Mt 16:17), by the devil (Mt 4:3, 6) and by his disciples (Mt 11:25-27, 16:16), Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 288. 129 Matthew has inserted “Son of David” in six places (Mt 1:1, 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 21:9, 15), in addition to the four places he inherited from Mark's Gospel (Mt 20:30, 31, 22:42, 45, par Mk 10:47, 48, 12:35, 37). He only uses Son of David with an article twice, i.e. in Mt 12:23 and Mt 21:9. In both cases, the usage refers to the Messiah, the one who comes in the name of God. For other usages of son of David without an article, it refers to a physical descendent of David (Mt 1:1, 9:27, 15:22, 20:30, 31, 22:42, 45). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

215

Temple

7.4.2 Mk 12:35-37a

7.4.2.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 12:35-37a contains an early Christian defence of Jesus’ Messianic status even if he is of non-Davidic origin.130 The text may reflect a pre-Markan apology of the early Christian community that failed to attach Jesus of Nazareth to David’s lineage and so could not satisfy the criteria for the Messiah held by the majority of the Jewish schools.131 Matthew uses the Son of God as a title only three times, i.e. when the disciples are filled with awe and worship Jesus in Mt 14:33, Peter’s confession in Mt 16:16 and the Sanhedrin's accusation of Jesus, which they use to sentence him to death (Mt 26:63). The other usages of a son of God without an article are rather ambiguous and in a polytheistic context. It is either said by the demon (Mt 4:3, 5, 8:29), the Roman centurion from a polytheistic background (Mt 27:54) or to mock the crucified Jesus (Mt 27:40, 43). God mentions Jesus with a possessive adjective in Mt 3:17, 17:5. Matthew’s usage of Christ is mostly with an article and as a (self)-reference to Jesus (Mt 2:4, 16:16, 20, 22:23, 42) or a warning against the distinction between the Christ and the false christ (Mt 24:5, 23). Christ with an article is also used by the Sanhedrin as an accusation against Jesus (Mt 26:63). There are three places where Christ is used without an article but as a title for Jesus, i.e. Jesus Christ (Mt 1:1, 16-18). The other places where Christ is used without an article are to mock Jesus that he is only a christ, i.e., the false christ (Mt 26:68, 27:17, 22). To sum up, it can be seen that Matthew equates the Son of David (with article) with the Christ, the Messiah. Jesus assumes both roles and is at the same time the Son of God. In his application of the titles, Matthew’s usage of the term is no different from that of the other synoptists except in Mt 2:4, 12:23, 14:33, 21:9, 23:10 (his Sondergut). Konradt holds that Matthew places special emphasis on Jesus as the son of David and as the Son of God. Both are closely bound together but the title of the Son of David could not fully capture Jesus’ identity. See Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 23-52. 130 Bovon points out that in order to prove Jesus is a descendant of David kata. sa,rka (Rom 1:3), one should also prove that his mother, Mary, is also from David. See Bovon, Lukas 1, p. 189, note 14. Davies & Allison and Gnilka hold that Ps 110:1 (as quoted in Mk 12:37, 22:45, Lk 20:44) sprang very probably from Hellenistic Jews. Otherwise it is highly unlikely that a Jew from Palestine will tone down the Davidic genealogy of Jesus. Cf. Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 170, Davies & Allison, Matthew III, pp. 250-254. The emphasis that David said this through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit reflects that it is the redaction of early Christians. The use of the Holy Spirit here may imply the idea of revelation, cf. Pesch, Markus 2, p. 253. Davies & Allison and Luz also found that none of the messianic interpretations of Ps 110 is pre-Easter. Davies & Allison, Matthew III, pp. 250-254, Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 286-287. It is noted that Justin interprets Ps 110:1 as referring to Jesus. See Ius dial 137:1-3. 131 Mark is not concerned about the Davidic origin of Jesus, nor the necessary link between the Messiah and Bethlehem as his place of origin. Jesus is often addressed as Jesus of Nazareth (Mk 1:9, 24, 10:47, 14:67, 16:6). Mark only records twice that Jesus is addressed as the Son of David (both times are by the blind man of Jericho in Mk 10:47-48). And even in this narrative, Jesus is first addressed as Jesus of Nazareth (Mk 10:47). Nevertheless, many Jews hold that the Messiah should come from David's lineage. See John 8:42. Paul’s reflection on the Davidic origin of Jesus is an essential element in the construction of his Christology (Rom 1:1-3). Paul is not concerned about whether the Messiah should come from Bethlehem or Nazareth. The Qumran community is also not concerned about where the Messiah comes from, so long as he is either from David (See 4Q 161 8-10 3:7-16, 4Q 174 1 1: 1-3, 11, 4Q 252 5:3-4) or from Aaron (See CDA 12:23, 14:19, 19:10-11, CDB 20:1, 21:1, 1QS 9:11). See also 4 Esra XII 32. The Messiah of kingly origin could serve together with the priest 1Q 28a 2:20-21. However, Matthew and Luke attempt to reconstruct Jesus’ Davidic origin through the insertion of Jesus’ birthplace (Mt 1:16, 24, 2:1, Lk 2:4-7). Matthew tries to The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

216

Temple

The text does not contain any words that are rare to Mark, except evcqro,j and u`poka,tw in the citation of Ps 110:1 in Mk 12:36. The question word po,qen in Mk 12:37b is also rare 217 in Mark. It may mean “how is it possible?”132 There are no significant textual variants of Mk 12:35-37a, except two minor observations: i. ii.

How honoured is the one who sits at the right-hand side of the Lord?133 Are the enemies put under the feet of the Lord or by the footstool of the Lord?134 7.4.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features

Mk 12:35-37a is Jesus’ logion in the form of a self-imposed question and answer in the temple.135 The narrative marks the start of another round of Jesus’ teaching in the temple after a series of three debates with the learned Jewish authorities in Jerusalem (Mk 12:13-34). The question is about the relationship between the Christ and David.136 The

remove the title “Jesus of Nazareth” from the mouths of all who have faith in him (cf. Mt 20:30, Mk 10:47; Mt 28:7, Mk 16:6) Nevertheless, why is the Davidic origin of the Messiah so important when some contemporary apocalyptic literature, e.g. 1 (äth.) and 2 (slav.) Hennoch, does not hold strictly that the Messiah should come from the House of David? Is Matthew and Luke's attempt a delegitimation of various messiah movements in the period? 132 evcqro,j, Mk (1); u`poka,tw, Mk (3); po,qen, Mk (3). Gnilka points out that po,qen is stronger than pw/j in relativising the importance of (a) Son of David with respect to the discussion about the Messiah, Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 171. Klostermann maintains that Mark may think that the title of (a) Son of David brings little honour to Jesus, Klostermann, Markus, p. 129. 133 In Mk 12:36, Codex B supplies ka,qison evk dexiw/n mou instead of ka,qou evk dexiw/n mou as provided by Codices B, D, W etc. 134 In Mk 12:36, Codices B, D, W supply the reading e[wj a'n qw/ tou.j evcqrou,j sou u`poka,tw tw/n podw/n sou while Codices a, A, L, Q provide the reading e[wj a'n qw/ tou.j evcqrou,j sou u`popo,dion tw/n podw/n souÅ 135 The narrative starts with avpokri,nomai in Mk 12:35a. 136 Mark uses Messiah with an article most of the time (Mk 8:29, 12:35, 13:21, 14:61 and 15:32). There are three places where Jesus is linked with the Messiah in Mark's Gospel explicitly: Peter’s confession in Mk 8:29 and the mockery of the high priests and the scribes against Jesus in Mk 14:61 and 15:32. For Mark, it is very important that Jesus is the Son of God. It is stated in the first verse of his Gospel (Mk 1:1), and is echoed both in the underworld (the evil spirits) and in the highest religious authority on earth, i.e. the Sanhedrin, though the Sanhedrin used it negatively as an accusation; Mark’s unclean spirits recognise Jesus as the Son of God (Mk 3:11). The Sanhedrin accuses Jesus because of his claim to be the Son of God (Mk 14:61). The Roman centurion admits that Jesus is a Son of God, given his polytheistic background (Mk 15:39), so does a demon-possessed man in Mk 5:7. Nevertheless, no human-being in Mark recognizes Jesus as the Son of God, although Mark’s Peter recognizes Jesus as the Christ. According to Gnilka, it is already good enough for Mark that Jesus is a Son of God, other titles are less important. Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 171, note 14. The Son of David (with an article) in Mk 12:35 may imply a messianic title. This belief is already well rooted in Old Testament tradition and also in the Qumran, e.g. 1 Sam 7:12, Isa 11:1, Jer 23:5, Ezek 34:23, 37:24, Ps 89:20, 4Q 161 8-10,3:7-16, 4Q 174 1, 1:1-3, 11, 4Q 252 5:3-4. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

answer is placed in a unit that serves to undermine the teaching and moral authority of the 218 scribes (Mk 12:39, 49). 7.4.3

Lk 20:41-44

7.4.3.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 12:35-37b is the source of Lk 20:41-44.137 The minor agreements between Luke’s and Matthew’s versions are insignificant 138 The core questions that Jesus raises are essentially the same as those in Mark’s and Matthew’s texts.139 The text has only two words that are rare to Luke, bi,blw| yalmw/n in Lk 20:41 and the citation of Ps 110:1 in Lk 20:42.140 Luke’s redaction includes the introductory scene in Lk 20:41, the insertion of the question word in Lk 20:41 and the removal of the response by the listeners.141 There are no significant textual variants of Lk 20:41-44. Insignificant variants include: i. ii.

Some codices provide a strongly empathetic emphasis of David’s authorship in the Psalm.142 As in the parallel text in Matthew’s Gospel, another textual variant concerns the position of the enemies. Are they put under the feet of the Lord or by the footstool of the Lord?143

137

See the discussion in Bovon, Lukas 4, pp. 134-135. The minor agreements between Luke's and Matthew's text are primarily found in the second (and last) question raised by Jesus. They include: ouvvn (Lk 20:44a, par Mt 22:45a, but the position of the word in the sentence is different), kalei/ (Lk 20:44a, par Mt 22:45a, but the position of the word is different) instead of le,gei (Mk 12:37a), pw/j (Lk 20:44b, par Mt 22:45b) instead of po,qen (Mk 12:37b). 139 The way Luke formulates the question pw/j le,gousin to.n cristo.n ei=nai Daui.d ui`o,nÈ (Lk 20:41, cf. Mk 12:35, Mt 22:42) is a simplified version of Mark’s. With respect to the second question pw/j auvtou/ ui`o,j evstinÈ Luke has pw/j instead of po,qen as the question word (Lk 20:44b, cf. Mk 12:37, Mt 22:43, 45). In the citation of Ps 110:1 in Lk 20:43, Luke uses u`popo,dion instead of u`poka,tw (Mk 12:36, Mt 22:44). 140 bi,blw| yalmw/n, Lk (1); u`popo,dion, Lk (1). 141 The scribes are the subject of the verses in Lk 20:39-40. However in Lk 20:41, the subject of the commonly-held opinion that the Christ is (a) Son of David is unidentified (Lk 20:41). Jesus uses the question word pw/j in his two questions (Lk 20:41). 142 Codices L, q supply empathetic emphasis on David’s authorship of the saying quoted in Ps 110:1 auvto.j ga.r Daui.d le,gei evn bi,blw| yalmw/n\ ei=pen o, ku,rioj tw/| kuri,w| mou\ ka,qou evk dexiw/n mou. Codex D supplies here a less emphatic reading kai. auvto.j Daui.d le,gei evn bi,blw| yalmw/n\ ei=pen ku,rioj tw/| kuri,w| mou\ ka,qou evk dexiw/n mou. 143 In Lk 20:43, Codex D and Syrian texts supply the reading of e[wj a'n qw/ tou.j evcqrou,j sou u`poka,tw tw/n podw/n sou while NA27 provides the reading e[wj a'n qw/ tou.j evcqrou,j sou u`popo,dion tw/n podw/n souÅ 138

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

7.4.3.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features As discussed before, the earlier tradition of Lk 20:41-44 probably comes from a Hellenistic Jewish Christian circle.144 The text is a continuation of the school debates between Jesus and the scribes; the scribes were beaten by Jesus in the previous debates (Lk 20:20-40) and dare not ask him any more questions. The narrative is followed by another of Jesus’ criticisms of the moral competence of the scribes, who seek vainglory and the property of widows (Lk 20:45-47). Lk 20:41-44 is in an inclusion bracketed by pw/j … ui`o,j evstinÈ (Lk 20:41b, 44b).145 The debate is initiated by Jesus in the form of a monologue addressed to the anonymous auvtou,j (Lk 20:41). At the end of the debate, Jesus does not provide his answer146 and the responses of the scribes and the bystanding audience are also not recorded. In the narrative, Jesus poses three questions on the same topic to the scribes. The switch between auvtou,j in the introductory verse (Lk 20:41) and le,gousin (third person plural, instead of second person plural) in his direct question is odd. It shows that either the scribes are not those who hold the opinion that the Christ (with an article, titular) is the Son of David or the introductory scene and the dialogue are written by different hands and Luke overlooks the consistency between those who hold the opinion and those to whom Jesus addresses his counter-questions.

144

Bovon points out three observations to support the post-Easter origin of the tradition: (i) The connection between the title of the Messiah, Son of David, and the Lord is a reflection made by the early Christians in the post-Easter era. (ii) In MT, Ps 110:1 supplies ynda (Sir, e.g. the King) and hwhy (God, a Tetragrammaton) respectively. (iii) The Letter of Barnabas (Barn), which has a similar tradition but is independent of the synoptic Gospels, does not record a discussion between Jesus and his opponents, Bovon, Lukas 4, pp. 141-142. 145 Like Mark and Matthew, Luke is careful about using an article with Christ. Luke attaches an article to Christ in most of the places in his Gospel, except in two places: (i) Christ without an article means a king (Lk 23:2), and (ii) in the prophecy of an angel but where he adds Christ, the Lord. Christ with an article means the Messiah (Lk 2:26, 3:15, 4:41, 9:20, 20:41, 22:67, 23:35, 39, 24:26, 46). Peter however is not the only human in the whole Gospel to recognize the earthly Jesus as the Christ. Simeon and Anna do too. Luke’s use of (a) Son of David does not carry an article. It always means a descendent of David (Lk 1:32, 18:38, 39, 20:41, 44). He uses Son of God twice with an article, i.e. when Jesus is addressed by the devils (Lk 4:41) and when Jesus is accused by the Sanhedrin (Lk 22:70). His other usage of (the) Son of God has a possessive pronoun: by God (Lk 3:22, 9:35), by Satan (Lk 4:3, 9), by angels and by the demonpossessed man who addresses Jesus as a Son of the Most High God (Lk 1:32, 35, 8:28). Otherwise, the title the Son of God is never mentioned by any believers in Luke’s Gospel. 146 It is exactly because Jesus does not provide an answer to the puzzle that Bovon finds it difficult to categorize the dispute as a rabbinic school debate. Normally, an answer will be suggested at the end of rabbinic discussion, Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 136, note 15. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

219

Temple

7.4.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 22:41-46

Mt 22:41-46 is a reflection on Ps 110:1, which is the most frequently quoted Old Testament verse in the New Testament.147 The verse is also the hermeneutical key to the debate about the relationship between David and the Messiah. Matthew makes two minor redactions in Mt 22:41-46. He records the debate as a dialogue with an assembly of the Pharisees (Mt 22:41), whereas Mark and Luke record it as Jesus’ monologue addressed to the crowd. Mark does not identify the debate partner (Mk 12:35), whereas Luke implies that the partner is the scribes (Lk 20:41). Matthew thus considers the theme a matter of live debate, not purely a theological reflection. Also Matthew places the debate at the end of the ring of debates between Jesus and the learned Jews in Jerusalem. At the end of the ring of debates, no one dares to ask Jesus any further questions. (Mt 22:46). “Jesus the Son of David” is important for Matthew. Among the Synoptics, only he reiterates this theme in the genealogy, birth narrative, pilgrims’ and children’s choirs and in debate. The theme is also found in the thematic parallels and ring composition. For Matthew, although Jesus is not a physical descent of David, his belonging to the genealogical lineage of David is essential (Mt 1:1) to convince the Jewish exegetes in his community, who would have placed importance in the link between Messiahship and Davidic origin. However, Jesus’ status as the Son of David is less important than his status as the Son of God. His status as the Son of God is confirmed by divine, ecclesiastic and earthly authorities, i.e., by God himself (Mt 3:17, 17:5), by the disciples (Mt 14:33) and Peter (Mt 16:16) and by the Roman centurion (Mt 27:54).148 Like Mark and Matthew, Luke’s Jesus does not provide an answer to the question. He inserts Joseph’s adoption narrative to show that Jesus belongs to David’s lineage (Lk 1:27, 2:2-4). However, does the whole Gospel not provide an answer to this question? The question may therefore be pre-Easter, but the answer post-Easter. The answer to this question is fully unfolded through the disciples’ open sermons about the risen Jesus Christ in Acts (Acts 2:29-33, 4:25-27, 13:23). The words from Ps 110:1 are also recited again in Acts 2:36, in which the risen Jesus is recognised as both Lord and Christ.149

147

It is quoted 16 times in the New Testatment. The High Priest and the Sanhedrin asked if Jesus is the Son of God in Mt 26:63. 149 Bovon also points out that the puzzle could only be solved by a post-Easter proclamation about the resurrection of Jesus. The relationship between Messiah as Lord and (a) Son of David cannot be solved while Jesus is on earth. Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 140. Lk 20:42-44 cannot be buttressed by Acts 2:36 because the title mentioned in Acts is Lord and Christ, not Lord and (a) Son of David. Wolter, Lukas, p. 662. 148

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

220

Temple

7.5 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 24:1-2 7.5.1 Mt 24:1-2

7.5.1.1 Source and Text Criticism It is highly probable that Mk 13:2 is the source of Mt 24:1-2. The flow of the text follows that of Mark’s text. The words used in Jesus’ prophecy in Mt 24:2c follow almost exactly Mark’s version.150 However, Mt 24:1-2 contains one word that is rare to Matthew, oivkodomh,. The word is found in Mk 13:1-2 and is copied directly by Matthew.151 The others are either Matthew’s redaction or a direct inheritance from Mark’s text. Matthew’s redaction includes turning the direct speech of the disciples into reported speech (Mt 24:1). There are no significant textual variants in Mt 24:1-2. 7.5.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Like his source, Mark, Mt 24:1-2 is a text that has been put in an odd place.152 Mt 23:39 marks Jesus’ farewell to Jerusalem with his lament and his proclamation; the city is not allowed to see him until it repents. Jesus then departs from the place.153 Only at this rather late point, not on their first entry into the temple days before, do Jesus’ disciples marvel at the majesty of the temple in Jerusalem (Mt 24:1, cf. Mk 13:1). 154 Their astonishment is soon shattered by Jesus’ prophecy about the forthcoming destruction of the temple (Mt 24:2).155 After the prophecy, Jesus sits on the Mount of Olives to continue his long speech on the doom of Jerusalem, the second coming of the Son of Man and the

150

The changes Matthew adopts to Mt 24:2c include the removal of the direct quotation and the change of the tense of katalu,w from present mh. to future passive tense. 151 evpidei,knumi, Mt (3); oivkodomh,, Mt (1). 152 Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 334. 153 Jesus' forsaking the temple (Mt 23:29) resembles God's leaving Israel because of the crimes of Israel, cf. Jer 12:7, Ezek 9:9, Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 334. 154 Matthew does not mention explicitly that Jesus’ disciples are with him since Jesus enters the temple on the first day. However, in Mt 23:1, when Jesus utters the woes against the Pharisees and the scribes, the disciples and the crowds are his audience (cf. Mt 24:1 –Jesus leaves the temple after he finishes the woe). Matthew remains vague about which of the disciples points Jesus’ attention to the temple buildings. Perhaps this is deliberate, so as to avoid the negative impression that Jesus’ closest circle (who supposedly come from villages, not from big cities) are infrequent pilgrims to Jerusalem and are fascinated by the sight of its glamour before this first visit. 155 The repetition may imply Jesus has completed all he needs to do to urge Jerusalem to repent. He then withdraws from the place completely. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

221

Temple

Last Judgment (Mt 24:3-25:46).156 This prophecy is widely known both to the critics and the Romans and constitutes one of the false verdicts leading to Jesus’ final sentencing to 222 death (Mt 26:61, 27:40; cf. Mk 14:58, 15:29). Unlike his source, Mark, Matthew’s Jesus does not answer their accusation about his claims of destroying the physical temple (Mt 26:63). He remains silent.157 7.5.2 Mk 13:1-2

7.5.2.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 13:1-2 contains Jesus’ logion about the fate of the temple, which is widely known among his circle, his critics and the Romans (Mk 13:2, 14:58, 15:29).158 li,qoj evpi. li,qon resembles the rebuilding of the temple after the Israelites’ exile (Hag 2:15).159 However, it is applied in reverse in Jesus’ logion about the temple’s destruction. The question of whether Mk 13:1 is Mark’s own redaction cannot be answered fully. 160 Mk 13:1-2 contains only three words that are not frequently used by Mark,161 two of which are found only in Jesus’ logion about the stones. Mark lets an unidentified disciple comment on the majesty of the temple, but lets the four most frequently mentioned disciples ask Jesus when the doom will happen, which is unusual. It may show that the four disciples are frequent pilgrims or that they are unimpressed by the outward glamour of the temple. 162

156

Jesus’ eschatological prophecy resembles the essential happenings on the Last Day, as described in Jewish apocalyptic literature, e.g., the forecast of disaster, divine intervention, judgment, punishment for the wicked, reward for righteousness, Davies & Allison, Matthew III, pp. 326-327. 157 Davies & Allison are of the opinion that Jesus’ silence has an Old Testament tradition behind it, i.e. 2 Sam 7:14, Ps 110:1. See Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 520. Jesus is silent because he wants to found a new “temple”. 158 Pesch classifies it as an Apophthegma, Pesch, Markus 2, p. 269. 159 qei/nai li,qon evpi. li,qon (Hag 2:15). 160 Pesch holds that Mk 13:1-2 were already attached to each other in the early tradition, Pesch, Markus 2, pp. 268-270. 161 potapo,j, Mk (2); oivkodomh, Mk (2); katalu,w, Mk (3). potapo,j and oivkodomh are used only in Mk 13:1. 162 Gnilka maintains that the difference in speakers in Mk 13:1 and Mk 13:2 hints at different traditions behind the verses. He holds that Mk 13:1 is Mark’s redaction which provides a context for Jesus’ saying, Gnilka, Markus 2 p. 181. Pesch, however, maintains that the praise of the unidentified disciple shows that he comes from Galilee, a village, not a city. That is why he is so bewildered by the architecture even though he had already been three days in Jerusalem, Pesch, Markus 2, p. 270. However, the four disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew, who ask the questions about when the doom will happen in Mk 13:3, also come from a village in Galilee (Mk 1:16). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

There is one textual variant in Mk 13:2, concerning whether the verse entails a prophecy on Jesus’ resurrection. 163 However, it appears to be a later insertion to the 223 original text (cf. Mt 24:1-2, Lk 13:1 do not contain this verse). 7.5.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Mk 13:1-2 records the remark of one disciple of Jesus who is strongly impressed by the grand temple in Jerusalem. The narrative is placed after Jesus’ departure from the temple and his prophecy on the Mount of Olives about the Last Day.164 Jesus formulates his prophecy with a strong proverbial overtone of phonetic parallelism. 7.5.3 Lk 21:5-6

7.5.3.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 13:1-2 may be the source of Lk 21:5-6.165 Luke retells the narrative in his own words. The text contains only two words that are not used frequently by Luke,166 but the last three words are the same as Mark’s, ouv kataluqh,setai. There is one interesting textual variant in Lk 21:5-6. Codex D focuses on the destruction of the wall of the temple.167 7.5.3.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Lk 21:5-6 is part of Jesus’ teaching in the temple (Lk 20:45).168 It is placed between Jesus’ praise of the widow’s mite (Lk 21:1-4) and his warnings about future deceptions (Lk 21:8-18), disasters (Lk 21:20-38) and the coming of the Son of Man (Lk 21:27-28). The incident takes place when some people praise the temple. Jesus interrupts and adds his comments about it being doomed. The beautifully decorated stones, li,qoij kaloi/j (in 163

Codices D, W supply the reading, kai. dia. triw/n h`merw/n a;llon avna,sthsetai a;neu cei,rwn which resembles to Mk 14:58. 164 The Mount of Olives is the place where God’s judgment is announced in Old Testament tradition (Zech 14:4), Gnilka, Markus 2, p. 183. The insertion of Jesus’ logion concerning the doom of Jerusalem at the start of his teaching about eschatology is unusual. This is because the Old Testament tradition used to link the new temple with an apocalyptic vision, not its destruction (Ezek 40:1-43:27, Hag 2:5-8). 165 Bovon holds that Luke depends entirely on Mark as his source, Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 168. Luke changes the one who raises the question to an anonymous group (Lk 21:5). He contrasts the glamour of the temple with the destruction that will soon befall it. 166 kosme,w, Lk (2); katalu,w, Lk (3). 167 In Lk 21:6, Codex D supplies the reading evn ai-j ouvk avfeqh,setai li,qoj evpi. li,qw| ven toi/cw w/de o]j ouv kataluqh,setai 168 See Wolter, Lukas, p. 668. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

the plural), are later reduced to the singular li,qoj evpi. li,qw| (not one stone). The listeners represent a circle sympathetic to Jesus’ teachings but larger than the 12 disciples. They 224 are the same people who listen to Jesus’ criticism of the scribes, including his announcement of the disasters and the coming of the Son of Man (Lk 20:45, 21:8-34).169 According to Luke’s Acts, the destruction of the temple is included in an accusation against the early Christians in the post-Easter era, not against the earthly Jesus (Acts 6:14, cf. Mk 14:56, 15:29, Mt 26:61, 27:40). The critics claim that Jesus will destroy the temple. However, according to Lk 21:6, the destruction of the temple is formulated in passivum divinum, which represents a judgment by God in the Old Testament tradition (Lk 21:6, cf. Jer 26:1-11). 7.5.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 24:1-2

Matthew’s redaction in Mt 24:1-2 is minor. He stresses Jesus’ departure from Jerusalem.170 His omission of the lament on the destruction of the temple is interesting (cf. Lk 19:41-44). It shows his interest in a universal religious faith without the temple.171 The combination of Jesus’ logion on the doom of Jerusalem with eschatology is unusual. The Old Testament tradition used to envision a new temple in apocalyptic times, after the destruction of the old temple (Rev 6:12…21:1-2, Ezek 32:7...40:1-40, Zech 12:10-14…14:11, 20-21, Hag 2:5-8).172 Do none of the writers of the Synoptics anticipate a new temple? It is understandable for the Gentile Christians like Mark and Luke, but very unusual for the Jewish Christian, Matthew. He should have known that the vision of the new temple was an essential element of Jewish apocalyptics.173 The omission implies that Matthew did not long for a new temple (Rev 21:22).174 A physical temple carries a 169

Luke may want those who are not disciples to hear Jesus’ warning about disaster and the coming of the Son of Man. Cf. Wolter, Lukas, p. 670. However, Lk 21:12-13 shows that these people belong to Jesus’ circle. Hence, it is more likely that the audience here refers to a circle of potential disciples larger than just the twelve disciples. 170 Luz points out that when Matthew uses a main sentence, not the Genitivus Absolutus as Mark does (Mk 13:1), he wants to emphasize Jesus’ departure, Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 387. 171 Q does not contain texts about Jesus´ logion in the temple. The temple appears only in one scene; in the temptation story (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9[Q]). 172 See also Tob 13:9-10, 16. 173 The Qumran community envisions two temples, one interim and one at the end of time. See 11QT 29:7-10. 174 Cf. Mt 24:15. Matthew removes e`sthko,ta (a masculine, accusative participle in Mk 13:14) and inserts evn to,pw| a`gi,w.| He may find the participle misleading. This is because i`ero,n is neuter. Frey points out that Matthew’s redaction in Mt 24:15 and his narrative in Mt 22:1-14 show that the destruction of the temple and its cult seem to be no reason for lamentation for the Matthean community. See Frey, "Temple and Identity in Early Christianity and in the Johannine Community: Reflections on the Parting of the Ways" in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History, pp. 470-471. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

strong overtone of the Jewish cult, which would hinder the Gentile ministry. A temple cult was not necessary for the Matthean community, which regarded mercy as more 225 important than offerings (Mt 9:13, 12:7). The temple as the place of God’s presence was also not important, as Jesus promises to be with them to the end of the age (Mt 28:20). Matthew holds that the destruction of the edifice of the temple in Jerusalem will be final. However, Matthew’s Jesus still keeps the option open for unbelieving Jews: when the Jews repent and recognise him, they will experience his presence again (Mt 23:39). 7.6. Matthew’s Redaction in the Conflicts in/about the Temple in Jerusalem The question of the source of Jesus’ authority is central to the Synoptics. It is raised in the beginning, middle and end of his ministry by the learned Jewish leaders on three important aspects of his ministry, the forgiveness of sin, exorcism (overcoming the Evil One) and teachings (Mk 2:7, Mt 9:6, Lk 5:21; Mk 3:22, Mt 12:22-50, Lk 11:16; Mk 11:28, Mt 21:23-27, Lk 20:2).175 The Synoptists place more weight on the conflicts in Jerusalem than in Galilee. The two conflict stories on Jesus’ authority (Mt 21:23-27, 22:41-46) are placed alongside the strongest criticism and judgment of the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem, in the cleansing of the temple and the parable of the wicked tenants. The replacement of the Jewish leadership is explicitly expressed; the tenancy of the vineyard will be transferred from the wicked tenants to those who are more qualified (Mt 21:41, Mk 12:9, Lk 20:16). In comparison with Mark and Luke, Matthew reflects more strongly on the cause of the failure of the Jewish leaders and the essential quality needed in their replacement. He stresses the displacement of the Jewish leaders twice in his parables (Mt 21:31, 43). He even identifies who can take over from them. Those who are more ready to repent will take over, such as the tax collectors and the prostitutes who will be ahead of the Jewish leaders in the Kingdom of God (Mt 21:32). This point is illustrated by the parable of the two sons (Mt 21:28-30, his Sondergut, shows the same wordplay on !b), which precedes the parable of the wicked tenants in the vineyard. Also, those who can bear fruit will also take over (Mt 21:41, 43). His redaction of the conflicts in and about the temple reflects the same emphasis on different levels. He elucidates the cause of the displacement of the Jewish leaders from their posts in Jerusalem on two levels. Firstly, Matthew places Mt 21:10-17 in the double inclusions of the mixed citation of Ps 118:26 (Mt 21:9; 15, 23:39) to stress the threefold incompetence of the temple leadership. They fail to recognise Jesus as the one who is from God. They fail to run the temple according to God’s intentions (Mt 21:13). They fail to intercede for the blind and lame in the temple (Mt 21:15-16). Here, Matthew may also be ridiculing their blindness: they are blind leaders, so are insensitive to the healing of the 175

For Mark, the last debate on authority is probably about Jesus’ cleansing of the temple (Mk 11:28). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

blind. 176 Also he perceives the major weakness of the Jewish leaders to be the discrepancy between their words and deeds, i.e., their inability to bear fruit (Mt 3:10, 226 7:15-20, 12:33, 15:13). karpo.j is a result of his community’s reflection on the situation. karpo.j provides the cause of judgment, the reason for the transfer of the tenancy, the quality of the new tenants and the criteria to tell the difference between genuine and hypocritical followers of God.177 Matthew, a Jewish Christian, shared the same views as the Gentile Christians Mark and Luke: none of them mentions the anticipation of a new temple. The silence about the new temple is unusual for contemporary apocalyptics. It is very likely that both Matthew and Luke held that the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD and the displacement of the temple leaders was final. The resulting vacuum prompted Matthew and his community to reflect on their own future mission. 7.6.1 Children Surpass the Temple Leaders

Criticism of and dissension with the temple establishment and the presiding priesthood in Jerusalem are often used as a theological justification for separatist or renewal movements in Judaism.178 The Matthean community was no exception. Matthew justifies the legitimacy of his community by registering Jesus’ conflict with the priesthood in Jerusalem. Matthew is highly critical on the Israelites’ assumptions about the Levitical heritage of the priesthood. He not only dramatises the incompetence of the temple leaders, but also contrasts their vain professionalism with the spontaneous insight of the children. As mentioned above, although the mixed citation of Ps 118:26 is cited as 176

The lame and blind may carry a dimension of spiritual or religious incapability, in addition to their physical handicap, in the narrative (Mt 21:24, cf. Isa 42:18, 20, 43:8-9). The healing miracle in the temple may hint at the restoration of their spiritual state in the presence of God, and also be a criticism of the Jewish leaders, whose blindness causes the people to become blind (Mt 15:14, 23:16-17). The restoration of the blind and lame in Isa 43:8 has eschatological and universal dimensions of salvation for all nations, see also Isa 56:7 which is cited in Mk 11:17. Although Matthew removes Isa 56:7 in his redaction, because of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, he still maintains his hope in the realization of the promise. Some hold that Jesus’ healing of the blind and lame is a contrast to David, who hates them. This depiction of David’s hatred of the blind and the lame is a priestly writing which stresses his faithful defence of the temple holiness (2 Sam 5:6-8, cf. Lev 21:18). Some hold that the blind and lame should be interpreted as contamination of the holiness of the temple, cf. Holmén, "Jesus and the Purity Paradigm" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, p. 2719, See also 1 QSaII, 9b-10(11). Yet, it is not unusual that the blind and the lame and the needy gathered around the temple gate for help (cf. Acts 3:1, John 9:1). Luz also points out that the blind and the lame were never forbidden from the temple. See also Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 188, note 80. 177 The Matthean church and the Jews are subject to the same judgment of whether they can have a fruit bearing life. See also Kraus, "Zur Ekklesiologie des Matthäusevangeliums" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, p. 220, Rölver, Christliche Existenz, pp. 354-359. 178 See Amos 7:10-17, 9:8, 11, 14-15. In Judaism, the Essenes and the Qumran communities could be interpreted as separatist movements resulting from critical appraisal of the priesthood; the Qumran community sees itself as an interim temple. Also, the Samaritan temple and the Oniad temple are rivals to the temple in Jerusalem, see Wardle, Jerusalem Temple, pp. 72-80, 163, 227-223. Cf. Hengel, Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum, pp. 138-141. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

an opening address in Mt 21:9, its second repetition is done in two sections. The first half, w`sanna. tw/| ui`w/| Daui,d in Mt 21:15, is begun by the pai/j and truncated by the priests’ 227 prohibition. The second half, euvloghme,noj o` evrco,menoj evn ovno,mati kuri,ou, is continued and ended by Jesus himself in a subjunctive formulation in Mt 23:29. Only if the Jewish leaders sing the truncated half will they see Jesus again.179 The literary motive of “blind versus seeing” emerges again here (Mt 21:14, 23:39). Jesus heals the blind but the chief priests are blind to their healing. Their blindness and their failure to sing praise to Jesus are linked. The children’s praise in the temple may be analogous to the pronouncement of God’s name on the Day of Atonement in the sanctuary.180 The children thus assume the role of a priestly choir, praising God in his presence in the temple (cf. Mt 18:10).181 However, they are interrupted and halted by the indignant temple leaders. Their praise is drowned.182 Jesus makes a long defence of them, with two parables explaining the necessity of change in stewardship (Mt 21:28-46) and two remarks on the qualities that are essential for entering the Kingdom of God (Mt 21:32, 43). He criticises the teaching and moral competency of the Jewish leaders (Mt 22:15-45) and (iii) recites the woes calling for their repentance (Mt 23:1-39). The children need Jesus’ help to escape the prohibition of the temple leaders (Mt 21:16). Jesus helps them to complete the psalm (Mt 23:39b) and stays with them until the End of Days (Mt 28:20). The children are analogous to the disciples who feel incapable of completing their ministry as they have little faith (ovligo,pistoj).183 179

Jesus ends Ps 118:26 with a lament over Jerusalem. It is the only place in Matthew’s Gospel where Jesus’ mourning imitates the content, sentiment and tone of a woman. (cf. the lament in Lk 19:41-44 carries a masculine content and sentiment). Is it not a contrast to the joyful proclamation given to the female audience of daughters of Zion (Mt 21:5)? 180 There are three landmarks of revelation with regard to the earthly Jesus’ identity: (i) the heavenly voice in Jesus’ baptism (Mt 4:17), (ii) Peter’s confession in Caesarea Philippi (Mt 16:13), (iii) Jesus’ transfiguration (Mt 17:1-8. See Mt 17:4, in particular). The last one strongly hints that there is the festive period from the Feast of Tabernacles to the Day of Atonement as the background to it. It is because Peter suggests building tents, i.e. shelters for Jesus, Moses and Elijah (Mt 17:4). Jesus and his circle, together with other pilgrims, are going to Jerusalem to celebrate the festival. It is only on the Day of Atonement that the high priest has the only chance in a year to pronounce God’s name in the sanctuary. See b.Yoma 39b, 40a, y.Yoma 40a. See also Blau, "Tetragrammaton", JE, vol. 12, pp. 118-120. 181 Mt 18:10 mentions that the angels of the children are always in the presence of God in heaven. Are they not a heavenly choir (cf. Rev 7:11-12)? 182 The priestly community in the second temple period identified themselves as the earthly choir, which together with the heavenly choir of angels, praised God. See 4Q 403 I, 1-39, cf. the tradition of angels as priests is found also in Jub 32: 13, 2 Hen 91:28-29, 33-34, 37. The children may resemble the priest in this way; only in the sanctuary of the temple will the priests speak out the name of God explicitly once in a year, on Yom Kippur –the Day of Atonement (b.Tam 30b, 33b). In the non-temple area, God is only expressed either by silence or as a Tetragrammaton (b.Tam 30b). Plutarch points out that the appearance of children in the sanctuary often carries a literary theme of their talent of prophecy. Plut. mor 350E. 183 The disciples of the little faith also need Jesus' help to complete their ministry. See the calming of the storm (Mt 8:23-27) which is placed at the beginning of the ministry, the two miracles of the loaves (Mt 14:13-21, 15:32-39) in the midst of Jesus' ministry and the risen Jesus' promise of his presence when he The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple Temple

Jesus is the one who helps and saves. He, as the one who comes in the name of God, comes in humbleness. His humbleness is already a hurdle to his forerunner, John the 228 Baptist, who anticipates an ivscuro,teroj figure. John has to seek clarification from Jesus in his last and darkest days in prison.184 Jesus replies to him that his ministry is one of helping and saving (Mt 11:4-5). Jesus’ coming to Jerusalem is met with two calls for help: The people’s call for help is revealed in the opening words from Ps 118:26; w`sanna is the hofal form of [vy.185 w`sanna forms the double ring composition of the praise from the pilgrims and children (Mt 21:9, 15). The blind and the lame in the temple call for help (Mt 21:14). God answers them with a humble servant-king, whose name (Mt 1:21) has the same root form ([vy) as their call for help. He comes to the place where God supposedly resides, the temple in Jerusalem. However, Jesus’ name is in the active form. His name reminds the reader of the unfailing presence of God’s help in the Old Testament tradition.186 The meaning of his name brackets the Gospel (Mt 1:23, 28:20).187 Why is Matthew so fond of the children and why does he describe them in such a good light? They are teachable. However, their readiness to be taught makes them easily led to fall (Mt 18:6).188 The children possess the same quality of “teachability” as the tax collectors and prostitutes, who are ready to repent (Mt 21:23). Jesus mentions that children can enter the Kingdom of God (Mt 18:3). The tax collectors and prostitutes are also making their way into the Kingdom of God (Mt 21:31).

commissioned his disciples to the world mission (Mt 28:20). See also Poplutz, "Verunsicherter Glaube. Der finale Zweifel der Jünger im Matthäusevangelium aus figuranalytischer Sicht" in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes, pp. 31-47. 184 Matthew avoids using ivscu/j in a positive sense because he wants to remove the wrong connotation the adjective attaches to Jesus. John the Baptist seeks clarification from Jesus concerning his understanding of the one who is coming in Mt 11:2-6. The puzzle of John the Baptist remains unsolved, even though he receives an answer from Jesus. What Jesus replies to John the Baptist’s disciples is nothing more than what his fame tells about him, of which John the Baptist should have been informed (cf. Mt 4:24, 8:16, 9:35, 11:4-6). 185 w`sanna. is hn[vwh (cf. h[vwh in 2 Sam 14:1), which is a noun derived from the hofal form of [vy. It means to be saved and to be delivered. The Son of David appears in the dative form after Hosanna. The dative form of the Son of David may carry an instrumental dimension; here it may mean one who is helped or saved through the Son of David. The name of Jesus carries the meaning of “God helps” or “God saves”. See Karrer, Jesus, pp. 46-47. See his further discussion on the role of Jesus as the Savior in his "Jesus, der Retter (Soter). “Zur Aufnahme eines hellenistischen Prädikats im Neuen Testament”, ZNW 93 (2002), pp. 153-176. 186 See also Stanton, Matthew, p. 49. 187 Parallels to this mention of Jesus name’ can be found in Mt 2:11 (Isa 7:14). After fourteen generations leading to the Kingship, fourteen generations of Exile and another fourteen generations of postExile colonial rule, the Messiah comes to open up another era of salvation history. The angel suggests the name “Jesus” (Mt 1:21), i.e. Jesus, h[wvy , Help and Salvation. 188 See Konradt for other interpretation of Mt 18:4 and the other regulations of the Matthean community, Konradt, Matthäus, p. 132. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

Unlike Matthew, Luke is not strongly critical of the temple and its leaders. Luke tries to make Jesus’ protest against the temple as insignificant as possible, as shown by his 229 extremely condensed report of the protest, using only four words. Luke is determined to portray a pacifist Jesus who the established authority can consider harmless. His Jesus is not accused of blaspheming against the temple in the trial against him (cf. Mk 14:58, Mt 26:61). For Luke, the temple is a place where both Jews and Gentiles experience the fulfilment of God’s promise. It is necessary for his Paul to receive the healing of his blindness and the vision of the Gentile mission in the temple (Acts 22:15-21).189 The representatives of two Christian ministries, Peter and John (primarily to the Jews, see Acts 3:1) and Paul (primarily to the Gentiles, see Acts 22:17) pray piously and experience God’s presence in the temple. Luke thus defends against the accusation of Jesus and his disciples’ impious attitude towards the temple (Acts 6:13-14, 21:12, 17-18, 28-29). He points out that this is a false post-Easter verdict against Jesus and the early Christians.190 7.6.2 Transformation of Boulders into a Foundation in the Hands of God

Matthew’s redaction of the conflicts in and about the temple can be seen in the wordplay on the Aramaic words of children (!b), stone (!ba), building (!ynb) and temple (tyb). The same wordplay was also used by the Qumran community to reflect on their own role after the destruction of the temple.191 The Qumran community would not have 189

Among the Synoptists, Luke offers the most positive impression about the temple and pays the highest respect to it. His Sondergut about the temple includes the following important events that took place in the temple: (i) prophecy about the birth of John the Baptist (Lk 1:8-24). (ii) The presentation of baby Jesus in the temple (Lk 2:22-24) according to the Jewish cult of purity after birth. (iii) The encounter with the religiously pious Simeon and Anna (Lk 2:25-28, 36-38). (iv) Jesus taught in the temple when he was twelve (Lk 2:46). (v) The prayers of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Lk 18:10-14). (vi) The gathering of the disciples in the temple after the resurrection of Jesus (Lk 24:53). The last is the bridge to Acts 2:46. See also Klinghardt, Gesetz und Volk Gottes, pp. 278-279. The temple as a place for teaching is not only the theme of Luke in Acts. After the destruction of the second temple in 70AD, Rabban Jochanan ben Sakkai founded a school in Jabne (Jamnia) for training rabbis. It laid the groundwork for a rabbinic academy for the centuries to follow. Mach, "Zur Umstruktuierung der jüdischen Religion nach der Zerstörung des zweiten Tempels in Jahre 70" in Welt und Umwelt der Bibel, Heft 13, 3 Quartal, 1999, pp. 38-40. See also Tuckett, Christology, pp. 135-136. 190 Luke insists that the early Christian leaders are pious Jews honouring the temple like the other Jews. They are not responsible for the profaning or destruction of the temple. The disciples (including Paul) are caught out by the Jews there exactly because they are pious, i.e. They visit the temple frequently, pray and preach there. Paul experiences an ecstasy there (Acts 2:46, 5:20, 42, 21:27, 22:17, 24:12, 18, 26:21). The Jews’ accusation that the disciples brought foreigners into the temple to profane it (Acts 21:28-29, cf. Jos. Ant 11:291-301) is a misunderstanding, as clarified by the author. Josephus reports that the temple, with the exception of the sanctuary, is open to the Gentiles too. Cf. Jos. Bell 1:152-153, Jos. Ant 14:72-73. He also points out that the temple has a long practice of accepting foreigners’ donations, see Jos. Bell 4:181, 5:416, 7:43-45. However, a high priest abolishes the practice and causes political turmoil as he held that the gifts of a foreign king should be refused, Jos. Bell 2:409. 191 Cf. plants in 1QS 8:5, 11:8, cornerstone in 1 QS 8:7, 11:8, 4Q 258 2 1:2, 4Q 511 35:3-5, house in 1QS 8:5, 9:6, 11:8. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

liked to see God giving the inheritance to the Gentiles and the produce of the vineyard to the sons of the Gentiles, whereas Matthew sees a more important criterion for the 230 inheritance, the ability to bear fruit.192 In the parable of the wicked tenants, Jesus mentions the transfer of the tenancy of the vineyard to those who bear fruit (Mt 21:43). Fruit is the key theme that propels the parable. It is always used metaphorically to describe the consequences of the life and deeds of a righteous person in the wisdom tradition (Pss 1:3, 104:13, Jer 17:8). Jesus uses karpo,j (Mt 21:41, 43) to bracket the stone metaphor of Ps 118:22-23. This is the second time that Matthew uses the stone and tree metaphors together (cf. Mt 3:9-10, Lk 3:8 [Q]). God can raise life (descendants and even a nation) out of stones for Abraham,193 but he is also ready to cut down fruitless trees. The turning of stones (!ba) into children (!b) is analogous to the turning of a stone (!ba) into the cornerstone of a building (!ynb or if it is tyb, the temple). The stones metaphor has one more dimension in Matthew’s Gospel, Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Son of God and the Christ. The episode is also a wordplay on !ba (stone) and hnb (build). pe,troj is the synonym of li,qoj (!ba).194 It is Peter’s recognition of the identity of Jesus both as the Son of God and the Christ that makes him “mouldable”, one who is moulded by God from a stone to a bedrock on which the church is built (Mt 16:18-19). The quality is not restricted to Peter, who is as fallible as the others (Mt 14:15, 16:23, 19:27, 26:34).195 All of the stones lying idly around have

192

Cf. 4Q 500, 501. karpo,j in LXX (ryp in MT) means primarily the consequence of one’s handling or behaviour, not only the good deeds, e.g. Prov 1:31, Hos 10:13, Amos 7:12. See Hauck, "karpo,j", ThWNT III, pp. 617-619. 193 Here stone has its tradition in the old Testament tradition. The earliest altar in the time of the Patriarchs was built from stones lying around to commemorate the revelation of God (Gen 12:7-8, 28:1118). Also at least one Jewish piece of apocalyptic literature makes a parallel between the cornerstone and the eternal inheritance of the patriarchs. See 2 Hen 150:14. The cornerstone (Isa 28:16) is also identified as a stone found in the temple (See b.Yom 54b, y.Yom 42c). 194 Peter is the only human being in the Synoptics who recognizes Jesus in both titles which originated from the Jewish understanding of the Messiah. His confession of faith takes place in Caesarea Philippi. It is a place famous also for the massive number of boulders lying about. See also Ratzinger, Jesus I, p. 334. From Matthew’s usage, pe,tra may mean mouldable stones for various pieces of construction (Mt 27:51, 60, cf. Mk 15:46). From Mark’s and Luke’s usage, pe,tra may also mean any stones or rocks lying idly on the ground (Mk 4:5, Lk 8:6, 13). Caragounis points out that the pe,tra and pe,troj refer to different entities, the former means bedrock and the latter, stone. Cargounis, Peter, p. 93. He concludes that the pe,troj functions as an oath formula within a chiastic structure in Jesus’ speech. The formula must refer to the confession of Jesus’ Messianity, not Peter the person, Cargounis, Peter, p. 105, p. 113, pp. 116-119. Bockmuehl points out that Peter had a Greek name originally and must have been called pe,troj from the start. This is because Peter’s brothers also have Greek names (Mt 4:18). It was Jesus who gave him the Aramaic translation Khfa/j as a new nickname. See Bockmuehl, The Remembered Peter, pp. 145-156. 195 See 1 Pet 2:5. Some New Testament scholars hold that Mt 16:18-19 refers to Peter only, not to the confession of Jesus as the Christ. See Windisch, "Die Sprüche vom Eingehen in das Reich Gottes", ZNW 27 (1928), p. 186, Holtzmann, NT Theologie I, p. 507. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Temple

the same potential if they have Peter’s recognition. 196 Matthew therefore includes the stone metaphor within a ring composition of karpo,j: the confession of the rejected but 231 resurrected Christ is the centre of those whose lives bear fruit.197 Jesus’ church is founded on the stone of this confession, not on the stone of Abraham (Mt 3:9).198 It should be noted that Matthew removes the scribes (who witness Jesus’ protest against the temple in Mt 21:15) from the debate between Jesus and the representatives from the Sanhedrin (Mt 21:23-27) and from the critics present in his parable of the tenants (Mt 21:45). Some scribes may have belonged to the Matthean community (Mt 21:15, 23). They were also supposed to assume roles like the other “teachable” children (Mt 13:52) and lead lives bearing fruit. For Luke, the transfer of leadership to the disciples takes place in the post-Easter era, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8, 2:4, 15:13). The twelfth disciple is chosen to replace Judas in the same way as the priests in the temple are chosen, by drawing lots (Acts 1:26, Lk 1:9).199 The failing disciples in the time of the earthly Jesus are transformed into capable leaders and faithful witnesses in Acts by the Holy Spirit. The disciples are even given the competence to cite LXX in their ministry in Acts, whereas in the Gospels they are not recorded as ever quoting the Bible. They play a leading role in confessing the rejected but resurrected Christ in the post-Easter period (see Acts 2:23, 3:14, 4:10, 5:20, 10:39, 13:28-30), although the divinely inspired confession of Jesus comes earlier in Luke’s pre-Easter Gospel. In a more radically egalitarian way than Matthew, Luke lets one pious pair of male and female people who do not even have the opportunity to see Jesus’ miracles or hear his preaching or witness his resurrection, but who are only moved by the Holy Spirit (Lk 2:24, 38), confess Jesus’ identity. It is probable that Luke, driven by the Holy Spirit, antedates the post-Easter confession model to the pre-Easter period. 196

Paul supplies a tradition of the order of appearance of the risen Jesus to the disciples. Peter comes first, then the disciples (1 Cor 15:5). It echoes the tradition of Peter being the first to acknowledge Jesus’ identity on earth. The authority given to Peter, i.e. de,w –to bind to and lu,w –to loose, is also given to the community (Mt 16:19-20, cf. Mt 18:18). 197 This is a more radical organizational model than that of the Pharisees, who do not have a hierarchy like the temple leaders. The temple leaders are determined by birth. See Exod 28:1, cf. 1QS 8:4-10. It is because the recognition of Jesus as the divinely sent one is a work of revelation given by God (Mt 11:25). So is the transforming the stones lying about idly into mouldable stones suitable for building purposes (Mt 23:9-10). However, the recognition of Jesus is not the only condition for one to remain a true discipleship. It is also the responsibility of the believers themselves to do so, i.e. (i) bringing forth good deeds (fruit) which befits one's repentance in life (Mt 3:8) and (ii) doing the will of the Father (Mt 8:21-23). 198 In Isa 51:1-2, Abraham and Sarah are rock (pe,tra, rwc) to the Israelites (i.e. the first ones to confess faith in God). See Bockmuehl, The Remembered Peter, p. 153. Stones are also used to symbolize the twelve scribes of Israel, see Exod 24:4, Jud 4:8-9. 199 Cf. Jos. Bell 4:155. 1Q5:9. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

Chapter 8 Conflicts on Paying Tax to Caesar and Resurrection This chapter considers two themes of conflicts, in which the contemporary liberal and conservative wings of Jewish schools already assume that Jesus is opposed to their views.1 Are they ready to hear Jesus’ arguments or are they more interested in exposing the weakness of his position? The first conflict is about a double allegiance to God and to a foreign ruler, which is considered unthinkable for any nationalist Jew or anyone who claims to be a Messiah. 2 The second conflict is about resurrection, the key theme in Christianity. For the early Christians, the Christian Gospel was not a Gospel without the belief in a resurrected Christ (1 Cor 15:12-19, 55-57). Both conflicts were equally disruptive to the Jewish community. The first split the Jews politically, as they resented the paying of tax on grounds of religious allegiance and economic hardship.3 The second alienated the Jews religiously, as the Pharisees and Sadducees could not agree on the point of resurrection. In the post-Easter era, the resurrection became a decidedly divisive factor between different Jewish schools and Christians, even though belief in resurrection is widespread among the Jews (cf. Isa 26:19, Dan 12:2, 2 Macc 7:9, 36, 1 Cor 15:12-17). In the narratives, the earthly Jesus agrees to paying tax to the ruling authority, but disapproves of the Sadducees’ disbelief in resurrection. In both cases, Jesus questions the basic presumptions of both groups and renews their understanding. The relatively high resemblance of the two conflicts in the Synoptics suggests a strong consensus on the two issues in the early Christian communities.

1

The Pharisees and the Herodians could be considered as a liberal wing of Judaism in Jesus’ time. They support paying tax to Caesar. The Sadducees could be considered as a conservative wing. They refused to believe in resurrection. See also Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus, p. 644. Cf. Förster suggests that Herodians could refer to the servants of Herod (Jos. Ant 17:308). They were commissioned to collect tax for him. Förster, Steuerfrage, pp. 145-149. The Essenes hold that each Jew should pay the half shekel only once in his life, i.e. they oppose to the establishment of the half shekel payment on an annual basis. See Flusser, “The half Shekel in the Gospels and the Qumran Community” in Judaism of the second Temple Period, vol. 1, pp. 330-332. 2 The refusal to pay tax or tribute to Caesar was considered a signal of uprising at the time of Jesus. See Jos. Bell 2:118, 433, Jos. Ant 17:28, 204-205. The imposition of extra tax is regarded as punishment for the revolt (cf. Jos. Bell 17:317-319) and the relief of it a reward to their allegiance (cf. Jos. Bell 2:296). 3 Jos. Bell 2:117-118, 433, Jos. Ant 17:204, 205, 18:23. The Zealots were separated from the Pharisees because of the conflict about paying tribute to Quirinius in 6AD. They held that they have only one Lord, i.e. God. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

232

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

8.1 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 22:15-22 8.1.1 Mt 22:15-22

8.1.1.1 Source and Text Criticisms Mt 22:15-22 is a stylistic redaction of Mk 12:13-17.4 The text is almost the same as Mark’s text in terms of narrative form, main content and the flow of the debate, but with an improvement in style.5 There are a number of rare words in Mt 22:15-22, but half of them are also found in Mk 12:13-17. The only words that are rare in Matthew’s text are pagideu,w and no,misma. 6 The words are hapax legomenon in the New Testament. The intentionally malicious question raised by the Pharisees and the Herodians may explain why pagideu,w is used in Mt 12:15. They want to trap Jesus by cornering him into give a politically dangerous answer. Matthew’s text, like Mark’s and Luke’s, can be considered an extended chrie, as Jesus’ answer dominates the whole episode. The critics only raise a question. Their own position on the issue is not even mentioned. The narrative ends with Jesus’ riposte, which is also the climax of the whole narrative. There are no significant textual variants in Mt 22:15-22. 8.1.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features The pericope of paying tax to Caesar (Mt 22:15-22) is placed after Jesus’ three parables confronting the established understanding of stewardship (Mt 21:28-46) and qualification for the Kingdom of God (Mt 22:23-33).7 It is the first of four debates in the second round of conflicts between Jesus and different groups of Jewish leaders (Mt 22:15-45) in the temple in Jerusalem. 8 The scheme of the debates is initiated by the Pharisees (Mt 22:15). The series of four debates affirms Jesus’ supremacy over his critics 4

54% of the words and word- sequence of Matthew’s text follows that of Mark's. Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 253. 6 In Mt 22:15 –pagideu,w, Mt (1). In Mt 22:16 –~Hrw|dianoi,, Mt (1); avlhqh.j, Mt (1); avlh,qeia, Mt (1); me,lw, Mt (1). In Mt 22:17 –kh/nsoj, Mt (3); Kai/sar, Mt (4). In Mt 22:18 –ponhri,a, Mt (1). In Mt 22:19 – evpidei,knumi, Mt (3); no,misma, Mt (1). In Mt 22:20 –eivkw.n, Mt (1); evpigrafh,, Mt (1). The following rare words were from Mk 12:13-17. ~Hrw|dianoi, avlhqh.j, me,lw, avlh,qeia, kh/nsoj, Kai/sar,, eivkw.n, evpigrafh,. ponhri,a appears only in Mt 22:18. Matthew prefers ponhri,oj, which appears twenty-six times in different forms in the other parts of his Gospel. 7 Davies & Allison point out that the pericope should not be categorized as "controversy dialogue". It is because the critics do not state their own position, nor do they oppose to Jesus' position. See Davies & Allison, Mathew III, p. 210. 8 Daube points out that the four debates (Mt 22:15-46, cf. Mk 12:13-37) resemble the rabbinic tradition of hokhma –wisdom, boruth –vulgarity, Derekh ‘eres –principles of a moral and successful life and haggada – discussions on contradictory biblical verses. Daube, New Testament and Judaism, pp. 158-163. 5

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

233

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

and his status as the Messiah, the Lord of David (Mt 22:45-46). Matthew forges a closer link between the groups who are offended by Jesus’ parables (Mt 21:45) and the groups 234 in the debates with the adverb tote (Mt 22:15). The narrative has only one scene and the protagonists are the same throughout the scene, Jesus versus the disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians. The rare coalition of the Herodians and the disciples of the Pharisees here means that Jesus’ answer is expected to be politically dangerous. The two will serve as witnesses to his answer in jurisdiction. 9 Matthew’s construction of their coming together (sumbou,lion with e;labon in Mt 21:15) appears also in the second open conflict with the Pharisees in Mt 12:14. The construction sumbou,lion e;labon is used solely for describing how various groups of Jewish leaders join together to obstruct Jesus’ influence or ministry. 10 The issue involved is paying tax to Caesar, which was a highly controversial and divisive issue among the Jews at the time. e;xestin appears in the critics’ question (Mt 22:17). It may refer either to Roman law or to the teaching of the Torah, but probably refers to the Torah here, as the verb is used only in the context of the Torah in the conflicts on the Shabbat (Mt 12:2, 10, 12) and divorce (Mt 19:3). Although Matthew, as a heterodiegetic author (Mt 22:15), can never wait to point out the malicious intentions of the Jewish critics (peira,zw), this is the first time that Jesus reproaches them directly with ti, me peira,zete. The Pharisees’ disciples frame the question with so little tact that their malicious intentions cannot be concealed. The plot and the question are constructed in such a way that Jesus’ answer will trap him in a dilemma: not paying tax to Caesar means he agrees with the Zelotens, whereas paying tax means that he contradicts the claim that he is the Messiah.11 The malice (ponhri,a) of the inquirers is further proved by their possession of a dhna,rion themselves.12 Jesus’ answer features syntactic and phonetic parallels. His unexpected but assertive answer to the question and his reasoning amaze the critics (Mt 22:22). This narrative is the only scene in Matthew’s Gospel in which Jesus’ answer evokes a positive reaction from his critics, not the crowd.

9

The identity of the Herodians is unclear. Nevertheless, their name suggests their favourable association with Herod and their affirmative position to paying tribute to him. The Pharisees are primarily agreeable to paying tribute to the political power. See b.Pes 112b, b.B.Q 113a. Unlike the rabbis, the Pharisees do not normally have disciples. It may mean the junior Pharisees here. See Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 254. kh/nson refers to the tax on agricultural produce and personal property, Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 214. 10 The construction sumbou,lion plus lamba,nw appears five times in Matthew’s Gospel, i.e., Mt 12:14, 22:15, 27:1, 27:7, 28:12, Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 212. 11 Jos. Bell 2:117-118, 7:253. 12 Their possession of a denarius shows that they themselves pay the tax. Paying the tax implies a recognition of the political and religious authority of the Caesar. This is because the picture and the name of the Caesar are on the coin, which infringes on the first commandment. See the discussion on the Tiberius denarius in Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 258-259. See also Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 211, p. 215. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

8.1.2 Mk 12:13-17

8.1.2.1 Source and Text Criticisms Mk 12:13-17 is a Jewish school debate ending in a climactic chrie. There is almost no dispute about the unity of the text.13 There are many rare words in Mk 12:13-17. Many of them appear only once in the whole of Mark’s Gospel, such as kh/nsoj, dhna,rion, eivkw.n and evpigrafh,. kh/nsoj is the Greek transliteration of the Latin loanword for the poll tax imposed by Quirinius on Judaea after the census in 6 AD.14 These words hint at a preMarkan tradition of Roman origin.15 Kai/sar is a hapax legomenon. In other places in the Gospel, Mark uses o` basileu.j to refer to the provincial ruler (Mk 6:14, 22, 26, 27). The conjugation of the same word (Kai,saroj versus Kai,sari in Mk 12:17) to create a phonetic parallel is a common feature in Hellenistic literature. 16 It seems that Jesus’ argument for the paying of tax to Caesar may end in Mk 12:17a. The syntactic parallel of paying what belongs to God to God serves to balance and check the allegiance that is due to the political authority.17 There are no significant textual variants in Mk 12:13-17. Insignificant variants include: (i)

Some textual witnesses supply a stronger link between the Pharisees who raise the question in Mk 12:13-17 and those in Mk 11:27-28.

(ii)

Some textual witnesses use a more general term for tax in Mk 12:14.

(iii)

Some textual witnesses add weight to Jesus’ reproach of their malicious intentions in raising the question.18

13

Papyrus Egerton 2 supplies Jesus’ logion –give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Cf. Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 91. A parallel narrative could be found in EvThom log 100. There Jesus’ disciples, not Jewish opponents, show Jesus a gold coin. Also, at the end of the narrative, Jesus’ sayings include “give to Jesus what belongs to him”. Most of the New Testament exegetes think that EvThom log 100 postdates the Gospels. Cf. Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 253, note 5. 14 Jos. Bell 2:118, Jos. Ant 18:4-10, 23-25. 15 In Mk 12:13 –~Hrw|dianoi, Mk (2); avgreu,w, Mk (1). In Mk 12:14 –avlhqh.j, Mk (1); me,lei, Mk (2);pro,swpon, Mk (3); avlh,qeia, Mk (3); kh/nsoj, Mk (1). In Mk 12:15 –u`po,krisij, Mk (1); dhna,rion, Mk (3). In Mk 12:16 –eivkw.n, Mk (1); evpigrafh, Mk (2). In Mk 12:17 –avpodi,dwmi, Mk (1); evkqauma,zw, Mk (1). 16 Plut. mor 736C. 17 Klostermann suggests that there could be an apologetical interest behind Mk 12:17b. See Klostermann, Lukas, p. 195. 18 In Mk 12:14, Codices D and k supply kai. evphrwtwn auvto.n oi` farisai/oi and Codices W, and manuscripts families 1 and 13 supply evlqo,ntaj hvrxanto evrwta,n auvto.n evn do,lw le,gontej instead of kai. evlqo,ntej le,gousin auvtw/.| Very probably, Codex D attempts to link the group with Mk 11:27-29, where the last question is raised against Jesus. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

235

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

Codex D appears to be interested in replacing the terminus technicus of tax with more 236 general duties paid to the government. Codex D is interested in building a stronger connection between this debate and the debate in the temple. 8.1.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary features The debate about paying tax to Caesar (Mk 12:13-17) is the first of three debates in the second round of conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish authorities (Mk 12:13-34). The first debate about paying tax to Caesar is placed after Jesus’ parable of the wicked tenants (Mk 12:1-12), whose audience is the chief priests, the scribes and the elders (Mk 11:27). The group appears again in the first round of debates in Jerusalem as the subject of avposte,llousin, who sends the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus (Mk 12:13).19 The preceding parable of the wicked tenants may hint at a background of deliberate refusal to pay rent owed to the owner of the vineyard. It is thematically linked to the debate about paying tax to the political authority. The narrative only has one plot. The protagonists are Jesus and his critics, the Pharisees and Herodians. The intention of the Jewish critics is made known to the reader in the first verse (Mk 12:13), before the question is even raised.20 Their flattering praise of Jesus aims to coax him into saying something genuine, without considering those in power. 21 They clearly wish to place God’s teaching in opposition to the practice of paying tax; e;xestin here refers to the Torah, not colonial law

In Mk 12:14, Codex D, Q supply do,unai evpi,kefa,laion kai,sari instead of ou/nai kh/nson Kai,sari. Does it show that these Codices are inclined to remove a time-bound expression for specific tax and are in favour of a general principle on paying tax? kefa,laion is found also in Acts 22:28 about the grand sum one had to pay to the government for Roman citizenship. In Mk 12:15, P45, Codices N, W, Q and Manuscript families 1 and 13 insert u`po,kritai after ti, me peira,zete. Although this alteration could be caused by an assimilation with Mt 22:18, it is hard to decide whether the version in D is secondary. This is because the same expression is also applied in Mk 7:6 and in this place no textual variant is recorded. The expression points to a discrepancy between outward behaviour and inward thoughts. 19 Ernst is of the opinion that the two groups could have been sent because of their relatively agreeable attitude to paying tax to Caesar. Nevertheless, they could also represent those who were powerful in political and religious circles at their time. See Ernst, Markus, pp. 344-345. Klostermann, however, holds that the two groups are sent because they hold entirely opposite positions toward the payment of tribute to Caesar, and hence, Jesus’ answer of either yes or no will cause him problem with one of the groups. See Klostermann, Markus, p. 123. Gedalyahu also points out that the Pharisees were a politically active group against the Roman empire in the times of Jesus. See Gedalyahu, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World, pp 45-47. 20 Drewermann suggests that the first question (which starts with e;xestin) is raised by the Herodians, while the second (which starts with a subjunctive –dw/men) is raised by the Pharisees. Drewermann, MtEv III, p. 87. 21 France points out that Jesus, as a Galilean, was not required to pay the poll tax (kh/nsoj) imposed on the province of Judaea, France, Mark, p. 465. Nevertheless, according to Luke and Matthew, Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judaea, i.e., he should not be exempted from the tax. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

(Mk 12:14), as there is no point of dispute if the discussion is focused on colonial law.22 The inserted clause th.n o`do.n tou/ qeou dida,skeij, which disrupts the syntactic parallel in 237 Mk 12:14, shows that they want an answer from the Torah. Jesus’ request for a coin is taken as decisively providing an answer23 to reveal the hypocrisy of the inquirers and to illustrate his answer with a coin imprinted with an image and inscription of the Caesar. The two-fold synonymous question of di,dwmi (Mk 12:14) is answered with Jesus’ logion avpodi,dwmi (Mk 12:17). Like the other debate narratives, Jesus provides an answer that is so wise that even the critics are amazed (Mk 12:17).24 The Herodians are mentioned three times in Mark’s Gospel (Mk 3:6, 8:15, 12:13). They are always allied with the Pharisees against Jesus. They first emerge after the conflict about the Shabbat, during which they plot with the Pharisees about how to destroy Jesus (Mk 3:6) in Galilee. Mark’s Jesus also warns his followers against the influence of these two groups after the second miracle of the loaves (Mk 8:15). The two groups seem to be subordinate to the chief priests and the scribes in Jerusalem (Mk 11:27, 12:13). In the conflict about paying tax to Caesar, they are sent by the chief priests and scribes to test Jesus.25 8.1.3 Lk 20:20-26

8.1.3.1 Source and Text Criticisms It is highly probable that the source of Lk 20:20-26 is Mk 12:13-17. 26 Luke’s narrative follows Mark’s with respect to the literary form, content and flow of the debate. Half of the rare words in the text are found in Mk 12:13-17. 27 Nevertheless, as a heterodiegetic author, Luke also makes his own redaction, especially in the malicious intentions of the Jewish leaders: u`pokri,nomai and evgka,qetoj are hapax legomenon. The 22

The standard payment of the tax is with a denarius, which has an image of Caesar in it, with an inscription, Son of divine (name of a God), the highest priest. The image and the inscription is an infringement of the first commandment, France, Mark, p. 466. Luz maintains that the denarius does not only have monetary value, but it is also a recognition of and a submission to the political and religious authority of the Caesar, Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 258, note 39. 23 Klostermann, Markus, p.124. 24 Mk 12:13-17 is not the only narrative where Jesus opponents are amazed at Jesus’ answer. See also Mk 2:12, 13:32. 25 Same as Lührmann, Markus, p. 201. 26 43 % of the words and word sequence of Luke’s text follow that of Mark’s. 27 In Lk 20:20 –parathre,w, Lk (3); evgka,qetoj, Lk (1); u`pokri,nomai, Lk (1); avrch,, Lk (3); h`gemw,n, Lk (2). In Lk 20:21 –ovrqw/j, Lk (3); avlh,qeia, Lk (3). In Lk 20:22 –fo,roj, Lk (2). In Lk 20:23 –katanoe,w, Lk (4); panourgi,a, Lk (1). In Lk 20:24 –dei,knumi, Lk (4); dhna,rion, Lk (3); eivkw,n, Lk (1); evpigrafh, Lk (2). In Lk 20:26 –evnanti,on, Lk (3); avpo,krisij, Lk (2); siga,w, Lk (3). The following rare words are also found in Mk 12:13-17: avlh,qeia, dhna,rion, eivkw,n, evpigrafh. Two of the four words that appear once in this text appear also in Mark’s text. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

construction parathre,w .. i[na (Lk 20:20) also appears in the conflict on the Shabbat in Lk 6:7. Luke’s replacement of kh/nsoj (Mk 12:14) with fo,roj (Lk 20:22) shows his 238 knowledge of the tax and levy collection system based on the census in the Roman colonies (Lk 2:1).28 His phrase ouv lamba,neij pro,swpon shows a Semitic influence (Lk 20:21).29 There are no significant textual variants in Lk 20:20-26. Insignificant variants include: (i)

Some textual witnesses are inclined towards building a stronger link between the Pharisees who raise the question in Lk 20:20-26 and those in Lk 20:19.

(ii)

Some textual witnesses interpret the jurisdiction (dativus instrumentalis) in Lk 20:20 as a means to condemn Jesus, not a genitive attribute referring to the critics of Jesus.

(iii)

Codex D is inclined to supply a more general term for a coin in Lk 20:24.30 8.1.3.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features

The debate is about paying tax to Caesar. Luke may use this debate to falsify the false verdict against Jesus before Pilate (Lk 23:2).31 Like his source, Mark, the debate about the payment of tax to Caesar (Lk 20:20-26) is placed after the parable of the wicked tenants (Lk 20:9-19). It is the first of three debates in the second round of conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, the chief priests and scribes (Lk 20:1, 19). The narrative is an inclusion unit bracketed by the antithetical phrase evpilamba,nw (Lk 20:20, 26). The critics of Jesus are the same in all of these episodes. They are also the subject of parathrh,santej avpe,steilan in Lk 20:20. Luke places great emphasis on the malicious intentions of Jesus’ critics by his remarks about Jesus’ 28

Wolter, Lukas, p. 652, cf. Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 90, pp. 95-96. Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 89, note 10. 30 In Lk 20:20, Codices D, Q supply avpocwrh,santej avpe,steilan. Codex W supplies u`pocwrh,santej avpe,steilan, instead of parathrh,santej avpe,steilan. Klostermann has rightly observed that the version from Codices D, Q is nearer to Luke’s style, as Luke never uses parathre,w in active form (cf. Lk 6:7, 14:1), Klostermann, Lukas, p. 95. avpocwrei/ appears in Luke’s Gospel once (Lk 9:39) and it is in active form. Nevertheless, the provision of only one piece of evidence for avpocwrei/ is also not enough to support the case here. Even if Codices D and Q provided the earlier version here, it would not change the interpretation of the text significantly. Hence, NA 27 is preferable. In Lk 20:20, Codex D supplies th/| avrch/| kai. th/| evxousi,a| tw/| h`gemonoj instead of th/| avrch/| kai. th/| evxousi,a| tou/ h`gemo,noj. In Lk 20:24, Codex D supplies evpidei,xate, moi to. nomi,sma instead of Epidei,xate, moi dhna,rion. 31 See also Horn, "Die Haltung des Lukas zum römischen Staat im Evangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte" in The Unity of Luke-Acts, p. 205. 29

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

perception thereof. The aorist participle parathre,w (Lk 20:20) serves as a link between the subject of this debate and the preceding scenes (Lk 20:19-20). It points to the awaited 239 opportunity for trapping Jesus, in compensation with the last lost chance in Lk 20:19. The AcI u`pokrinome,nouj e`autou.j dikai,ouj ei=nai shows the faked innocence of the inquirers. The construction of double subordinate clauses of purpose (i[na and w[ste) in Lk 20:20 appears only once in the whole Gospel and shows the successive plots to trap Jesus. Jesus perceives their craftiness (Lk 20:23). He gives a reply that silences them: toi,nun avpo,dote ta. Kai,saroj Kai,sari kai. ta. tou/ qeou/ tw/| qew/| (Lk 20:25).32 The narrative ends with an inserted comment by Luke about how the presence of the crowd thwarts the critic’s plans to arrest Jesus publicly and how they are amazed by Jesus’ answer (Lk 20:26). 8.1.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 22:15-22

Matthew’s narrative about the debate on paying tax to Caesar does not differ significantly from Mark’s and Luke’s texts. However, a Synoptic comparison of the texts and reference to the narrative on paying tax to the temple (Matthew’s Sondergut) may shed light on his concern. The debate about paying tax to Caesar in Mt 22:15-22 (kh/nsoj) could be a thematic parallel to the discussion between Jesus and Peter about paying the temple dues in Mt 17:24-27.33 Mt 17:24-27 is said to be Matthew’s redaction to forge a bridge between the Christians and the Jews, even though by the time of his writing the second temple no longer existed.34 However, given Matthew’s consistent criticism of the temple and its cult, 32

Bovon points out that avpodi,dwmi (Lk 20:24) has double meaning: It may mean (i) returning something that originally belonged to Caesar, i.e. recognizing his entitlement and (ii) giving to Caesar what belongs to him, i.e. one does not want to owe him any more, Bovon, Lukas 4, pp. 96-97. 33 Cf. Förster, Steuerfrage, pp. 159-160, 165-173. 34 The composition of Mt 17:24-27 is subject to hot exegetical debate. If the pericope is pre-Markan, it could probably refer to the situation in 70 AD, when the temple still existed. Nevertheless, Jesus’ teaching about the special status he and the disciples should enjoy with respect to the tax payment belongs very probably to the post-Easter era. Hence, the composition problem leads to further controversies over the nature of the tax in Mt 17:24-27: Was it a secular civil tax imposed by the Romans after the destruction of the temple or was it a temple dues requested from the Jews and payable on a voluntary basis before the destruction of the temple? Bultmann, Lohmeyer, Allen believe that the temple dues refers to the dues before the destruction of the temple. Cf. Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, p. 103. However, the early church fathers interpret the tax as a Roman tax. Cf. Iren haer. 5.24.1. Hummel points out that the tax could refer to the tax for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome after 70 AD. See Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, p. 104. Harb suggests that Matthew may use the discussion to refer to Fiscus Judaicus imposed by King Verspasian after 70 AD. Harb, "Die Stellung des historischen Jesus zur Tempelsteuer: Überlegungen zu Mt 17,24-27" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, pp. 467-469. Davies & Allison however point out the amount of tax required in Mt 17:24 is the same as what is required for temple dues in Jerusalem in Jos.Bell 7:218. Davies & Allison, Matthew II, p. 740. It points to the question why Matthew retains this narrative when his community is so at odds with their Jewish counterparts. Hummel and Bornkamm provide a plausible answer to the question; Mt 17:24-27 provides proof that the Matthean community still considers themselves to belong to Judaism. Hummel further points out that Jesus’ teaching The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

and his tendency to promote solidarity between the Christians and the Jews only in terms of higher religious ethics, it is strange that he flagellates himself by raising a white flag. 240 Does he avoid annoying the Jews by paying their tax,35 or does he suggest that tax can be paid only if there are miraculous provisions (Mt 17:27)? Is there an alternative reading to the text? Is it possible that Matthew is trying to depict a narrative contrast between the earthly Jesus and the Pharisees: the earthly Jesus, who is a Jewish inhabitant of a Roman colony, is always observant of the duties owed both to the earthly religious and political authorities,36 whereas the Jewish leaders, who are accountable to God, are not observant of their duties to the heavenly authority? In Mt 22:15-22, Matthew takes a different narrative approach in describing how Jesus’ critics try to circumscribe his influence. The two groups (the chief priests and Pharisees) who are offended by Jesus’ parables try to beat him in different way. The Pharisees want to trap Jesus in his speeches here and in the subsequent debates, but they are defeated and then no longer pursue him (Mt 22:46). The chief priests, however, unleash the fatal attack on Jesus by arresting him and plotting his crucifixion (Mt 26:14, 47, 59). Of all of Jesus’ critics, the truly harmful ones are the chief priests, the elders and the Roman authorities. The Jewish leaders plot Jesus’ arrest, while the Romans execut it. The long-term critics of Jesus, the Pharisees and the scribes, only wage a battle of words. This is the only text in Matthew’s Gospel in which he retains the presence of the Herodians from Mark’s Gospel.37 Twice Matthew removes the Herodians from scenes in Mark and in one place he replaces them with the Sadducees (Mk 3:6 versus Mt 12:1-8, Mk 8:15 versus Mt 16:11). Hence, the Herodians are not harmful in Matthew’s eyes. For Luke, paying tax to Caesar is an self-evident obligation of everyone politically subordinate to the Roman Empire. The fulfilment of the prophecy of the Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem is a consequence of Joseph’s obedient response to the about the community rightful's exemption from the temple dues (and also the respective temple cult) refers to the eschatological freedom they are entitled to. See Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, p. 32, pp. 104-105. However, eschatological freedom is not freedom at all when a subject of the earthly authority has no choice but to pay tribute here and now. 35 The Sadducees and some priests refuse to pay the temple dues. The Esseners refuse to pay it annually (4Q 159 1, 2:7). See Förster, Steuerfrage, p. 165. Förster holds that Jesus´ argument for the exemption of dues for the son (in Mt 17:25-26) shows that he distances himself from the obligation from paying the temple dues. However, in order not to give offence, he follows suits. See Förster, Steuerfrage, pp. 168-173. 36 Jesus' answer to the question of paying of tax to Caesar in Mt 21:21 could suggest a counter position: The return of the denarius to Caesar may suggest an attitude of clear demarcation, i.e. to return the denarius, which is repulsive to the biblical teaching, to the owner. See Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 259, note 44. Also, avpo,dote ou=n ta. Kai,saroj Kai,sari should be interpreted together with ta. tou/ qeou/ tw/| qew/| (Mt 21:21). The latter should override the former, as all on earth belong to God. See Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 260. Konradt, Matthäus, pp. 140-141. 37 Cf. Mk 3:6, par Mt 12:13, Mk 6:15, par Mt 16:11. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

census call (Lk 2:1-5). Similarly, the position of Luke’s Jesus to the issue of taxation is expected to agree with contemporary law, although Luke is aware of its opposition of the 241 first commandment.38 The debate about paying tax to Caesar serves only to falsify the Jews’ false verdict about Jesus before Pilate (Lk 23:2). In the jurisdiction before Pilate, Jesus is accused of claiming to be Christ, a king, inciting the people to revolt and opposing paying tax to Caesar (Lk 23:2-3). In the three accusations against Jesus before Pilate, Luke deliberately tones down the political significance of the three incidents. Luke reports that only the group of disciples, not the crowd, welcomes Jesus with Ps 118:26 (Lk 19:37-40, cf. Mk 11:8-10, Mt 21:9). The praise “Blessed is he who is coming as King in the name of the Lord” is sung by a small group only. He deliberately shortens Jesus’ cleansing of the temple into four words and does not mention its effect at all. The incident does not attract the attention of those on site (Lk 19:45). Also, Luke uses three syntactic constructions to depict the malicious attitude of the critics who want to trap Jesus with a politically dangerous answer. Luke’s detailed description of the malicious motives of the critics, who hope to make Jesus politically guilty, shows his redactional attempt to depict Jesus as a political pacifist. 8.2 Synoptic Comparison of Mt 22:23-33 8.2.1 Mt 22:23-33

8.2.1.1 Source and Text Criticism The source of the debate about resurrection in Mt 22:23-33 is Mk 12:18-27.39 It is an improved, condensed version of Mark’s text.40 Slightly more than half of the rare words in Mt 22:23-33 come from Mk 12:18-27.41 avna,stasij is the key word in the narrative. It appears four times in Matthew’s Gospel, all of which are in this text. This word comes from his source, Mark. Only one rare word comes from Matthew himself, evpigambreu,w, which is also a hapax legomenon. There are no significant textual variants in Mt 22:23-33. 38

The denarius is the standard silver coin in the Roman empire. Since 44 BCE, the coins already had the image of the Caesar on one side and the myth about him on the other side. See Wolter, Lukas, p. 653. 39 53% of the words and word sequence of Matthew’s text follow those of Mark's. Also, it is highly likely that Matthew inserts eivmi in egw, (eivmi) o` qeo.j VAbraa.m kai. o` qeo.j VIsaa.k kai. o` qeo.j VIakw,b in Mk 12:16, which is without eivmi. Matthew is aware of the absence of the present indicative form of the verb in Hebrew (Cf. Exod 3:6 in MT, versus the same in LXX) and hence, he inserts it in the citation. 40 While Mark describes the situation of the first three brothers (Mk 12:20-22), Matthew summarises it and names only the experience of the first (Mt 22:25-26). 41 In Mt 22:23 –avna,stasij, Mt (4); evpigambreu,w, Mt (1). In Mt 22:25 –teleuta,w, Mt (4). In Mt 22:26 – o`moi,wj, Mt (3); deu,teroj, Mt (4). In Mt 22:29 –gami,zw, Mt (2). In Mt 22:33 –evkplh,ssw, Mt (4). The following words appear also in Mk 12:18-27: avna,stasij, deu,teroj, grafh,, gami,zw, za,w. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

8.2.1.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features Like his source, Mark, the debate about resurrection in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 22:2333) is the second debate in the second round of conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. It is placed between the debates about paying tax to Caesar (Mt 22:15-22) and the greatest commandments (Mt 22:34-40). Matthew tries to relate it to the first debate by holding them on the same day (Mt 22:15). This is the only debate between Jesus and the Sadducees in the whole Gospel. The two parties are given similar lengths of text in the narrative to present their views and both have Biblical verses to support their positions. Matthew follows Mark closely in this narrative in content, form and literary structure. He specifies the story of the seven brothers as “among us” to emphasise its authenticity.42 He retains the two arguments of Mark’s Jesus to argue for resurrection. 43 The positive response of the people, not the Sadducees, is recorded at the end of the debate.44 8.2.2 Mk 12:18-27

8.2.2.1 Source and Text Criticism Mk 12:18-27 is a Jewish school debate. Its unity is subject to discussion. 45 The narrative itself contains elements from Jewish traditions of resurrection, the apocalyptic era and the covenant.46 There are many rare words in Mk 12:18-27. They hint at a preMarkan source .47 gami,zw is a hapax legomenon. The key word here is ani,sthmi, which 42

Davies & Allison are of the opinion that the addition of parV h`mi/n only "drives home the Sadducees’ dishonesty", Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 225. 43 Jesus also quotes the Pentateuch in his debate with the Sadducees as the Sadducees only read the Pentateuch. Yet, here he may reproach their not giving due consideration to the non-Pentateuch parts of the Old Testament, cf. Isa 26:19, and see further 1 Hen 15:67. See also Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 226. The rabbis do not use Exod 3:6 as a proof for resurrection. In b.San 90b-91b, Exod 6:4, Deut 31:16, 33:6, Num 15:31, Exod 15:1 are quoted to argue for resurrection in the Torah. Nevertheless, it seems that Deut 33:6 supplies the most direct biblical support for resurrection. 44 Konradt suggests that the contrast of the response of the crowd and the Sadducees shows again Matthew's deliberate differentiation between the crowd and the Jewish authorities, Konradt, Matthäus, p. 99. 45 The question raised is whether Mk 12:26-27 is secondary to the pericope or whether Mk 12:18-27 is a unity. The text contains strong elements of Hellenistic concepts of immortality. See discussion in Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 222. 46 The situation of the seven brothers who died without any hope of posterity on earth is an allusion to 2 Macc 7:1-42. The seven brothers who died from martyrdom in 2 Macc 7:1-42 had the hope of eternal life (2 Macc 7:35). Here the Sadducees shift the focus entirely; the seven brothers who died without any offspring from the same woman became a riddle to solve in the afterlife. Wolter holds that seven is "Ausdruck von Fülle, aber auch Geschlossenheit". Wolter, Lukas, pp. 656-657. 47 In Mk 12:18 –Saddoukai/oj, Mk (1); avna,stasij, Mk (2). In Mk 12:19 –katalei,pw, Mk (4); evxani,sthmi, Mk (1). In Mk 12:21 –deu,teroj, Mk (3); tri,toj, Mk (2); w`sau,twj,, Mk (2). In Mk 12:22 –spe,rma, Mk (5). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

242

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

appears four times in different grammatical forms in this narrative alone. The debate on ani,sthmi can be ended at Mk 12:25; the apocalyptic description of the form of resurrected 243 life is good enough to answer the Sadducees’ question. Jesus’ interpretation of Exod 3:6 (Mk 12:26-27) is not a neat answer to the introductory question in Mk 12:26a (cf. Mk 12:18).48 It speaks more about remembering the omnipresent or living, eternal covenant of God with the chosen ones, the patriarchs, who are taken to be immortal. 49 Nevertheless, it provides at least one argument from the Pentateuch, which is accepted by the Sadducees. There are no significant textual variants in Mk 12:18-27. 8.2.2.2 Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features The debate about resurrection (Mk 12:18-27) is the second debate in the second round of conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. It is placed between the debates about paying tax to Caesar (Mk 12:13-17) and the greatest commandments (Mt 12:28-34). The position of this debate seems to complement Jesus’ last words in the preceding debate, in which the worldly rulers, Caesar and God, are placed in a syntactic parallel as recipients of what they are entitled to (Mk 12:17). Are they morphologically parallel? Is God analogous to Caesar? Does God hide his presence behind the oppressive rule of the Roman government? The debate on resurrection may provide an answer to these questions. In this debate, God is stressed as being the God of the living (Mk 12:27), the one who keeps his covenant with the chosen ones, even though it is in the realm where all earthly contracts such as marriage have been dissolved. In the immediately following debate on the greatest commandments, it is stressed that God is one (Mk 12:29). This narrative is not only part of the debate chain, but is meant as a comfort to the audience after having heard Jesus’ (the Messiah) agreeable position regarding tax payment. Jesus’ position may have disappointed most Jews, who had been leading a destitute life under the oppressive rule of colonial governments. It emphasizes that God is the one and the Lord over the living. He reigns over the transient oppressive colonial rule. The narrative has only one scene. The protagonists remain the same throughout. Unlike the Pharisees and the Herodians in the preceding scene, the Sadducees come to In Mk 12:24 –plana,w, Mk (4); grafh,, Mk (3). In Mk 12:25 –gami,zw, Mk (1). In Mk 12:26 –avnaginw,skw, Mk (4); bi,bloj, Mk (1); ba,toj, Mk (1). 48 Ernst points out that the citation of Exod 3:6 does not provide direct proof of resurrection, unless it means that God holds the present and the future, Ernst, Markus, pp. 350-351. France gives a similar argument and maintains that it is from the character of the covenant with God that hope in resurrection is grounded. France, Mark, p. 471. 49 Daube, "On Acts 23: Sadducees and Angels", JBL 109 (1990) pp. 493-497, Philo, Sacr 5, which depicts Abraham as now being equal to angels. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

Jesus of their own accord.50 They first quote Mosaic Law, then raise the case of a Torahobservant family whose seven brothers all fail (seven indicates an absolute failure) to 244 produce offspring with the same woman (Mk 12:21). The situation of the brothers is featured in a syntactic parallel to stress that they suffer the same sad end. The story is told in aorist indicative form to support its authenticity. Jesus provides two answers in a similar pattern. Both are introduced by a reproach against the Sadducees (Mk 12:24, 26), then an argument in a syntactic parallel (Mk 12:25, 26). They both end with a remark that breaks the monotony of the parallel: avllV eivsi.n w`j a;ggeloi evn toi/j ouvranoi/j, a new form of resurrected life that is entirely different from that on earth (Mk 12:25) and ouvk e;stin qeo.j nekrw/n avlla. zw,ntwn (Mk 12:27), God’s living and lasting relationship with the patriarchs.51 Nevertheless, both arguments would not sound particularly convincing to the Sadducees as the Sadducees deny the existence of angels (Acts 23:8), 52 i.e., any analogous form of resurrected existence, and the Sadducees do not believe that the patriarchs are immortal.53 With Jesus’ second remark, the focus of the debate shifts from resurrection to the everlasting covenant between God and man. The narrative ends with Jesus’ third reproach of the Sadducees. No response is recorded from the critics or from the audience 8.2.3 Lk 20:27-39

8.2.3.1 Source and Text Criticism Lk 20:27-39 probably has Mk 12:18-27 as its source.54 It provides a more elaborate version of Jesus’ argument about resurrection. More than half of the rare words in Lk

50

Their denial of resurrection can also be found in Jos. Ant 18:16, Jos. Bell 2:165. evgw. o` qeo.j VAbraa.m kai. Îo`Ð qeo.j VIsaa.k kai. Îo`Ð qeo.j VIakw,b (Exod 3:6) are nominal clauses. They are also quotation from Moses. The missing verb in a nominal sentence in Hebrew is usually assumed to be hyh, which is the verb “to be”, and could be translated in past, present or future forms. 52 Davies & Allison point out that it is difficult to explain how Sadducees deny angels (Acts 23:8) but accept the Pentateuch as canon. This is because there is no shortage of narratives about angels in the Pentateuch, Davies & Allison, Matthew III, p. 227. Strack & Billerbeck point out that Jesus’ argument resembles that the first two blessings of the Berakah, in which the first blessing is the reminiscence of the covenant, i.e. God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the second is praise of God, who resurrects the dead to life, see SB, Kommentar IV, p. 211. 53 The patriarchs continue to live, see TestBen 10:6, TestLev 18:4, LibAnt 4:11, Sib 2:246. Klostermann doubts if Jesus’ interpretation of Exod 3:6 a widely accepted textual proof of resurrection in his time. If it were so, there should be no controversy between the Sadducees and other schools about resurrection, Klostermann, Markus, p. 127. 54 52% of the words and word sequence in Luke’s text follow those of Mark. Bovon maintains that Luke has two sources, namely (i) Mark (Lk 20:34-36, cf. Mk 12:24-25) and (ii) Sondergut (Lk 20:37-39), Bovon, Lukas 4, pp. 105-109. 51

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

20:27-39 come from Mk 12:18-27.55 ivsa,ggeloj is a hapax legomenon. Moreover, Luke’s text contains a few literary features from Hebrew and Hellenistic literature; Oi` ui`oi. tou/ 245 aivw/noj tou,tou (Lk 20:34) and th/j avnasta,sewj ui`oi. (Lk 20:37) have a strong Semitic flavour.56 The stylistic use of the active and passive form of the verb game,w in Lk 20:34 (gami,skw in Lk 20:34) in the same text (paronomasie) is also found in Hellenistic literature.57 There are no significant textual variants in Lk 20:27-39.58 8.2.3.2. Text, Immediate Textual Context and Literary Features As in his source, Mark, the school debate on resurrection (Lk 20:27-39) is the second debate in the second round of conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. It is placed in a series of debates on authority, dealing with earthly authority versus heavenly authority (Lk 20:20-26) and Jesus’ authority versus David’s (Lk 20:41-44). There is only one debate scene and the partners in the debates remain primarily the same, the Sadducees and Jesus. The appearance of some scribes at the end of the episode is rather awkward (Lk 20:44, cf. Lk 20:19). The Sadducees illustrate their disbelief in resurrection with a case coloured with pious observance of the Law of Moses. They ask about the consequence of such a life in the resurrection (Lk 20:28-33). In Luke, Jesus’ answer to them is essentially the same as given in his source, Mark, and in the parallel text in Matthew’s Gospel, both in terms of content and structure. The narrative in Lk 20:27-39 is rhythmical. Phonetic parallels are found in nearly all of the verses of the dialogue, showing that Luke is trying to make the debate as amusing as possible. The Sadducees’ quotation of Mwu?sh/j e;grayen (Lk 20:28) is corrected by Jesus’ Mwu?sh/j evmh,nusen (Lk 20:37), forming a morphological parallel with an overtone of mockery. Luke adds two qualifications to the argument. The resurrection is qualified to only include those who are judged worthy (Lk 20:36, cf. Lk 14:14). The resurrected are

55

In Lk 20:27 –Saddoukai/oj, Lk (1); avntile,gw, Lk (2). In Lk 20:28 –a;teknoj, Lk (2); evxani,sthmi, Lk (1); spe,rma, Lk (2). In Lk 20:30 –deu,teroj, Lk (3). In Lk 20:31 –w`sau,twj, Lk (3); katalei,pw, Lk (4). In Lk 20:32 –u[steron, Lk (1). In Lk 20:34 –game,w, Lk (6); gami,skw, Lk (2). In Lk 20:35 –kataxio,w, Lk (1); tugca,nw, Lk (1). In Lk 20:36 –ivsa,ggeloj, Lk (1). In Lk 20:37 –mhnu,w, Lk (1); ba,toj, Lk (2). In Lk 20:39 – kalw/j, Lk (4). In Lk 20:40 –tolma,w, Lk (1). The following rare words are also found in Mk 12:18-27: Saddoukai/oj, avntile,gw, evxani,sthmi, spe,rma, deu,teroj, w`sau,twj, katalei,pw , game,w, gami,skw, ba,toj. 56 Bovon, Lukas 4, p. 108. 57 Plut. mor 228A. 58 Codices A, W, Manuscript families 1 and 13 provide ÎavntiÐle,gontej avna,stasin mh. ei=nai in Lk 20:27, where the formulation of a double negative sentence contradicts the belief of the Sadducees. The reading of le,gontej avna,stasin mh. ei=nai is preferred here. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

qualified to be like children of God (Lk 20:35). 59 Jesus’ argument is presented with rhetorical elegance, featuring syntactics, morphological parallelism and alliteration (Lk 246 20:34-35). No wonder Jesus’ arguments are received with a positive response from the scribes, but not from the Sadducees (Lk 20:40). Luke is quite clear that the Sadducees are not convinced, although he cannot help mocking their absurdity. Isn’t it clear that Luke refines this piece in light of his conviction in the resurrection of Christ? 8.2.4 Matthew’s Redaction in Mt 22:23-33

Matthew’s narrative about the debate on resurrection does not differ significantly from his source. He only tries to add more authenticity to the Sadducees’ case by saying that it takes place among them (Mt 22:25). However, Matthew's depiction of the Sadducees is worthy of our attention. The Sadducees appear only once in the Gospels of Mark and Luke, in the debates on resurrection (Mk 12:18, Lk 20:27), whereas they appear four times in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 3:7, 16:1, 6, 11, 12, 22:23-24). The extent of the negative attention that the Sadducees receive from Matthew is almost comparable to that that he gives to the Pharisees. Their rare alliance with the Pharisees is stressed.60 Jesus’ reproach of incomprehension or miscomprehension of the Bible is only directed at the Sadducees and the Pharisees (Mt 9:12, 12:5, 19:4). The scribes are not reproached in 59

kai. in kai. ui`oi, eivsin tou/ qeou/ in Lk 20:36 may mean “and” or “like”, cf. Wis 5:5, 1 Hen 104:1-6, Barn 51.5. They refer angels were (like) sons of God. However, even if the resurrected are like the angels, they are not the same as angels, but only like them. 60 There is little primary source about Sadducees from the group itself. Most of the information about them are from the Pharisees. According to Josephus, there are at least three occasions on which Pharisees and Sadducees are mentioned together: (i) when the Sadducees become magistrates (avrch,), they will bind themselves to the Pharisees as the latter enjoy a higher esteem among the Jews (Jos. Ant 18:2,4, 16-17, Jos. Bell 2:162-166). avrch, may mean political governance or posts associated with the high priests, whose candidates are to be chosen from either the Pharisees or the Sadducees. The Sadducees are forced by public opinion to yield to the teachings of the doctors of law among the Pharisees, who enjoy a greater esteem from the public (b.Yom 19b, b.Nid 33b). (ii) The Sadducees do not accept the tradition of the elders (Jos. Ant 13:297-298). (iii) They revolt against the tax imposed on Judah in the time of the Cyenian rule (Jos. Ant 18:1-4). The very unlikely alliance of Pharisees and Sadducees appears three times in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 3:7, 16:1-2, 22:23). Here Matthew does not historicise the events but he hints at their collective negative influence within the Matthean community: (i) Some of them were baptized by John, i.e. they are nearer to Jesus’ group than those who deliberately refuse John’s baptism. (ii) They share an interest in the eschatological proofs given by Jesus (Mt 16:1) but at the same time they challenge Jesus’ teaching authority (Mt 22:23). (iii) Even as a small group, they are still exerting a negative influence on the Matthean community in their teaching (Mt 16:5-12, cf. Mk 8:14 where the yeast is from the Pharisees and Herod). (iv) The Sadducees switch camps of Pharisees to get political recognition; the Sadducees become Pharisees when they become ministers. See above: Jos. Ant 18:2, 4, 17. Also, an inscription in a synagogue in Jerusalem dated in the middle of the first century shows that a priest can also be an archisynagogue at the same time. This shows that an alliance between Sadducees and Pharisees is not impossible in a high ranking social position. See also Jackson and Lake op cit IV 67, cited from Barrett, NT Background, p. 51. Konradt is of the opinion that the alliance of Pharisees and their major opposers, Sadducees, shows their shared goal of discrediting Jesus, Konradt, Matthäus, p. 129. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

this way. With respect to resurrection, Matthew prefers the passive form of evgei,rw (Mt 247 16:21, 17:23, 20:19) to ani,sthmi. 8.3. Matthew’s Redaction in the Paying of Tax to Caesar and Resurrection 8.3.1 Paying Tax to Caesar

Matthew’s text primarily follows the narrative flow and arguments of Mark’s text. His Jesus is observant and compliant towards the paying of tax to foreign political authorities,61 a position that shows the injustice of the cause of his crucifixion (Mt 27:37, Mk 15:26, Lk 23:38). Matthew builds a stronger link to the justification for giving what is owed to the political authority with evpidei,xate, moi to. no,misma tou/ kh,nsou. This approach is very near to Paul’s position (Rom 13:6-7). This attitude echoes Matthew’s non-violent, non-retributive attitude towards the wicked (cf. Mt 5:39). He also inserts a parallel to Jesus’ agreement with paying temple dues to religious authority (Mt 17:24-27). Although Jesus is careful to pay what he owes to the political and religious authorities, the Jewish leadership does not pay (avpodi,dwmi) God what they owe him, i.e., lives that bear fruit (Mt 21:43).62 Luke also primarily follows Mark’s text. He makes almost no changes to it, except to stress the malicious attitude of the inquirers. Luke’s protagonists are obedient subordinates to the Roman Empire; Joseph and Jesus are agreeable to the payment of tax. Through Joseph’s observance of the census, the prophecy of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem is fulfilled. His Jesus cannot be deviant on the same issue. The debate on paying tax to Caesar serves primarily to falsify the false verdict that the Jews give to Jesus before Pilate (Lk 23:2). Luke wants to depict a pacifist earthly Jesus who is not at all harmful to the Roman authority. He records for the first time that the critics, not the crowd, are amazed at Jesus’ answer on the subject. It seems that Jesus’ argument is well accepted and the matter is settled. In Acts, the question of paying tax to the authorities is not raised at all. However, Luke’s Jesus has two attitudes towards his critics. The earthly Jesus takes a pacifist attitude towards his critics until his crucifixion. However, he advises his disciples to use “restrained” self-defence, using weapons, after his arrest, i.e., in his absence and in times of crisis in the post-Easter era (Lk 22:35-38).

61

Cf. Luz, Matthäus 3, pp. 259-260, especially note 44 of p. 259. Rölver suggests that the parable of the two sons (Mt 21:28-32), the parables of the wicked tenants (Mt 21:33-43), the parable of the wedding feast (Mt 22:1-14) prepare for the conflict of paying tribute to Caesar –whether the Israelites, who were subject to foreign rule, still observe God's sovereignty over them and do his will. See Rölver, Christliche Existenz, pp. 274-275. 62

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

Although Jesus is described as agreeable on the issue of paying tax, Matthew and Luke depict the Jewish critics in a less agreeable manner with respect to their relationship 248 with Jesus. Both intensify Jesus’ negative comments about the critics’ intentions (u`po,krisij). For Matthew, the critics are the Pharisees. For Luke, they are the chief priests and the scribes. Matthew describes his protagonists’ intentions as ponhri,a, whereas Luke calls his protagonists’ intentions panourgi,a. Matthew also points out that although the Pharisees discuss with each other on how to lessen Jesus’ influence, they only engage in battles of words with Jesus and are not involved in his crucifixion. Luke, however, reveals the critics’ intention of delivering Jesus to the authorities, as a prediction of the realisation of this intention in the texts on the passion. 8.3.2 Resurrection

Matthew does not make much redaction in the debate on resurrection. Both Matthew and Luke know that Jesus’ argument cannot convince the Sadducees (Acts 4:1-2, 23:6, 7, 8). Matthew reports only the enthusiastic response of the crowd to Jesus’ teaching on the subject, whereas Luke uses stylistic finesse to mock the Sadducees, who do not believe in Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 4:1-2). He only describes the scribes’ positive response at the end of the debate (Lk 20:39). The controversy about resurrection was very heated among the early Christians. The early church’s preaching about Jesus being resurrected from the dead annoyed the Jewish authorities, which definitely included the Sadducees. The Sadducees are said to have been the partners of the high priests in the post-Easter era in obstructing the ministry of the disciples in Jerusalem (Acts 4:1, 5:17). They appear more often in Acts, but only once in Luke's Gospel. In the pre-Easter era, their conflict with Jesus is merely theoretical, within the scope of a school debate. Matthew’s Jesus has a more negative opinion of the Sadducees even in the pre-Easter period. The group appears only once in Mark’s and Luke’s Gospels (Mk 12:18, Lk 20:27) but more often in Matthew’s. Mark mentions the partnership between the Pharisees and Herodians in Mk 7:15, whereas Matthew replaces the Herodians with the Sadducees in his version of this text (Mt 16:11, 12). Even the forerunner of Jesus, John the Baptist, dislikes the Sadducees. He initiates his criticisms of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 3:7). The Sadducees join with the Pharisees to ask for signs as proof of Jesus’ identity (Mt 16:1, 6). The yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees is warned against (Mt 16:11, 12). Matthew considers the Herodians irrelevant but the Sadducees relevant. The narrative about the Pharisees and Sadducees coming together at John’s baptism may show that these people are sympathetic to John’s views and may even wish to repent, although their conduct does not match their claims (they do not bear fruit, cf. Mt 3:7-8). What was their relationship with the Matthean community? It is obvious that the skepticism among the Jews about Jesus’ resurrection was still strong in the time of the Matthean community (cf. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Paying tax to Caesar & Resurrection

Mt 28:15).63 It is likely that despite the Pharisees’ belief in resurrection, they did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus. The Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ shared disbelief in 249 Jesus’ resurrection suggests a real threat to Christological teaching in the Matthean community. In this way the Sadducees, who no longer existed after 70 AD, are retrospectively reported on in the pre-Easter era in Matthew’s Gospel.64

63

Fascher holds that the conflict of resurrection reflects the debate between the Christians of the early church with the Sadducees, Fascher, die Formgeschichte Methode, p. 92. Konradt holds that Mt 28:15 shows that the Matthean community is still exposed to the Jewish environment, Konradt, Matthäus, p. 176. 64 Konradt maintains that Matthew put the two groups together to discredit the Pharisees. The Sadducees lost their influence after 70 AD, although they were politically influential before that time. The Pharisees rose to power after 70 AD. In the Gospel, the Pharisees join a group that has a fading impact because of the common aim to oppose Jesus, Konradt, Matthäus, p. 129. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

Chapter 9 Summary of Findings The aim of this final chapter is not to repeat Matthew’s redactions found at the end of each chapter, but to compare and contrast them. Some comments on issues related to the study are mentioned at the end of this chapter. This study of the conflict stories in the Gospel of Matthew shows that Matthew tries to retell Mark’s Gospel in a way that is relevant to his community. The narratives open a window for us to see what challenges Matthew and his community faced.1 9.1 Who Rocked the Matthean Community? For Matthew, the truly dangerous enemies of the earthly Jesus are the chief priests and the elders (oi` avrcierei/j kai. oi` presbu,teroi), who are the most powerful religious alliance and who eventually send Jesus to crucifixion (Mt 21:23, 26:14, 47, 57, 27:1, 20). However, they were not the real enemies of the Matthean community. The Pharisees were the enemies of the earthly Jesus only in oral battle. However, they may also have been the enemies of the Matthean community, primarily due to their opposition of Jesus’ status as the Messiah and his resurrection (Mt 12:8, 22-23, 22:41-45, 27:62-54). They are recorded as denying the resurrection of Jesus (which confirms that he is the Messiah), although they themselves believe in resurrection (Mt 27:62-64, 28:15, Acts 23:6). They regard the resurrection of Jesus to be a deception of the disciples that is worse than every deception they have ever heard before: kai. e;stai h` evsca,th pla,nh cei,rwn th/j prw,thj (Mt 27:64). This position links them with the Sadducees. Matthew inserts the Sadducees thrice more than his source, Mark, and replaces the Herodians with the Sadducees twice in his Gospel. The issue involved may also be connected with the resurrection. The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection and remained totally unconvinced, even though Matthew describes how the earthly Jesus silences them in the conflict about resurrection (Mt 22:23-33). Luke is more frank in his redaction of Jesus’ failure to convince the Sadducees. He does not mention their response to Jesus’ argument and only records the praise of some scribes (Lk 20:39). The Sadducees’ objection to the theme of resurrection emerges rather more obviously in Acts (Acts 4:1-2, 5:17-18). The Pharisees and those who are sympathetic to the position of the Sadducees after 70 AD are very likely to have significant influence over the community (cf. Mt 16:11), but the Pharisees are more 1

For a condensed analysis on the challenge the Matthean community faced, see Gundry, "Matthew: Jewish-Christian or Christian-Jewish? At an Intersection of Sociology and Theology" in The Old is Better, pp. 111-119, especially pp. 118-119. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

250

Summary

dominant. Matthew twice inserts a verse from the prophets (Hos 6:6), not the Pentateuch, to support his theology. The Sadducees did not accept prophetic books as part of the 251 canon. The Pharisees and Sadducees in the Gospel of Matthew seem to represent those who do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah in his lifetime. They also do not believe it even after his resurrection. Some disciples, and thus some members of the Matthean community, share the same doubt (Mt 28:17). The Matthean community’s attempts to convert the Pharisees and Sadducees in the post-Easter era met with such strong resistance that Matthew’s Jesus becomes no longer magnanimous (cf. Mt 5:39) but unleashes an uncivilised, bitter reproach on them.2 He also calls for their leadership to be replaced (Mt 21:43-45). Nevertheless, he calls them to repent before the final judgment comes. In the conflict on oral tradition, Matthew records the reaction of the Pharisees from the perspective (and observation) of the disciples, not as a comment by the author or Jesus. His reproach against the Pharisees’ competence is an outburst resulting from the disciples’ observant but casual remark that the Pharisees are shocked after hearing Jesus’ logion on the oral tradition (Mt 15:12). The Matthean community probably had a respectful attitude towards the Pharisees. Matthew’s Jesus would otherwise not need to react so negatively towards one of the major contributions of the Pharisees to Judaism, their defence and transmission of the tradition of the elders. Another group of critics of the Matthean community may have been the learned Jews, regarding the Torah. They quote Moses in their argument (Mt 19:7, 22:24), but Jesus refers only to God (Mt 15:4, 19:3, 22:31).3 Matthew’s Jesus is depicted as someone who is well- versed in the Torah, does not rebuke the Torah and does not provide any new teaching. 4 In the whole of the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew himself, as narrator and redactor, directly quotes from the Old Testament at least 11 times, 9 of which are in his Sondergut and all are framed as fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament (plhro,w).5 Matthew’s Jesus directly quotes the Old Testament at least 29 times, of which 16 are shared with Mark and five are shared with Luke.6 In 9 of the 15 conflict scenes with the

2

Matthew’s Jesus holds that those who call the brothers mwro,j should be subject to fire in hell (Mt 5:22). mwro,j appears six times in the Synoptics, and all of them are found in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 5:22, 7:26, 23:17, 25:2, 3, 8). The word is almost always used in the context of a community, except in Mt 23:17, where Jesus calls the Pharisees fools. Matthew’s Jesus has also called those who hear his words and do not practise them (Mt 7:26) mwro,j. Does Jesus subject himself to the same judgment of fire in hell, when he calls these two groups mwro,j? It is no wonder that a lot of textual witnesses insert ei,kh/ after ei;ph| in Mt 5:22 so that Jesus should not be subject to the final judgment, even though he also calls them fools. 3 See also Luz, Matthäus 3, p. 263, note 13. 4 Matthew never takes on Mark’s expression of “new teaching” in his Gospel (Mk 1:27). 5 Matthew quotes the Old Testament in Mt 1:22, 2:15, 2:18, 3:3, 4:15-16, 8:17, 12:18-21, 13:14, 35, 21:5, 26:9, of which only two verses that he shares with Mark are not framed in the prophecy formula, i.e. Mt 3:3, 13:14. 6 Matthew’s Jesus quotes the Old Testament in Mt 4:4, 6, 10, 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 35, 38, 43, 9:13, 10:35, 11:10, 12:7, 13:14, 15:4-9, 18:16, 18, 19:1-5, 21:13, 16, 42, 22:32, 37, 43, 23:38, 26:31, 64, 27:64. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

Jewish leaders, Jesus quotes the Old Testament directly 13 times. Nine of these are from Mark, one is from Q and three are inserted by Matthew himself.7 The two citations he 252 inserts are from Hos 6:6, which serves as a hermeneutical key to the narratives (Mt 9:13, 12:7). Matthew seems to soften Mark’s redactional tendency of stressing the sweeping effect of the new teachings of Jesus (Mk 1:22) by presenting Jesus as an excellent rabbi. Jesus’ citations from the Old Testament in the Gospel of Matthew are far more frequent than those of all of his critics. Each group of critics, the scribes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and even Satan (Mt 3:6), are given an equal chance to cite the Bible (Mt 2:5, 19:7, 22:24), but each group only has one chance. Jesus relates his logia as a continuation of Old Testament teachings. He is competent enough to have debates with the most learned Jews of his time and to correct their inadequacy. Matthew’s Jesus does not need to so frequently demonstrate his superior competence in the Bible and rabbinic discourse,8 if the community lacked learning and was not interested in it. Hence, it seems that Matthew’s targeted dialogue partners are also well-versed in the Old Testament. The Matthean community was probably more heavily rocked by the influence of very learned legalism than of “antinomianism” (cf. Mt 3:7, 16:11). It is highly likely that some scribes belonged to the Matthean community (cf. Mt 13:52) and that they enjoyed considerable esteem in the community (cf. Mt 13:52). The scribes are recorded as being knowledgeable about the Old Testament and its interpretation (Mt 2:4). They are passively involved in conflicts and in the process that leads Jesus to his crucifixion (Mt 21:23, 26:3, 57-59, 27:1, 20). They do not foster lies to deny his resurrection (Mt 27:62-64). Matthew removes the scribes (who witness Jesus’ protest on the temple, cf. Mt 21:15) from the debate between Jesus and the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem (Mt 21:23-27), effectively exempting them from the fate of losing their place in the Kingdom of God (Mt 21:43). The critics of the Matthean community were probably from within the community. The community was probably a corpus permixtum, not only in terms of ethnicity, but also of different phases of maturity in faith. Good and bad coexisted together. Matthew’s Jesus states twice that Pharisees are not planted by God (Mt 12:33-37, para Lk 6:45 [Q]; Mt 15:13; Mt 2:6, Lk 3:8-9 [Q]), but he refrains from suggesting that they are planted by the evil one (cf. Mt 13:25, 39).9 Matthew’s Jesus places church discipline (Mt 18:15-17) The citations which Matthew shares with Mark are: Mt 3:3, 11:10, 13:14, 15:4-9, 19:1-5, 18, 21:13, 16, 42, 22:32, 37, 39, 44, 26:31, 64, 27:46. The citations which Matthew shares with Luke are: Mt 4:4, 6,10, 10:35 24:39, 12:40. 7 Matthew cites the Old Testament in the conflict stories: Mt 9:13, 12:7, 40, 15:4-9, 19:1-5, 18, 21:13, 16, 42, 22:32, 37, 39, 44. The citations which Matthew shares with Mark are Mt 15:4-9, 19:1-5, 18, 21:13, 42, 22:32, 37, 39, 44. The citation which Matthew shares with Luke (Q) is Mt 12:40. 8 Jesus has used rabbinic discourse in his teachings, see Gerhardsson, Memory, pp 331-335. 9 Cf. IgnPhil 3:1. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

within a context that calls for acceptance and forgiveness exceeding the reasonable limit (Mt 18:12-22). If the critics were already outside the community, why should unlimited 253 tolerance and forgiveness be called for? The disciplined members were people such as tax collectors and Gentiles (Mt 18:17), who were the reason for Jesus’ coming (Mt 9:9-13). It seems that the disputes between them were mainly about halakha, different interpretations of the Torah with the same aim of living up to the Will of God through norms of practices. It is possible that in the absence of Jesus, different teachings emerged. The ordinary unlearned members of the Matthean community could not distinguish the genuine from the false, or great from good teaching. Matthew wants to uphold Jesus’ teachings. He refrains from making an immediate judgment against the critics, but gives them chance to repent, allowing them to be convinced by Matthew’s Jesus’ arguments (cf. Mt 13:28-30, 23:39). 9.2 What Rocked the Matthean Community? The Matthean community is given three assignments by the resurrected Jesus in the Gospel: to make disciples of all nations, to baptise them and to teach them to observe all the commands that Jesus gives them (Mt 28:19). These three assignments are related to the Gentile ministry, which was the major problem facing the Matthean community. 9.2.1 Justification for the Mission to the Gentiles

The Matthean community had a strong Jewish background. The promise of salvation came from the Jews (Mt 2:6, 10:5-16) and was meant primarily for the Jews (Mt 10:5-16, 15:24). The resurrected Jesus’ command to preach to the Gentiles challenged them to override ethnic and religious boundaries. This presented a great challenge: how could they overcome the historical, ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic differences that separated the Jews and the Gentiles and allow them to engage with one another in fellowship? Matthew provides a justification for the mission to the Gentiles not only with Jesus’ genealogy (Mt 1:3, 5, 6), but also through his redaction of the conflict stories, including the inclusion of a Jewish tax collector, Matthew, in the circle of 12 (Mt 9:9-13), the true cause of impurity (Mt 15:10-20) and the plight of the Canaanite woman (Mt 15:21-28). The final of these is not a conflict story, but is appended to the end of a conflict story about the true cause of impurity. In the conflict on table fellowship (Mt 9:9-13), Matthew names the tax collector Matthew, not Levi. Matthew may not be interested in retelling how a Levite (Levi), a supposedly devout male of priestly origin who has taken up the mundane and impure

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

profession of a tax collector, repents.10 Matthew does not put his hope in a hereditary priesthood, a politically motivated priestly Messiah, like the Hasmonean, or a lay 254 rebellion, like Bar Kochba’s revolt. He puts his hope in those who are ready to repent, regardless of their origin. He stresses God’s initiative in including a Jew who behaves more like a Gentile and associates very closely with them, but who is ready to repent, into his circle of 12 (Mt 10:3). Matthew prefers to group the tax collectors together with either harlots (Mt 21:31-32) or Gentiles (Mt 9:10, 11, cf. Mt 5:46-48, 11:19, 18:17). “Harlot” was a euphemism for a Gentile woman or for any Jewish woman who entered into marriage with a Gentile, an “illicit” marriage in the Biblical tradition. The tax collectors and harlots shared one feature, their close association with the Gentiles. The start of the ministry to the Gentiles was more easily executed through those who were already in close contact with the Gentiles. The name Matthew means “given by God”. In Matthew’s Gospel, the same construction, “to be given” with God, as the subject appears in Mt 21:43. God will take the Kingdom of God away from the unworthy vineyard tenants and give it to a nation that can bear fruit. Matthew sees the potential of those who associate with Gentiles: they can also lead a fruit-bearing life. In the conflict on the tradition of the elders (Mt 15:1-20), Matthew, like Mark, states that the real cause of impurity is from within, from the heart. Although Matthew does not develop the theme further in the conflict narrative, he elaborates on the theme of heart in his Gospel. Matthew is the only author of the Synoptics who describes the kind of heart that enables one to see God and what kind of heart Jesus has. Matthew’s Jesus talks about his own heart (Mt 11:29) and the implications of the “lighter” yoke he and his followers carry (see also Mt 16:24). Matthew’s Jesus states in his Sermon on the Mount that only those oi` kaqaroi. th/| kardi,a can see God (Mt 5:8). The structure of the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount shows that Matthew is eager to introduce better observance of the law (i.e., better righteousness). Matthew ends the section in the Sermon on the Mount on the Torah with e;sesqe ou=n u`mei/j te,leioi w`j o` path.r u`mw/n o` ouvra,nioj te,leio,j evstin in Mt 5:48 (Lk 6:36 [Q]). Jesus’ command is even more demanding than a contemporary rabbinic imperative; one must be merciful because God is merciful. His followers are called to take up the role of the priests and the priests’ requirements are always more demanding than those of laymen.11 His logion on calling his followers to be perfect may be analogous to Gen 17:1, in which God commands Abraham to be circumcised before he enters into the covenant with him. Matthew may imply that greater righteousness is 10

It is not uncommon that the Roman government collected tax from the agent of the priests in this time. For Matthew, the disciples are supposed to take up the duty of the priests, though they were not born to be priests. See the analysis in the conflict on the Shabbat. 11 Cf. 4Q MMT B 75-82. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

analogous to circumcision, which God gives to Abraham as a pre-requisite to perfection. Matthew’s Jesus sends his disciples to the Gentile world to teach and make disciples of 255 them, but without the requirement of circumcision (Mt 28:19). They are only required to be baptised. Matthew’s concern for the mission to the Gentiles is also shown in the narrative immediately after the conflict on the tradition of the elders, the healing of the daughter of the Canaanite woman (Mt 15:21-28). The narrative is not a conflict story but it is attached as an epilogue to the conflict story about the true cause of impurity. In the narrative, Matthew changes the ethnic origin of the woman from specifically Syro-Phoenician to an obsolete term, Canaanite (cf. Mk 7:24-30). The change to Canaanite is purely on religious, not ethnic, grounds. It refers to Gentiles, all non-Israelite idol worshippers. In the episode, Jesus makes an analogy between dogs and Gentiles (Mt 15:26). Dog was a nickname for male temple servants in the temple of Astarte in ancient Canaan. However, some Canaanite converts to Judaism later helped to serve in the temple. Dog may also have been a synonym for a servant and a self-humiliating address before one’s Lord in the Old Testament and in ancient oriental writings. The humble position of the woman who bows down before Jesus is analogous to the attitude of a maid before the king. Jesus’ threefold refusal of her request is strongly reminiscent of the Jewish tradition of accepting a proselyte into their community. Luke has a strong interest in Gentile ministry, but he handles the theme differently. He devotes his second volume primarily to this theme, as the issue belongs to the postEaster era. Like Matthew, Luke describes in his second volume that the mission to the Gentiles is given by the risen Jesus (Acts 1:8). Luke’s earthly Jesus also comes for the Gentiles (Lk 2:32). His Jesus is also in contact with Gentiles during his ministry, but primarily in a relatively reactive manner (Lk 17:16). Luke does not justify the Gentile ministry using the conflict on table fellowship (Lk 5:27-32) with the tax collector. For Luke, the tax collector does not carry the connotation of association with the Gentiles. His tax collectors are an example of religious or social outcasts who genuinely repent in all three narratives in which they appear. Luke describes the Gentile ministry as starting with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on people of different ethnic origins (Acts 2:1-11). The core requirement is meta,noia, which is found in Lk 5:32 and reappears seven times in Acts. Three of these occasions are in Peter’s sermons addressed to the Jews in Jerusalem and three are in Paul’s sermons in the Gentile regions. However, not all Gentiles are admitted to the fellowship, only the “God-fearers”. The “God-fearers of the Gentiles” are portrayed as being like pious Jews in their religiosity and generous to Jewish causes (Acts 10:2, cf. Lk 7:5). The “God-fearers of the Gentiles” serve as a legitimate hinge for the Jewish Christian mission to other Gentiles. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

The conflict on the true cause of impurity receives no more than a passing remark in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 11:39-40): The theme only unfolds in Acts: Peter breaks through the 256 boundary between Jews and Gentiles through a vision of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:10-17. The dietary laws that separate the pure Jews from the impure Gentiles are removed in this encounter. The issue of circumcision is first hinted at in Philip’s encounter with a Gentile eunuch (Acts 8:29-38) and later in the dispute about circumcision in Antioch (Acts 15:12).12 The two issues are discussed by the Apostolic Council in Acts 15:1-33. James does not start referring to the Gentile Christians as brothers of the Jewish Christians until after the Apostolic Council (Acts 15:22-23). In his letter addressed to the churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, the dietary law is lifted for the Gentiles but circumcision is not explicitly mentioned (Acts 15:19-20, 29). The problem of circumcision is supposed to be resolved through the inference, albeit not direct reference, in James’ speech (Acts 15:1321). 9.2.2 Authority to Forgive Sin

In the conflict on the authority to forgive sin (Mt 9:1-8), Jesus declares the sin of the paralytic to be forgiven. He can walk again. There is a second dimension to the connotation of paralysis in Mt 9:2, incompetence in the halakha (i.e., “walk” in Hebrew). The inability to walk can mean an inability to walk according to the halakha ($lh, walk) of the Pharisees. Jesus’ subsequent four debates with the Pharisees are almost all about the edifice of their halakha, such as table fellowship (Mt 9:9-13), the practice of fasting (Mt 9:14-17), work forbidden on the Shabbat (Mt 12:1-14) and the custom of washing hands before meals (Mt 15:1-20). All of the debates take place in Galilee, not in Jerusalem, where halakha can be more strongly imposed by the Jewish authorities. When the Matthean community was given the authority to forgive sin (Mt 9:8), they were given the authority to receive those people, who had been marginalised by Pharisees because of their failure to live according to their halakha, to their community. Jesus offers them his way ($rd, see Mt 21:32, Mt 22:16. The writer of the Gospel of John goes on to say that Jesus is the way (John 14:5) and promises them a light yoke, which is another form of the cross, i.e., his teachings (Mt 11:30, cf. Mt 17:24) and his own example (Mt 11:28-30). As mentioned above, the authority to forgive sin was essential for Jewish ministry and also for a community of corpus permixtum: delegating the authority to forgive sin to the Matthean community was necessitated by the vacuum left by the destruction of the temple (70 AD). The Israelites had no way and no-one to turn to after the instituted place and means for atonement were abolished. For a community of corpus permixtum, the authority to make modifications to the halakha may have enabled the Jewish and Gentile 12

The first Gentile who was converted to Christianity in Acts was a Eunuch, who was castrated and hence, no controversy on circumcision was involved (Acts 8:29-38). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

Christians in different phases of faith to live together. Matthew’s Jesus creates room for a slight modification to the Torah for his community (Mt 5:19): those who infringe the 257 least of the commandments will be the least in the Kingdom of God, but still in it. Luke’s position concerning the earthly Jesus’ authority to forgive sin is reserved for his Gospel. He mentions the forgiveness of sin twice in his Gospel (Lk 5:24, 7:47-50). Both occur in divinum passivum. However, the onlookers in the scene attribute the subject of the forgiveness of sin to Jesus in their remarks.13 Luke re-states the point more explicitly in the apostle’s post-Easter sermon in Acts, after Jesus rises and is sitting at the right hand of God (Acts 3:19, 7:60): God is the one who forgives sin. Luke does not try to expand the disciples’ ministry of calling for repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sin until after Jesus is raised from death (Acts 22:16). 9.2.3 Jesus’ Authority and his Logia The Matthean community was engaged in ministry to the Jews and the Gentiles. The community was probably successful in its ministry due to exorcisms, i.e., miracles of healing. The study of the conflict on the source of Jesus’ exorcisms (Mt 12:22-50) suggests that exorcisms were important in the wandering ministry of the Matthean and early Christian communities and also for the Jews. The Matthean community was threatened by the success of Jewish exorcisms, as Matthew and Luke (Q) must differentiate clearly between the exorcisms of Jesus (and his circle) and contemporary Jewish exorcisms. Both remain silent about the implication that Jesus’ and Jewish or Pharisees’ exorcisms come from the same source, i.e., from the same God. Matthew even removes the positive statement about the anonymous exorcists in his Gospel (cf. Mt 7:1523, Mk 9:38-41 and Lk 9:49-50). His Jesus plays down the importance of the exorcisms of his Jewish counterparts. Only Jesus’ exorcisms indicate that the Kingdom of God is with the people. Luke also says in Acts that the exorcisms of the non-Jesus camp may be ineffective (Acts 19:14-17), although he is also quick to correct the disciples and tell them that successful exorcisms alone should not be rejoiced over as much as that their names are written in heaven (Lk 10:17-20). Both Matthew and Luke are well aware of the danger and limitations of miracles to the generation. Immediate fervent excitement over a miracle but the lack of will to keep the logia in the heart is an obstacle to faith.14 This concern is expressed in the scenario of the return of the evil spirit (Mt 12:43-45, Lk 11:24-26 [Q]). Both Matthew and Luke 13

Lk 7:47, avfi,hmi is often used in divinum passivum. See also Lk 11:4, 12:10, 23:34, with the exception of Lk 5:24, when Jesus mentions the authority of the Son of Man to forgive sin. 14 Mk 3:22-30 does not mention about the return of the unclean spirit, but Mt 12:43-46, Lk 11:24-26 [Q] do. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

realise the importance of keeping and practising Jesus’ logia. Luke challenges all those listening to the debate on exorcism (the accusers of Jesus’ exorcism and the neutral 258 enquirers asking for a sign) with the same task as the disciples, to hear, keep and practise the words of God and to be a lamp (Lk 11:28, 33-36, cf. Lk 8:16-21). Matthew ends the debate with a warning to those who have experienced healing by exorcism and the generation that requests a sign. Matthew’s Jesus adds an additional participial adjective to the state of the house that indicates that it may invite wicked unclean spirits to occupy it, scola,zonta. It is an active participle, which is a contrast to the other two participles, which are in passive form. This participle implies that everyone has a responsibility for their own undefended idleness, which in Matthew’s terminology means not bearing fruit (Mt 3:9-10) or not practising the words of God (Mt 8:21, 24-27). Matthew and Luke have the same motives, but they express their concern in different literary structures and arrangements. The Matthean community was more serious in reflecting how Jesus’ logia can be applied in their own discipleship. In the debate about divorce, Matthew attaches a school discussion on celibacy after the conflict on divorce (Mt 19:1-9). It is the only occasion in the Gospel that the disciples take an even more stringent position than the Pharisees on the Torah. They may want to be more righteous than their Jewish counterparts (Mt 5:20). The discussion hints that the Matthean community was trying to apply Jesus’ logion on divorce on their way to discipleship. They wanted to be more righteous than the Pharisees. The question of celibacy and the way of discipleship (to perfection) may have been current problems in the Matthean community. A community that is eager to stress and apply Jesus’ logia in their discipleship must first assert the authority of Jesus and his logia. Matthew is particularly eager to lay stress on the earthly Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of David (Mt 1:1, 16:16). The problem of Jesus as the Messiah may have been the source of a major conflict between the Matthean community and its critics. Matthew’s Jesus reacts very strongly when his exorcism is disqualified for being demonic. He gathers the harshest words of judgment from all of the sources available and adds his own redaction to reproach them. Why? Through Jesus’ exorcism, the people begin to realise his identity and authority. The first time the crowd asks if Jesus is the Son of David (the Messiah) is after they saw him perform his second exorcism (Mt 12:23), healing the demon-possessed man with the severest problems of all of the needy and sick in Matthew’s Gospel. He is demon-possessed and doubly handicapped; daimonizo,menoj tuflo.j kai. kwfo,j. Being blind and dumb could suggest being incapable of understanding the mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 13:13-16, cf. Isa 43:8-12). The healing itself may make the people realise Jesus’ Messianic authority and consequently integrate them into Jesus’ circle (Mt 13:16). However, this budding realisation is crushed by the Pharisees’ haughty correction. Matthew’s Jesus The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

reacts equally strongly when the priests and scribes forbid the children to praise his healing in the temple. The children’s praise is a mixed citation from Ps 118:26. It 259 represents the people’s perception of Jesus’ identity (Mt 21:9, cf. Mt 21:10, Rom 1:3-4, John 7:42). It appears twice in the context of the conflicts in Jerusalem. It is first sung by the crowd, who ask a core question about Jesus’ identity but are given a commonplace anti-climactic answer (Mt 21:11). The second time it appears is in a broken refrain that brackets all of the conflicts in the temple. The first half of the refrain of Ps 118:26 is begun by the children when Jesus heals the blind (Mt 21:15), singing w`sanna. tw/| ui`w/| Daui,d.15 However, they cannot complete the refrain as they are censured by the chief priests and the scribes. The rest of the refrain is picked up by Jesus before he leaves the temple (Mt 23:39), saying uvloghme,noj o` evrco,menoj evn ovno,mati kuri,ou. Not only must Jesus’ identity as the Messiah be reaffirmed, but the authority of Jesus’ logia must also be established. In the conflict stories on the traditions of the elders and the Torah (Mt 15:1-20, 19:1-9, 22:34-40), Matthew tries to show that Jesus’ exegeses of the Torah are in line with the original intention of the Torah, whereas the interpretations of the Pharisees and the scribes have been drifting away from it. A study of Mt 5:18, 24:35 shows that Matthew’s Jesus aligns his words with the fulfilment of God’s promises in the Old Testament. Jesus’ words – oi` de. lo,goi mou (Mt 24:35, see also Lk 21:33) – last forever because his words are the confirmation of what God has promised for the apocalyptic era and a rightful expression of God’s will. Jesus does not place the importance of his own words above the Torah, but above the Pharisees’ interpretation and application of it. He encourages the rich young man to keep the commandments to enter eternal life (Mt 19:17), although he adds that this is still not enough to be perfect (Mt 19:21). Perfection requires following Jesus. He is the touchstone for the Torah and for inheriting eternal life. Luke has a double loyalty to the Torah and to the words of Jesus in the pre-Easter era. In Lk 16:31, the words Mwu?se,wj kai. tw/n profhtw/n and tij evk nekrw/n avnasth/| are set as thematic parallels. The words and teachings of the earthly Jesus are primarily interpreted as good news (Lk 4:18, 43, 20:1, cf. Lk 16:16b). Luke’s discussion of the shared wish of Jews and Christians to inherit eternal life (Lk 10:21-42) strongly hints that he places observance of the Torah and discipleship of Jesus on an equal footing. Luke deepens the theme of loving God with one’s whole being (Lk 10:27, cf. Deut 6:6) with Jesus’ praise of Maria’s undivided attention in his presence (Lk 10:42). This thematic parallel shows that Luke regards the words of God as equal to Jesus’ logia in his Gospel. However, in the post-Easter era, both the Torah and Jesus’ words play a less significant role in the 15

The blind are not forbidden to enter the temple, cf. Acts 3:1-2. They are only forbidden to enter the priesthood (Lev 21:18). It is because the lame are incapable of travelling to the temple, and the blind cannot distinguish pure from impure offerings in the temple. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

lives of the Christians. In an open letter addressed to the Gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia on the lifting of most of the Jewish laws for the Gentile Christians (Acts 260 15:28-29), it is stated that the decision is endorsed by the disciples, the elders and the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:23, 28). Moses, the prophets and even Jesus no longer play a role there. 9.3 Where did the Matthean Community Stand? 9.3.1 They were not Strong, but Teachable

In his redaction of the conflict stories, Matthew tries to portray the Matthean community as a community that is not strong, but is teachable. A study of the conflicts on table fellowship (Mt 9:9-13) and the conflict on the greatest commandments (Mt 22:3439) shows that Matthew avoids the use of ivscu,j for Jesus and his circle. Matthew tells that even John, the predecessor of Jesus, has for a long time incorrectly expected ivscuro,tero, of the person coming after him. He has to ask his disciples to seek clarification from Jesus’ disciples in John’s last days in prison (Mt 11:2-3). A study of the composition of Mt 9:9-13 shows that Jesus’ logion has close thematic and morphological links with Ezek 34:4. The composition of the debate shows that Jesus is like a shepherd. He sees the needs of the crowd, as ivdw.n de. tou.j o;clouj brackets the narratives from Mt 5:1 to Mt 9:36. He furthers his ministry by sending out his disciples. This is a criticism of the Jewish leaders of the community. The contrast between to. kakw/j e;con and to. ivscuro.n in Mt 9:12 shows that the Matthean community was on the side of the weak, not the strong;16 to. kakw/j e;con means exhausted, not just sick, and to. ivscuro.n means forcing one’s way with violence or strength, not just healthy. The former need to be restored, the latter constrained. The tax collectors and sinners are to. kakw/j e;con. They are “exhausted” from being required to follow and being measured against the Pharisees’ halakha. The Pharisees are to. ivscuro.n. They need to be restrained. The Synoptics provide slightly different versions of Deut 6:5. None of them provide exact quotations from the Hebrew text or the LXX. In quoting the second half of Deut 6:5, Matthew has three faculties (a triad of kardi,a, yuch, and dia,noia, in that order), whereas Mark has four (a quartet of kardi,a, yuch,, dia,noia and ivscu,j, in that order in Mk 12:30). The omission of ivscu,j may be due to Matthew’s reservations about ivscu,j: to. ivscuro.n is not a favourite term of Matthew’s to refer to Jesus. It refers to a misconception about his mission, which is characterised by non-resistance to the wicked (Mt 5:39, cf. Mt 17:27).

16

Cf. Apoc Peter 78:22, 79:19, 80:11. The community is against church hierarchy. See further Apoc Peter 79:22-24. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

The Matthean community was a teachable community. A further study of the open criticism of Jesus’ table fellowship with the tax collectors and sinners is repeated using 261 Mt 11:18-19 (Lk 7:34 [Q]). The remark is an example of the failure of Jesus’ ministry in the coastal cities (Mt 11:20). The Israelites’ rejection of Jesus is explained by Jesus’ quotation from the wisdom tradition in Mt 11:25-27: God the Father hides these things from the sofo,j kai. Suneto,j and reveals them to nhpi,oj (Mt 11:25-27). nhpi,oj may mean “to be educated” and “with a strong potential of being taught” and does not refer only to young people. Here, those with this potential in Mt 11:25-27 are placed thematically parallel to the Gentile regions and the regions beyond the original core area of Jesus’ ministry in the preceding lament in Mt 11:22. Likewise, the tax collectors and the sinners in Mt 11:19 form a morphological parallel to the teachable youth, nhpi,oj, in Mt 11:25. They are more ready to listen to Jesus and are more willing to repent (Mt 9:11, 11:19). They are to. kakw/j e;con because they are willing to repent. The Pharisees offer them a “way” for repentance, but this way exhausts them. Jesus promises them the light yoke (Mt 11:30) of his cross. Jesus’ first command after his resurrection is poreuqe,ntej ou=n maqhteu,sate pa,nta ta. e;qnh( (Mt 28:19). maqhteu,w also means to be taught. Only those who are willing to be taught can bring those with the same potential to Jesus. The lightness of the yoke (which another form of the cross, i.e., his teachings) promised by Jesus does not lie in his lax adherence to the Torah. In fact, he requires more righteousness than the contemporary learned Jews (Mt 5:20). Rather, it lies in Jesus’ willingness to receive the outcasts into his circle even before they provide restitution. A willingness to repent and be taught are considered good enough for acceptance into fellowship with Jesus. 9.3.2 They were not Born to be Priests, but They were Called to Take Up their Function

Matthew identifies the potential of teachability as the essential quality of the children who are welcomed by Jesus (Mt 19:13-15). In the study of the conflict on the temple (Mt 21:12-17), Matthew displays a strong sympathy towards the children, whose intuitive recognition of Jesus’ status surpasses the professionalism of the temple leaders. In this debate, the leaders of the temple demonstrate threefold incompetence, as they facilitate the turning of the temple into a den of robbers (Mt 21:13), they fail to recognise Jesus as one coming from God and fail to greet him (Mt 21:14-17) and they do not intercede for the blind and lame (the sick and the needy) in God’s temple (Mt 21:14). With the word play on the Aramaic !b (children or disciples), !ba (stones), !ynb (building) and tyb (house or temple), Matthew links his redactions of three conflict stories to hint three times at the replacement of the temple leaders by the disciples, whom he likens to children, a group with the essential quality of being willing to be taught. In the The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

conflict on the temple, Matthew’s sympathy with !b (the children or disciples) is clear. They surpass the temple leaders in recognising Jesus but their praise of Jesus is choked 262 by the priests. In the parable of the wicked tenants and the citation included in it from Ps 118:22-23, Matthew further extends the word play on !b to !ba (stone) in his redaction. Another quality of the group that can replace the temple leaders is named in this parable (Mt 21:33-43), the ability to bear fruit. This quality is determined by a consensus of the listeners (i.e., the Matthean community) and Jesus (Mt 21:14, 45). Their consensus brackets the quotation from Ps 118:22-23: the rejected stones (!ba)) will become the cornerstone. The ability to bear fruit is exactly what the Jewish leaders lack (Mt 3:10, 21:19, 45, see also the discussion on the redaction of the conflict on paying tax to Caesar Mt 22:13-22) and what the Matthean community was striving for. In the conflict on the Shabbat (Mt 12:1-8), Matthew continues the word play between !b (children or disciples) and tyb (temple). He draws the reader’s attention to the parallel between the disciples and the priests. God does not rest on the Shabbat and neither do the priests, as they continue to serve God by offering sacrifices on behalf of the people. The disciples breach the Shabbat rest to still their hunger. The adjective they have in common with the priests is blameless (avnai,tioj, Mt 12:5, 7). Both of them have tou/ i`erou/ mei/zon evstin (Mt 12:6). Matthew uses the three parallels to hint that the disciples (and early Christians) take up the function of priests, as the priestly offices were abolished after the destruction of the temple. The functions cover three aspects: they can teach (Mt 28:20), they can make alterations to the contemporary halakha (Heb 7:12) and they can declare someone clean and consequently reintegrate them into the community. Analogously, they can forgive sin (Mt 8:4, 9:8). In Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ and Son of God in Caesarea Philippi (Mt 16:13-30), Matthew continues the wordplay on !ba (stone) and hnb (build). pe,troj is a synonym of li,qoj –!ba (stone). It is Peter’s recognition of the identity of Jesus both as the Son of God and the Christ that makes him mouldable, or one who can be moulded by God, from a stone into the bedrock of the church (Mt 16:18-19). This quality is not restricted to Peter, who is just as fallible as the others (Mt 14:15, 16:23, 19:27, 26:34). All of the stones lying idly about have this potential, if they have Peter’s recognition. 9.3.3 They were Less Exact than the Pharisees in Observing the Torah, but They were More Eager for Greater Righteousness

Matthew refutes antinomianism’s accusation against Jesus by presenting Jesus as a pious Jew: Matthew’s Jesus does not breach the Shabbat rest. In contrast to the relaxed attitude of Luke’s Jesus to the Shabbat, Matthew’s Jesus is very cautious. Matthew does not report Jesus’ first miracle (in the form of an exorcism by command) on a Shabbat (cf. Mk 1:21-26, Lk 4:31-37, compared with Mt 4:23) or the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law on the Shabbat (cf. Mk 1:29-32, Lk 4:38-40, Mt 8:14). Matthew’s Jesus does not infringe The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

the purity laws during his healing of the woman with a haemorrhage and the officer’s daughter (Mt 9:18-23). He does not touch the woman (Mt 9:20) and he does not touch the 263 girl in the presence of the onlookers (Mt 9:25). Matthew’s Jesus honours the Torah. However, Matthew also sees the constraints that may be imposed on his community by portraying a Jesus who is absolutely obedient to the Torah. A study of the three conflicts on the traditions of the elders and the Torah shows that Matthew wants to portray a pious and learned Jesus only to outbid the authority of the Pharisees in their teachings. The three debates are presented in ascending degrees of importance as regards the Torah and increasing difficulties in exegesis. The (oral) tradition of the elders with the Torah is first positioned (Mt 15:1-20), then two conflicting or complementary sayings in the Torah are reconciled (Mt 19:1-9) and finally, the fundamental commandments on which all other commandments depend is identified (Mt 22:34-39). Jesus and the Pharisees are also presented as rivalling for the rightful authority to interpret the Torah. In the end, Jesus gains the victory over the Pharisees. The same conclusion is found in the rounds of debates between Jesus and the most learned Jewish groups in Jerusalem (Mt 22:41-46). Why is it important that Jesus’ exegesis surpasses that of the Pharisees? The Matthean community could not beat the Pharisees in observing the Torah exactly and literally. It claimed to follow Jesus and his logia and strove for greater righteousness (Mt 5:20, see the discussion on Mt 19:10-12). If Jesus’ logia does not surpass the Pharisees’, the Matthean community risked losing its integrity and credibility. It is very likely that the Matthean community lived in an environment in which people expected a change in the law. It wanted a change in the interpretation of the Torah and the halakah to fit its context. John the Baptist and Jesus are therefore often regarded as Elias redivivus (Mt 16:14, 17:10). According to Jewish tradition, Elia can bring change to the law.17 The Matthean community perceived itself to be the new priesthood, so it introduced changes to the law (Heb 7:12) to allow room for moderation in observing the Torah when infringing the least of the commandments (Mt 5:19). Matthew is inclined to cram the problems of his community into the conflicts facing the earthly Jesus, to point out their relevance. According to Matthew, the teaching of the earthly Jesus will play a lasting and continuing instructive role not only in the days of the Matthean community, but also until the End of Days (Mt 28:20). There is no discontinuity between the logia of the earthly Jesus and their application in Matthew’s time. Jesus’ teachings are confirmed by God, who raises him from the dead. As far as Matthew’s redaction of the conflict stories is concerned, the Matthean community followed the logia of the earthly Jesus and honoured two principles above the other commandments. Matthew’s Jesus removes the Old Testament citation of Akoue( VIsrah,l\ 17

Daube quoted Siph on Deut 18:15. See Daube, New Testament and Judiasm, p. 296. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

ku,rioj o` qeo.j h`mw/n( ku,rioj ei-j evsti,n from Deut 6:4a, so that the two greatest commandments (Mt 22:34-40) are not only binding to the Israelites but also to the 264 Gentiles. The priority of compassion (Hos 6:6) underlines the motivation for the ministry to the Gentiles (Mt 9:13) and is the reason for permitting the Shabbat rest to breached, if deemed necessary (Mt 12:7). It should be noted that the Matthean community still observed the Shabbat (Mt 24:20). Luke shares Matthew’s concern about the vacuum in religious authority after 70 AD, but in a more radically egalitarian way moved by the Holy Spirit. He describes how the transfer of the role of the heir to the true Israel takes place in the post-Easter era, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The filling of the vacant post of the twelfth disciple is done by drawing lots (Acts 1:23-26), which resembles the practice of choosing which priest is to serve (Acts 1:8, 2:4, 15:13; Lk 1:9). Although Luke stresses that the key criteria for selecting a replacement for Judas is the candidate’s continuous presence with the earthly Jesus from his baptism to his resurrection (Acts 1:21), the words and deeds of the earthly Jesus are not a theme in any of the sermons of the early Christians. Jesus’ logia does not play a significant role in the decisions or conflict-resolution of the first generation of Christians. Only his resurrection plays a role (Acts 1:22, 2:32, 3:15, 4:1012). For Luke, the Holy Spirit works in the two epochs of the earthly Jesus and the early Christian church. The presence of the Holy Spirit fills the absence of Jesus. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not Jesus’ logia, solves the conflicts in the community (Acts 10:43, 47, 15:28). Luke also tries to establish Jesus’ teaching authority, but as a continuation of the rightful line of Torah interpretation, but as an epoch-maker. He feels no urgent need to establish the earthly Jesus’ teaching authority to support the church’s ministry or teaching. The pressing concern of vetting the different interpretations of the Torah does not come until after Easter, when Jesus is absent. Luke records a historical hierarchy for decisions that functions well in the early Christian church, the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:1-29). Luke is not even concerned about positioning the oral teachings of Jesus against those of his competitors. The early Christians did not need Jesus’ logia or consult Jewish norms when they had problems as they had the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Matthew stages the conflicts about the Torah and the oral tradition as Jewish school debates and resolves them through the Jewish means of exegesis. Luke, however, tries to present the conflicts on the oral tradition and the Torah from the different perspectives of the Jews and Gentiles. According to Luke’s Gospel and Acts, the conflict about the law, the oral traditions and their relative legality is triggered mainly by the early Christians’ post-Easter mission to the Gentiles, in which the issue of circumcision becomes critical. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

Luke carefully tones down the absolute requirement for circumcision from the status of law to custom in Acts. The Jewish laws become Jewish customs when they move across 265 ethnic boundaries. The use of no,moj in the Gospel of Luke always refers to Jews. Likewise, in Acts no,moj is used primarily by and between Jews, not between Jews and Gentiles. When the same theme is picked up in Acts, it is referred to as e;qoj, which is from the perspective of the Gentiles, not para,dosij. Luke’s hidden message is that the Jews make both their law (the Torah) and customs into laws. However, it is not necessary for the Gentiles to do the same. His Paul uses different terminology to refer to the same Torah when he talks to different audiences. nomo,j (Acts 13:38, 22:3, 23:3, 28:8) and e;qoj (Acts 28:17) are used in his speech to the Jews, but only e;qoj is used in his speech to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 16:21, 26:3). The absolute nature of the Torah and Jewish customs are relativised through Paul’s use of e;qoj only in his Gentile ministry. The Matthean community may have used another Biblical verse to argue in favour of breaching the Shabbat rest, the priority of compassion (Hos 6:6). Luke does not use Biblical arguments, but rather theology. Healing is a spontaneous action and liberating people from their bondage always takes priority. In fact, Lk 6:6-11, 13:10-17 and 14:1-6 are triplets in the Shabbat conflict. They are presented according to the critics’ ascending positions in the religious hierarchy (Lk 13:14 versus Lk 14:1) and the severity of the impurity of the disease (Lk 13:11 versus Lk 14:2). They have in common the consistent readiness and spontaneity of Jesus to heal the sick, even on the Shabbat. Jesus’ healing also reflects Luke’s increasingly relaxed attitude towards the Shabbat rest. Luke’s Jesus first heals only by giving a command (Lk 6:10), then he heightens it with an action (Lk 13:13) and finally Luke reports that Jesus simply heals and does not bother to describe how he heals on the Shabbat (Lk 14:4). He also reports the response of the critics from “covered with confusion” (Lk 13:17) to “not able to respond anymore” (Lk 14:6). Luke only mentions in two conflict narratives in his Gospel that the critics of Jesus are either silenced by Jesus’ arguments or cannot respond anymore. They are the conflicts on paying tax to Caesar (Lk 20:26) and the Shabbat (Lk 14:6). Both conflicts are also not elaborated on in Acts. It is highly probable that these two conflicts were well settled in the time of the earthly Jesus and do not belong to the conflicts in the post-Easter era. From the above summary, it should be noted that Matthew has a strongly anachronistic tendency to place post-Easter problems into the pre-Easter conflict stories. The findings also show that Luke has a similarly anachronistic tendency even though he has a better tool in his two volumes covering the pre- and post-Easter epochs. Whenever he comes to the issue of Jesus’ identity and authority, Luke also retells the stories in light of the post-Easter developments. However, Luke is careful to reserve the use of the technical term about worshipping God, proskunei/n, for the resurrected Jesus. It can be The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

said that Jesus as the Messiah was already strongly unfolded and felt by, and had left his influence on, the people who encountered the earthly Jesus. Actually, the issue of Jesus as 266 the Messiah remains the dominant anachronistic element in both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Even though both Matthew and Luke believed in the presence of God beyond the temple and both thought that table fellowship with tax collectors was the first step to crossing the Jewish religious and ethnic boundaries to world mission, these beliefs did not bring them into severe conflict with their contemporaries. Both the Jews and the early Christians considered that believing in God was not enough for salvation. What provoked the conflicts between them was that the Jews hold that one must observe the Torah and the Christians think that one must also believe in Jesus and his identity as the Messiah to obtain salvation. The core of the clash that Matthew and Luke had with their counterparts lies in faith in Jesus as the Messiah. 9.3.4. Can the Path to Faith be Cleared of all Doubts and Opposition?

The path to faith is rough and narrow. Doubt is a part of life in the Christian community (Mt 28:17). Both Matthew and Luke see the same difficulty faced in responding to Jesus’ call for discipleship (Mt 8:23, Lk 9:57-61). The way the two authors place Jesus’ call for discipleship shows how they see the problem and its solution. The insertion of two logia from Q (Mt 8:18-22, Lk 9:57-60 [Q]) as a prelude to the narrative of the stilling of the storm shows that Matthew redacts it for the purpose of discipleship.18 The semantic construction of the first verse of the stilling of the storm resembles the first verse of the conflict with the Jewish critics on Jesus’ authority to forgive sin and to heal the paralytic (cf. Mt 8:23, 9:1). As discussed in this study, the healing of the paralytic may hint at Jesus’ criticism of the crippling effect of the Pharisees’ halakha ($lh, walk) on the community. It is probable that he sees these hindrances to discipleship as metaphorical storms rocking the community. He provides comfort to the disciples who have little faith (ovligo,pistoj in Mt 8:26, 14:31, 16:8, 17:20) by assuring them of the Lordship of Jesus over storms. He does this by his rebuttal of their fear (through his words, see Mt 8:23-27)19 and his presence (the meaning of the name Jesus is God is with us), beginning with his birth and continuing to the end of time (cf. Mt 1:23, 28:20). The same pattern is found in Matthew’s handling of the conflict narratives in his Gospel, in which Jesus’ words silence his critics. Unlike Matthew, Luke uses empiricism to describe the outcome of the response to Jesus’ call to discipleship; they will experience success (Lk 10:1-20). The same pattern is found in the sequel to his Gospel. Acts provides more 18

Bornkamm, "Die Sturmstillung im Matthäusevangelium" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäus Evangelium, pp. 48-53, pp. 52-57. 19 evpitima,w (Mt: 6, Mk: 9, Lk:12). In Hebrew, it could be r[g. (cf. Zech 3:2). Even though Mark uses the same word in the narrative on the stilling of the storm, he does not place this narrative after Jesus’ radical call for discipleship (Mk 4:39) but as Jesus’ miraculous deeds on one of his travel itineraries. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

accounts of successful ministries after the disciples actively take up mission work. It is therefore no wonder that Acts does not end with any logion of Jesus or sermon of Paul, 267 but with an open end (Acts 28:28). The story of the Gospel has no end; it is continued by living witnesses, who will witness success in their ministry until the end of the world (Lk 1:4). Hindrances to faith and how to overcome them are expressed through the retelling of the conflict narratives. The conflict narratives preserve Jesus’ teachings in a dialectic way. His teachings emerge from dialogues with his critics and exchanges with doubters. The conflict narratives belong not only to the past, but also to the present. The Matthean community faced similar conflicts in their time. They read the narratives about Jesus’ conflicts not only in the light of the kerygma of the risen Christ, but also with the experience of their own community and other Christian communities. It is in the reflective dialogues on past traditions and the continued engagement in dialogue with the different schools of his time that Matthew makes Jesus’ teachings into living words. Matthew’s Jesus commands the disciples to pass on his teachings (Mt 28:20). 20 The letters of the teaching are unalterable and therefore timeless, but the living interpretations must be passed on. Matthew differentiates between Jesus’ teachings and those of his contemporaries in his conflict narratives, but he does not deny their due respect (Mt 23:23). He criticises only the incongruity between teachings and deeds. 21 This feature resembles Jewish school debates; rabbinic literature is not short of critical discussions of the Torah.22 During a debate, each side sees the others as potential converts to its own beliefs and doctrine. Each side attempts to win by criticising its critics severely and by defining itself through opposition to others. 23 Although Matthew categorises the Pharisees and the scribes as sons of vipers, he does not call himself or his church righteous or teachers. He subjects both his community and its critics to the same challenges to bear fruit in life and to be judged by God at the end of time. 24 These common challenges are more important than what separates Jesus’ followers and the Jewish critics, both in the time of Jesus and the time of the Matthean community. 20

It is like translating the Torah for the unlearned. It is a way of making it more understandable and practical for one's contemporaries. See b.San 21b-22a. 21 At the End of the Day, it is not the knowledge or confession that counts, but the fruit-bearing life (Mt 7:21-24, 25:31-45). 22 Citing from the Old Testament and the debate on its correct interpretation and application are the key theme in the Midrash. 23 Examples of Jews’ recording opposing opinions from different schools can be found in all their Talmud and Mishnah, e.g. See Sifre Deut §131, §143, b.Ber 30b. 24 To bear fruits is analogus to obeying the will of God, putting the Torah into practice in life. In fact, putting the Torah into practice is very central to the judgment at the end of the Time. Gundry sums up two scenarios for the historical contexts of Matthew´s Gospel: (i) the Gospel represents an intramural competition for power within Judaism, or (ii) it represents an intramural crisis of discipleship within Jewish Christianity. See Gundry "Salvation in Matthew" in The Old is Better, pp.120128. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

However, Luke handles the conflict tradition in Acts entirely differently. Luke’s Jesus 268 does not command his disciples to pass on his teachings. He promises them the Holy Spirit (Lk 24:46-49, Acts 1:8). 25 For Luke, the concrete conflict scenes of the earthly Jesus do not function as representative episodes for solving similar conflicts that emerge later. Jesus’ resurrection is more important, as it provides proof of the emerging of the Kingdom of God on earth and the gradual realisation of the will of God.26 This realising of God’s will is continued by the Holy Spirit after Jesus ascends into heaven. The Christian community seeks solutions for its own time through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which makes its ministry successful (Acts 6:1-7, 15:22-31). The conflicts in the Gospel of Matthew are a record of Jesus’ rebuttal of poor halakha. For Matthew, glamorous teachings make no better disciples than practices (bearing fruit) do. It is through doing the will of God that one can enter the Kingdom of God, not through calling Jesus Lord (Mt 7:21). Were the members of the Matthean community doubtful about Jesus’ status as the Messiah, or about his other teaching, but still remained in the community? Does the road to faith and salvation allow room for doubt and opposition? Matthew does not give a direct answer to these questions. However, his quotation from Isa 6:9-10 on the hope of change,27 his parables on the co-existence of tares and wheat and his emphasis of unlimited forgiveness, even when the community is given disciplinary discretion on retaining and expelling members, show that doubt and opposition were part of the life of the community. His stress on a fruit-bearing life shows that he is searching for a common goal for the two parties to strive for (Acts 4:32 reflects the moral pressure that Christians are under to behave properly). He leaves the final judgment at the end of time in the hands of God. Surely the emergence, survival and 25

The only two occasions where the earthly Jesus’ words are recalled are in Acts 1:1-4 and 20:35 (and perhaps Acts 6:14, if it is not presented as statements by the false witnesses). Some aspects of the life of the earthly Jesus are summarized very briefly in Acts 1:21-22a, 2:22, 10:37-39, 19:4. The most frequently mentioned aspects about the earthly Jesus in Acts are his crucifixion and resurrection, Acts: 2:24-40, 3:1226, 4:10-12, 5:30-32, 7:52, 10:39-43, 13:23-41, 17:31, 26:23. The words of the risen Christ, rather than the earthly Jesus, are more frequently recalled in Acts (Acts 1:3-8, 9:5-6, 22:8, 16). The voice in Acts 10:13-16 is less likely to be a reminder of the teaching of the earthly Jesus about food taboos. If the earthly Jesus had taught about food taboos, Peter should have no difficulty in breaching the food taboo in his vision. 26 Luke’s relatively infrequent mention of the earthly Jesus in Acts aligns with the early Christians’ stronger emphasis on the resurrected Christ than on the earthly Jesus (cf. 2 Cor 5:16). Nevertheless, Scholtissek points out that Paul’s identification of the crucified earthly Jesus with the risen Christ paves the way for the interest in the earthly Jesus, Scholtissek, Geboren aus einer Frau, p. 197. Labahn provides a survey of recent studies on how Jesus’ teachings and their allusions could have been received by the authors of the non-synoptic writings in the New Testament, Labahn, "The Non Synoptic Jesus: An Introduction to John, Paul, Thomas, and other outsiders of the Jesus Quest" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, vol. 3, pp. 1965-1971. 27 The citation of Isa 6:9-10 is interpreted as an ironical reproach in Targumic tradition. It calls for the change and repentance of the Israelites. See Lehnert, Provokation, pp. 293-296. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

successful expansion of Christian communities (as Gamaliel says in Acts 5:34-42 and Paul claims in 1 Cor 15:10), contrasted with the destruction of the temple and the 269 downfall of the temple cult, supply enough proof for Matthew of divine favour towards the Christian faith. However, the closeness of Matthew’s Jesus to the will of God may suggest the absolutism of his words, which can be a cause of fundamentalism if his claims are not subject to debate and criticism, are not checked by counter-arguments and are not relativised by the historical and religious context. The literary form of the conflict narratives shows that Jesus’ teachings are couched in fair debates. Matthew is probably aware of this risk, so stresses the divine Sonship of Jesus and his uniqueness as the only teacher (Mt 23:8-10). Only Jesus can make such absolute claims, all other creatures on earth cannot. 9.4 Postscript 9.4.1 Problem of Luke’s Great Omissions

In what way can the great omissions in Luke’s Gospel be elucidated by his conscious appropriation of the narratives in the post-Easter period? There are approximately 10 great omissions in Luke’s Gospel, in comparison with the Gospels of Mark and Matthew: (i) the death of John the Baptist (Mt 14:5-12, Mk 6:1729); (ii) the miracle of the loaves (Mt 14:13-21, Mk 6:30-44); (iii) Jesus walks on water (Mt 14:22-33, Mk 6:45-52); (iv) the summarium of Jesus’ healing at Gennesaret (Mt 14:34-36, Mk 6:53-56); (v) the dispute on purity (Mt 15:1-20, Mk 7:1-23); (vi) the meeting with a Syro-Phoenician/Canaanite woman (Mt 15:21-28, Mk 7:24-30); (vii) the miracle of healing a deaf man (Mk 7:31-37, but Matthew also omits this); (viii) Jesus’ opinion about Elijah (Mt 17:10-13, Mk 9:11-13); (ix) the mother of Zebedee’s sons asks for a special favour in the Kingdom of God (Mt 20:20-28, cf. also Mk 10:35-40); and (x) the cursing of the fig tree (Mt 21:20-22, Mk 11:20-26). Some observations can be made about these omissions. Omissions (i) to (vii) belong to the same block in the same sequence in Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels, whereas the rest of the omissions (viii to x) are dispersed among other pericopes. In this block of seven narratives, two are related to the ministry to the Gentiles. (i) The dispute on purity involves issues about removing the demarcation between clean and unclean through the abolition of the food taboos in the Torah (Mk 7:123). (ii) Jesus’ meeting with the Syro-Phoenician woman directly involves a Gentile (Mk The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

7:24-30).28 The theme of the Gentile ministry re-emerges in Acts 10 and 15, but in a different literary form. It is extremely plausible that their omission in Luke’s Gospel is 270 caused by Luke’s historical consciousness: the themes belong more to the post-Easter era. The remaining omissions may be caused by Luke’s political, theological and literary preferences. The omission of the death of John the Baptist (Mt 14:5-12, Mk 6:17-29) may be caused by Luke’s attempt to preserve the image of a harmless Christian faith for the political authorities.29 Luke also hints at his criticism of the cause of John the Baptist’s death in Lk 16:18. The omission of the miracle of the loaves (Mt 14:13-21, Mk 6:30-44), which is a dublette in Mark’s and Matthew’s Gospels, is not a real omission. Luke writes a miracle of loaves in Lk 9:12-17. It is not his style to have a dublette with only minor alterations. Luke prefers writing similar episodes with expansions, such as the three miracles of healing on the Shabbat and Jesus’ two encounters with tax collectors. His expansions tend to dramatise the details in a new context. The omission of Jesus’ walking on water (Mt 14:22-33, Mk 6:45-52) may be caused by Luke’s deliberate attempt to differentiate between the portraits of Jesus and the Holy Spirit; according to Old Testament tradition, the Spirit of God sweeps over the waters (Gen 1:1).30 The question about Elijah (Mt 17:10-13, Mk 9:11-13, Lk 9:19) is an associated question about Jesus’ identity (Mk 8:20, Mt 16:14). Its omission in Luke can be explained by his clear stance that John is like Elijah, not Jesus (Lk 1:17). Even the disciples of Jesus understand themselves as being like Elijah (Lk 9:54). The omission of the asking of the favour by the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Mt 20:20-28, Mk 11:20-26) can be explained by Luke’s respect for the first Christian leaders. Even Peter’s pledge to Jesus to avoid his passion in Jesus’ first foretelling of his fate (Mt 16:21-23, Mk 8:31-33) is removed by Luke (cf. Lk 9:22). The reason for the removal of the curse on the fig tree (Mt 21:20-22, Mk 10:20-26) is clear: Jesus cannot contradict himself with respect to cursing (Lk 9:11-13). 9.4.2 Which Conflicts were Still Rocking the post-Easter Christian Communities?

From the above analysis of Matthew’s redaction, one can conclude that the following problems that troubled the earthly Jesus were still rocking the Matthean community: Jesus as the Messiah and his resurrection, the mission to the Gentiles and the related issues of table fellowship, food taboos and circumcision, the halakha adopted by their community, which could deviate from that of their Jewish counterparts and the 28

Similar to Lindemann, "Einheit und Vielfalt im lukanischen Doppelwerk" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte, p. 237. 29 See Horn, "Die Haltung des Lukas zum römischen Staat im Evangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte" in The Unity of Luke-Acts, p. 222. 30 Luke may try to avoid the association of Jesus with demons, which are regarded by Hellenistic literature of having the ability to walk on the water. Cf. Luc. Philops 13. Also, he may want to distinguish Jesus from the Holy Spirit, who sweeps over the water (Gen 1:2). The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

qualifications needed for leadership after the priesthood was abandoned after 70 AD. The problems that were considered settled in their community include paying tax to the 271 political authorities and the Shabbat. Luke considers three problems to still be relevant to the Christian community in the post-Easter era and which he therefore elaborates on in Acts: is Jesus the Messiah? Luke retains all of the conflicts about the issue in the time of the earthly Jesus. His direction of redaction follows the same direction as Mark’s and Matthew’s. In Acts, the issue wins both sympathy and opposition from Jews and Gentiles alike. The stress that Matthew places on the strong resistance to the issue in his Gospel is not found in Acts. The mission to the Gentiles and the related issues of table fellowship, dietary laws are resolved in the Apostolic Council in Acts 15. The issue of qualifications for leadership, especially when no more eye-witnesses are available, is resolved in the conversion of Paul (Acts 9:1-19) and his selection of his co-workers (Acts 15:32, 38-40, 16:1-3). The issues that Luke considers to have been resolved already in the time of the earthly Jesus and that were not problematic in the post-Easter era include keeping the Shabbat and paying tax to Caesar. From the study of the response of the critics (not the crowd) to Jesus’ teaching, Luke records the critics’ amazed response or their inability to give an answer in only two conflicts, the conflicts of paying tax to Caesar and the Shabbat. These conflicts are also not mentioned in Acts. They were probably no longer considered problems in the postEaster era. According to the internal evidence in the non-Gospel writings of the New Testament, 31 the following themes were considered problematic in the post-Easter Christian community and are discussed in their writings: table fellowship with Gentiles,32 the pre-requisite for Gentiles to convert to Judaism,33 dietary laws34 and the ethical cause of impurity.35 The role of the disciples in the church is also discussed in these texts.36 The themes of paying tax to political authorities (Rom 13:1-7, 1 Pet 2:17) and keeping the Shabbat were no longer considered to be problems by the Christian communities (John 7:23, Rom 14:5-6, Gal 4:8-11, Col 2:16).37

31

According to the Gospel of John, the following issues are considered to be problems for the Christian community: (i) Shabbat (John 5:10-12, 16-18, 9:14-39), (ii) Jesus’ divine sonship (John 5:17-18, 19:7). See also Kilpatrick, Origins of Mt, p. 115. 32 The power of purity to overcome impurity can be seen also in 1 Cor 7:14. See also Acts 11:3, Gal 2:11-13. 33 Acts 15:1. 34 Acts 15:19, Rom 14:14. 35 Gal 5:19, Eph 4:19, 5:3, Col 3:5. 36 1 Pet 2:4-8. 37 Different Christian communities could have had different positions on the observance of the Shabbat. See Doering, Schabbat, p. 405. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

A cursive check of the external evidence in contemporary Jewish and Hellenistic writings indicates that all of the themes mentioned in the time of the earthly Jesus are also 272 discussed in the post-Easter era writings: table fellowship with am ha ares, such as tax collectors, 38 the tradition of washing hands before meals, 39 exorcism, 40 the legitimate grounds for divorce, 41 the principle underlying all commandments, 42 paying tax to a foreign political authority,43 resurrection,44 Jesus’ identity and his using miracles as proof of his authority45 and circumcision.46 Shabbat observance had been a problem since 8 BCE,47 but had completely ceased to be an issue for many early Christian communities.48 See b.Ber. 47b, Tos.Dem. 3:4, Toh. 7:6. The demographic structure in the early Christian communities tilts toward Gentile Christians. In Justin’s debate with Tryphon, a Jew, Tryphon points out that in his day the Jewish Christians mix with Gentiles freely. They do not observe circumcision, Shabbat, dietary laws. Ius. dial. 10:1-2. 39 b.Shab 14b. Jesus was accused by the Pharisees that he did not regularly go through the proper means of purification. See Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840. 40 Ius dial 69:7, Ius. 1 Apol. 30:1. Jesus (who was known as Ben Stada by the Rabbis) was considered to be using the power of God illegally by stealing the secret of God’s name. See b.San. 43a, 67a, 104b, 107b, b. Sota 47a. 41 The School of Shammai interprets the text of Deut 24:1 and reaches the conclusion that the husband cannot divorce his wife except for sexual immorality (b.Git 90a, y.Sota 1:1, 16b). The School of Hillel holds that the husband need not assign any reason whatever, that any act on her part which displeases him entitles him to give her a bill of divorce (b.Git 1b). It is because there is no more love in the relationship. Some, however, support the remarriage of a divorced couple (b.Ed 4: 7). See also TestAsser 2:8, where divorce and prostitution are mentioned together. 42 When instructing the proselyte regarding the chief commandment of the law, Hillel and Akiba hold that the whole teaching is summarized in Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18. See b.Shab 31b. Later discussion holds that a law which can be fulfilled only by the transgression of another law is considered unlawful (b.Suk 30a). Also the proselyte must be made familiar with all commandments (b.Yeh 47a). These rules seem to be directed against the teaching of the Christians. The tendency to summarize ethical norms into one or two axioms is also found in Hellenistic literature. See Plut. mor. 116. 43 According to the contemporary discussion, the Pharisees did not object to paying tax to foreign authorities. See b. Pes 112b, b.BQ 113a, Philo Abr. 228, 240. 44 Philo, Sacr 5, QG 2:15, Abr 50:51, Plut. mor 370C, Jos. Bell 7:356-357, 1 Hen 39:5-6, 4 Esra 7:31, b.San 90b, TestBen X:6. 45 Didache does not mention that Jesus is the Son of God. The term “son of God” is used only by the deceiver of the world, who uses signs and miracles to seduce people. Cf. Did 16:4. Barnabas’ Brief, however, mentions that Christians are sons of God (Barn 4:50), and Jesus is the Son of God (Barn 5:9, 11, 7:2). 46 There has already been rabbinic debate at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century on the necessity for circumcision as a pre-requisite to the conversion of proselytes to Judaism. Josephus does not insist on the proselytes being circumcised. See Jos. Vita 112, 149. Justin replaces circumcision with baptism. See Ius Dial 15:7, 18:2,3, 19:2, 62:3, 63:1-3 The Christian community of Barnabas did away with circumcision, see Barn 9:4. Also, Ephiphanius points out that only the heretics insisted on circumcision, see Här 29. However, Eusebius points out that the first fifteen bishops in Jerusalem are circumcised Christians, Eusebius, Hist Eccl 4:15. It seems that the lifting of the need for circumcision faces less resistance in the Diaspora. 47 The Shabbat is regarded as a sign between God and Israel alone. A Gentile observing the Shabbat deserves death (b.San 58b, cf. Jub 2:17-21, 28, 31). The saying was probably directed against the Christian Jews who disregarded the Mosaic laws, and yet at that time kept up the observance of the Jewish Shabbat. 38

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Summary

Almost all of the problems mentioned above have been discussed since the time of the earthly Jesus and were not fully settled in the post-Easter period. However, only in the 273 issues of table fellowship with the am ha ares and the purity laws are Jesus’ views markedly different from those of his contemporaries. For the other issues, Jesus’ teachings find an echo in other parties or groups in Judaism. Criticism of the Pharisees as a group cannot be found among the Jews until the beginning of the second century.49 Criticism of the Synagogue is also found in the New Testament, but only in writings from the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century (John 9:22, Rev 2:9, 3:9).

9.4.3. Short Evaluation of the Method

This study compares the redactions in the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke, together with Acts, to shed light on how Matthew coats his post-Easter concerns in the pre-Easter narratives of Jesus. The results suggest that the hypothesis is plausible and that the method is feasible. Luke’s two-volume work with its division into pre- and postEaster eras provides a tool for classifying pre-Easter and post-Easter conflicts in his time, and hence for shedding light on the anachronistic tendency of Matthew’s redactions. However, the method is subject to four limitations: Luke also has his own anachronistic tendencies in his redactions. However, his historical consciousness makes him group the conflicts relatively reliably in two chronological epochs. Christology is an anachronistic constant in the Synoptics. There are always regional and ecclesiastical differences in the problems and conflicts each local church faces. The criteria suggested by this method apply to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, but may not be applicable to the Gospel of John. It is hoped that this study will prompt further investigations into the close connection between the Synoptics and the life and struggles of the early Christian communities.

The Christians kept two Shabbats: (i) keeping Saturday in memory of the creation and (ii) keeping Sunday, the Lord’s Day, in memory of his resurrection (Eus. h.e. 3:37, Barn 15, IgnMagn 9:1. Christians assembled on a fixed day. See also Jos. Bell 1:146, 2:392, Ius dial 62:3 and Plut. mor 671F, 672A. The prophetic criticism of the inobservance of the Shabbat by the Jews can be found in Amos 8:5, Isa 1:9, Jer 17:21, Ezek 20:12-16, 20, 21, 24, 22:8, 23:38. Jews in the time of the Maccabees honoured the Shabbat till their death (1 Macc 2:29-38, Jos. Ant 12:274). Nevertheless, for the sake of saving life or withstanding an enemy, breaching the Shabbath is allowed. See Jos. Ant 12:274, 13:3, 18:319-324, 1 Macc 2:39-41. Lanfranchi, “Attitudes to the Sabbath in Three Apostolic Fathers: Didache, Ignatius, and Barnabas” in Jesus, Paul and Early Christianity, pp. 243-259. 48 See IgnMagn 9:1. 49 At the beginning of the second century, R Joshua b Hananiah called eccentric Pharisees “destroyers of the world”, see y.Sota 3:4, y.Sota 3:199. An ancient baraita enumerates seven classes of Pharisees, of which five consist of either eccentric fools or hypocrites, see y.Ber 9:14b, b.Sota 22b, Ab RN Text A, 38, Text B, xlv. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Bibliography

274 Bibliography The Greek New Testament is cited from the Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, 27th edition. The Hebrew Old Testament is cited from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5th edition. The Septuaginta is cited from Septuaginta (editio altera). Most of the abbreviations follow Abkürzungen Theologie und Religionswissenschaften nach RGG4 , UTB 2868, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2007. Alternative abbreviations are given for the titles of the books in the bible and apocalyptic literature that have different abbreviations in English and in German. The key to most bibliographical abbreviations in the form of Author’s Name and Surname is given in the Bibliography below. 1. Bibles ---. Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgartensia. 5. Auflage. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. ALAND, Kurt. et al rev. and ed. Synopsis of the Four Gospels. Eleventh Edition. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2000. ALAND, Kurt. ed. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et partum adhibitis edidit. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005. NEIRYNCK, Frans. et al rev. and ed. Q-Parallels, Q Synopsis and IQP/CritEd Parallels. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. NESTLE-ALAND ed. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27. revidierte Auflage. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 2006. RAHLFS, Alfred, HANHART, Robert. ed. Septuaginta (editio altera). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. ROBINSON, James, M., HOFFMANN, Paul, KLOPPENBORG, John, S. ed. The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English with Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas. Leuven: Peeters, 2001. SPERBER, Alexander. ed. The Bible in Aramaic based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, Targum. Vol. I-IV. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959-73. --- Bibleworks (electronic resource) version 6. WEBER, Robert, GRYSON, Roger (praeparant). Biblia Sacra Vulgata. Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. 5. verbesserte Auflage. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Bibliography

2. Dictionaries and Concordance ALAND, K., RIESENFELD, H., ROSENBAUM, H.-U., HANNICK, Chr., BONSACK, B. Vollständige Konkordanz zum Griechischen Neuen Testament – Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung - Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung an der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster 4. 3 Bände, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978-1983. BAIER, Thomas. ed. Der Neue Georges –Ausführliches Handwörterbuch LateinischDeutsch. Band I & II, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2013. BALZ, Horst, SCHNEIDER, Gerhard. ed. Exegetische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 3. durchges. Auflage. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer GmbH, 2011. BAUER, Walter. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. 5. Auflage. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpfelmann. 1958. BORGEN, Peder, FUGLSETH, Käre, SKARSTEN, Roald. ed. The Philo Index –a Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria. Leiden: Brill, 2000. FRISK, Hjalmar. Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Band I & II. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätverlag, 1960-1970. GESENIUS, Wilhelm. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. 18. Auflage. Berlin: Springer, 2013. HATCH, Edwin, Redpath, Henry, A. ed. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament –including the Apocryphal Books. Vol. I & II. Graz-Austria: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, 1954. HÖFER, J., Rahner, K. hg. Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche (LThK). 2. völlig neu bearbeitet Auflage. Verlag Herder Freiburg. 1959. HOFFMANN, Paul, HIEKE, Thomas, BAUER, Ulrich. Synoptic Concordance –a Greek Concordance to the First Three Gospels in Synoptic Arrangement, Statistically Evaluated, Including Occurrences in Acts. Vol. 1-4, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999-2000. ILAN, Tal. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part I-IV. Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2002-2012. JASTROW, Marcus. ed. A Dictionary of Talmud Babl. Yerushalmi, Midrashic Literature and Targumim –with an Index of Scriptural Quotations. Vol. I & II. New York: Pardes Publishing House, Inc., 1950. JENNI, WESTERMANN. ed. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Vol. I & II. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1984. KITTLE, G. ed. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1942. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

275

Bibliography

KÖHLER, Ludwig, BAUMGARTNER, Walter. Hebräisches und Arämisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Band 1 & 2. 3. Auflage. Leiden: Brill, 2004. KLAUSER, T. hg. Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Sachwörterbuch zur Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt. Stuttgart: Hiersemann Verlag, 1950. LIDDELL, Henry, SCOTT, George. A Greek English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. [Abbrev.: Liddell-Scott, Lexicon] MANDELKERN, Solomon. Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae. hebraicae atque chaldaicae. Editio Altera Locupletissime Aucta et Imendata. 1937. MENGE, Hermann, GÜTHLING, Otto. Griechisch Deutsches und Deutsch Griechisch Wörterbuch. Teil I (Griechisch Deutsch). Berlin Schöneberg: Langescheidtsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1910. [Abbrev.: Menge-Güthling, Wörterbuch] MOULTON, William, & GEDEN Alfred. ed. Concordance to the New Testament. 6th Edition. London: T&T Clark, 2002. MOULTON, J. H., MILLIGAN, G. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, illustrated from the Papyri and other non Literary Sources. London: Hodder and Stoughton Limited, St Paul’s House, Warwick Square, 1920. MURAOKA, Takamitsu. Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint –Keyed to the Hatch-Redpath Concordance. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998. MURAOKA, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Paris: Peeters, Louvain, 2009 PREISIGKE, Friedrich. Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyruskunden –mit Einschluß der griechischen Inschriften, Aufschriften, Ostraka, Mumienschilder usw. aus Ägypten. Berlin: Selbstverlag der Erben, 1931. REICKE, Bo und ROST, Leonhard. hg. Biblisch-Historisches Handwörterbuch – Landeskunde, Geschichte, Religion, Kultur, Literatur. Band I-IV. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962-1979. RENGSTORF, Karl Heinrich. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. Vol. IIV. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973-1983. SCHALIT, Abraham. Name Wörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus. Leiden: EJ Brill, 1968. SCHMOLLER, Alfred. hg., Handkonkordanz zum Griechischen Neuen Testament – (Text nach Nestle), 8. Auflage, Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1949. [Abbrev.: Schmoller, Handkonkordanz] SPICQ, Ceslas, and ed. by ERNEST, James D. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, trans. Vol. 1-3. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1994. VAN DER TOORN, Karel, BECKING, Bob, van der HORST Pieter W. ed. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1995. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

276

Bibliography

[Abbrev.: DDD]

277

3. Early Jewish and Christians Writings, Grammars and Exegetical Aids HANSCHKE, Paul bearbeitet. Aureli Augustini. Opera Pars V. Corpus Christianorum XXXIII. Turnholti, Typographi Brepolis. editores Pontificii. Belgium. 1959. REITHMAYR, Franz X ed. Justin und andere Apologeten. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter –eine Auswahl patristischer Werke in deutscher Übersetzung. 1 Band. Kempten & München: Verlag der Jos Kosel, 1932. GRENFELL, Bernard, P. ed. & translated. Oxyrhynchus Papyri: Part 5. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1908. MIGNE, Jacques, Paul. Quinti Septimii Florentis Tertulliani presbyteri Carthaginensis opera omnia –cum selectis praecedentium editionum, Rhenaneae nempe, Pamelianae, Rigaltianae, Parisiensium, Venetae, etc., lectionibus, variorumque commentariis. Corpus Christianorum, editones Pontificii. Turnholti, Typographi Brepolis, editores Pontificii. Belgium, 1957. ALAND, Kurt, ALAND, Barbara. Der Text des Neuen Testaments –Einführung in die wissenschaftlichen Ausgaben sowie in Theorie und Praxis der modernen Textkritik. 1. Auflage. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1982. ALAND, Kurt, ALAND, Barbara. ed. Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handscriften des Neuen Testaments IV. Die Synoptischen Evangelien. 6 Bände. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998-1999. [Abbrev.: Aaland, Text und Textwert] ALAND, Kurt, ALAND, Barbara. ed. Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handscriften des Neuen Testaments III. Apostelgeschichte. 2 Bände. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1998. [Abbrev.: Aaland, Text und Textwert] ABEGG, Martin G. Jr., BOWLEY, James E., COOK, Edward M. (in consultation with Emmanuel Tov), ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance –the Non Biblical Texts from Qumran. Vol. 1-3.2, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003-2010. BABBITT, Frank Cole. trans. Plutarch’s Moralia. I-XV, The Loeb classical library 197, 222, 245, 305, 306. London: William Heinemann Ltd. 1949-1972. BECKER, Hans-Jürgen. Avot de Rabbi Natan –synoptische Edition beide Version. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 116. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. BECKER, Hans-Jürgen, HENGEL, Martin, Hüttenmeister, K.U., SCHÄFER, Peter. Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi. Band I-VI. Tübingen: JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1980-2006. BIETENHARD, Hans (übersetzt und erklärt). Sifre Deuteronomium –Der tannaitische Midrasch. Judaica et Christiana 8. Bern: Peter Lang, 1984. [Abbrev.: Bietenhard, Sifre Deut] The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Bibliography

BLASS, Friedrich, DEBRUNNER, Albert, REHKOPF, Friedrich. Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 18. Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen. 2001. [Abbrev.: BDR, Grammatik] COHN, Leopold. ed. Die Werke Philos von Alexandria –in deutscher Übersetzung. Band 1-3. Stefen Münz/Breslau: Jüdischer Buchverlag, 1909-1919. COLSON, F.H., WHITAKER, F.H. translated. Philo. 10 Bände, and 2 Supplementary Volumes. London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1953. DANBY, H. (übersetzt und erklärt). The Code of Maimonides. Book Ten. The Book of Cleanliness. Yale Judaica Series 8. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954. [Abbrev.: Danby, Maimonides] EHRLICH, E.L., STEMBERGER, G. hg., Pirke de Rabbi Elieser –nach der Edition Venedig 1544 unter Berücksichtigung der Edition Warschau 1852. aufbereitet und übers. von Dagmar Börner-Klein. Studia Judaica XXVI. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. FISCHER, Joseph, A. hg. Die Apostolischen Väter - griechisch und deutsch. Schriften des Urchristentums 1. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006. [Abbrev.: Fischer, AP Väter] GARCIA MARTINEZ, Florentino, TIGCHERLAAR, Elbert J.C. ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition. Vol. 1-2. Leiden: Brill, 1997-1998. GOLDSCHMIDT, Lazarus. Der Babylonische Talmud. 12 Bände. Berlin: Jüdische Verlag, 1929-1936. [Abbrev.: Goldschmidt, Babylon Talmud] GUGGENHEIMER, Heinrich.W. The Jersusalem Talmud. Studia Iudaica. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000[Abbrev.: Guggenheimer, Jerusalem Talmud] HAUBECK, Wilfrid, VON SIEBENTHAL, Heinrich. Neuer Sprachlicher Schlüssel zum Griechischen Neuen Testament. Giessen:Brunnen Verlag, 1997. [Abbrev.: Haubeck, von Siebthal, Schlüssel] HAWKINS, John. C. Horae Synopticae :Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1899. [Abbrev.: Hawkins, Horae Synopticae] HEINEMANN, I., ADLER, M. ed. Die Werke Philos von Alexandria in Deutscher Übersetzung. Band 4-6, Stefen Münz/Breslau: Jüdischer Buchverlag, 1923-1964. HILBERG, Isidorus. ed. Hieronymus, Epistularum Pars 1, Epistulae I-LXX. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vol. LIV. 2. erweiterte Auflage. Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wisschaften, 1996. HOMOLKA, Walter. hg. Die Lehren des Judentums nach den Quellen. 3 Bände, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1999. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

278

Bibliography

HORACIO, Lona, E. Der erste Clemensbrief. Kommentar zu den apostolischen Vätern 2. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen. 1998. JENNI, Ernst. Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Sprachen des Alten Testaments. Basel und Frankfurt am Main:Verlag Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1981. [Abbrev.: Jenni, Lehrbuch] KRUPP, Michael. hg. Die Mischna –textkritische Ausgabe, mit deutscher Übersetzung und Kommentar. 51 Bände. Israel, 1993-. KÖRTNER, Ulrich, H.J., LENTZSCH, Martin, hg. Papiasfragmente, Hirt des Hermas. Schriften des Urchristentums 3. Darmstadt: wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006. KÜMMEL, Werner, Georg. hg. (in Zusammenarbeit mit Habicht, Christian, Kaiser, Otto, Plöger Otto, Schreiner, Josef). Jüdische Schriften aud hellenistich-römischer Zeit. 38 Bände. Gerd Mohn: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1973LICHTENBERGER, Herman. hg. (In Zusammenarbeit mit Habicht Christian, Kaiser, Otto, Kümmel, Werner Georg (gest. 1995), Plöger, Otto (gest. 1999), Schreiner, Josef). Jüdische Schriften aud hellenistich-römischer Zeit. 38 Bände. Gerd Mohn: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1973-. LINDEMANN, Andreas, PAULSEN, Henning. neu übersetzt und hg. Die Apostolischen Väter –griechisch-deutsche Parallelausgabe auf der Grundlage der Ausgaben von Franz Xazer Funk/Karl Bihlmeyer und Molly Whittaker, mit Übersetzungen von M Dibelius und D.-A. Koch. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992. LINDSKOG, C.L., ZIEGLER, K. ed. Plutarchus, Vitae Parallelae. 6 Bände. Lipsiae in Aedibus, B.G. Teubneri, 1960-1973. MARCOVICH, Miroslav. Iustini Martyris –dialogus cum Tryphone. Patristische Texte und Studien. Im Auftr. der Patristischen Kommission der Akademien der Wissenschaften in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 47. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. MAYER, Günter hg. Ein Zaun um die Tora –Tradition und Interpretation im rabbinischen Recht. Dargestellt am Toseftatraktat Kil'ajim. Studia Delitzschiana 15. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1973. MENAHEM, Stern. ed. Greek and Latin Authors on Jesus and Judaism. Vol. I-III, Jerusalem: the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-1984. [Abbrev.: Menahem, Greek & Latin Authors] MIN, Kyoung Shik. Die früheste Überlieferung des Matthäusevangelium (bis zum 3/4 Jh) - Edition und Untersuchung. Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung an der Westfälischen WilhelmsUniversität zu Münster 34. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. [Abbrev: Min: Die früheste Überlieferung] MORAN, William, L. ed. and trans. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1992. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

279

Bibliography

[Abbrev:EA] MORGENTHALER, Robert. Statistische Synopse. Zürich, Frankfurt am Main: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1971. MORGENTHALER, Robert. Statistik des Neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes. Zürich, Frankfurt am Main: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1958. [Abbrev.: Morgenthaler, Statistik] NEIRYNCK, Frans, VAN SEGBROECK, Frans. New Testament Vocabulary - a Companion Volume to the Concordance. Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses Université Catholique de Louvain: Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) 65. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1984. [Abbrev.: Neirynck, Van Segbroeck, NT Vocabulary] PARRY, Donald, W., Tov, Emmanuel. ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Vol. 1-6, Leiden: Brill, 2004. PORTON G. ed. The Tradition of Rabbi Ishmael I-IV. Studies in Judaism in late antiquity 19. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977-1982. RENGSTORF, Karl H. hg. Die Mischna. Text, Übersetzung und Ausführliche Erklärung mit Eingehenden Geschichtlichen und Sprachlichen Einleitungen und Textkritischen Anhängen. 42 Bände. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1912 - . ROBERTSON, A.T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1934. [Abbrev.: Robertson, Grammar] ROBINSON, Maurice, A., PIERPONT, William G. The New Testament in the Original Greek – Byzantine Textform. Southborough: Hilton Book Publishing, 2005. [Abbrev.: Robinson, Pierpont, Byzantine Textform] ROBINSON, J.M, KLIMKEIT, H.J. The Coptic Gnostic Library – A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices. Vol. 1-5. Leiden, Bosten, Köln: Brill, 2000. RÖSSLER, Christian Friedrich. ed. Epiphanius, Alte Häresiologie. Bibliothek der kirchen-Väter in Übersetzung und Auszügen aus ihren fürnehmsten besonders dogmatischen Schriften 6. 6 Teil der zwote periode, zweiter Teil. Leipzig: ben Christian Gottlieb hertel, 1781. ROSENTHAL, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Porta linguarum orientalium 5. 6 revised edition, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1995. [Abbrev.: Rosenthal, Aramaic] SCHIFFMAN, Lawrence, H. ed. Texts and Traditions –a Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. New York: Ktav Publishing House Inc, 1998. [Abbrev.: Schiffman, Texts & Traditions] SCHIFFMAN, L.K., VANDERKAM, J.C. ed. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol.1-2. Oxford University Press. 2000. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

280

Bibliography

SCHOEDEL, William, R. hg. Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien –ein Kommentar. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1990. [Abbrev.: Schoedel, Ignatius Brief] SIEVERS, Eduward. Der Textaufbau der Griechischen Evangelien, klanglich untersucht. Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 41,5. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1931. [Abbrev.: Sievers, Textaufbau] SMITH, Mark, S., PARKER, Simon, B., GREENSTEIN, E. L., LEWIS, T. J., MARCUS, D. (translated). Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Writings from the Ancient World. Society of Biblical Literature 9. Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1997. STEMBERGER, Günther. hg. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Jishma’el – ein früher Midrasch zum Buch Exodus. Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2010. THIERRY, J.J. ed. The Epistle to Diognetus. Textus Minores. Vol. XXXIII. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964. VALANTASIS, Richard. The Gospel of Thomas. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. WANKEL, Hermann. hg. Die Inschriften von Ephesos. Teil Ia, Nr. 1-47 (Texte). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag GMBH, 1979. WENGST, Klaus. hg. Didache, Barnabasbrief, zweiter Klemensbrief. Schrift an Diognat. Schriften des Urchristentums. Band 2. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006. [Abbrev.: Wengst, Didache] WINTER, Jakob, WÜNSCHE, Aug. Mechiltha –ein tannaitischer Midrasch zu Exodus. Leipzig:J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1909. 4. Commentaries BARRETT, C.K. Acts. Vol. I & II. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. [Abbrev.: Barrett, Acts] BOVON, Francois. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Evangelishch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. 4 Bände. Zürich: Beniziger Verlag. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989-2009. [Abbrev.: Bovon, Lukas] CONZELMANN, H. Die Apostelgeschichte. Tübingen: JB (Paul Siebeck), 1963. [Abbrev.: Conzelmann, Apostelgeschichte] COOKE, George, A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. The International Critical Biblical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936. [Abbrev.: Cook, Ezekiel] The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

281

Bibliography

DAVIES, W.D., ALLISON, D. C. The Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Vol. I-III The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Limited, 1988, 1991, 1997. [Abbrev.: Davies & Allison, Matthew] DREWERMANN, Eugene. Das Matthäus Evangelium –bilder der Erfüllung, 1-3. Solothurn und Düsserldorf: Walter-Verlag, 1992-1995. [Abbrev.: Drewermann, MtEv] ERNST, Josef. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1981. [Abbrev.: Ernst, Markus] FRANCE, R.T. The Gospel of Mark –a Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002. [Abbrev.: France, Mark] FRANKEMÖLLE, Hubert. Matthäus. Kommentar I-II. Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1994-1997. [Abbrev.: Frankemölle, Matthäus] GNILKA, Joachim. Das Matthäusevangelium. Teil I-II. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg im Breislau: Herder, 1986-1988. [Abbrev.:Gnilka, Matthäus] GNILKA, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Teil I-II. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Zürich: Beniziger Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978-1979. [Abbrev.:Gnilka, Markus] GOULD, Ezra. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Edingburgh: T&T Clark, 1901. [Abbrev.: Gould, Mark] GREENBERG, Mosche. Ezechiel 21-27. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg, Herder, 2005. [Abbrev.: Greenberg, Ezechiel] GREENBERG, Mosche. Ezechiel 1-20. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2001. [Abbrev.: Greenberg, Ezechiel] HOLTZ, Traugott. Die erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Zürich: Beniziger Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986. [Abbrev.: Holtz, Thessalonicher] KLOSTERMANN, Erich. Das Markusevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. 4. Auflage. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebek), 1950. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

282

Bibliography

[Abbrev.: Klostermann, Markus] KLOSTERMANN, Erich. Das Matthäussevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. 3. Auflage. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebek), 1938. [Abbrev.: Klostermann, Matthäus] KLOSTERMANN, Erich. Das Lukasevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. 3. Auflage. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebek), 1929. [Abbrev.: Klostermann, Lukas] MACINTOSH, A.A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea. The International Critical Biblical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Edingburgh: T&T Clark Ltd, 1997. LACHS, Samuel Tobias. A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. New Jersey: Ktav Publishing House, INC., 1987. [Abbrev.: Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary] LUZ, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Band I-IV. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Düsserldorf und Zürich: Benziger Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985-2002. [Abbrev.: Luz, Matthäus] LÜHRMANN, Dieter. Das Markusevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1987. [Abbrev.: Lührmann, Markus] PESCH, Rodolf. Das Markusevangelium. Teil I & II. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2000. [Abbrev.: Pesch, Markus] PESCH, Rodolf. Die Apostelgeschichte. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Zürich: Benziger, 1986. PLUMMER, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. 4th edition. Edingburgh:T&T Clark, 1901. [Abbrev.: Plummer, Luke] RENGSTORF, Karl Heinrich. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Das Neue Testament Deutsch. Band 3. 16. Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. [Abbrev: Rengstorf, Lukas] ROLOFF, Jürgen. Die Apostelgeschichte. Das Neue Testament Deutsch. Band 5. 17. Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. [Abbrev.: Roloff, AG] RIUS-CAMPS, Josep, READ-HEIMERDINGER. The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae –a Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition. Vol. I-IV. London: T&T Clark, 2004-2007 [Abbrev.: Rius-Camps, Read-Heimerdinger, Acts] The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

283

Bibliography

SAND, Alexanders. Das Matthäus-Evangelium. Erträge der Forschung 275. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991. [Abbrev.: SAND, Mt-Ev] SAND, Alexanders. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Pustet, 1986. [Abbrev.: SAND, Matthäus] SCHNIEWIND, Julius. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 13. Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. [Abbrev.: Schniewind, Matthäus] SCHÜRMANN, Heinz. Das Lukasevangelium. Teil I-II. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg im Breislau: Herder, 1982-1994. [Abbrev.: Schürmann, Lukas] STRACK, Hermann, L., and BILLERBECK, Paul. Das Evangelium nach Markus, Lukas & Johannes. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash. Band 2. München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1924. STRACK, Hermann, L., and BILLERBECK, Paul. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash. Band 1. München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1922. [Abbrev.: SB, Kommentar] TALBERT, Charles, H. Matthew. Paideai Commentaries on the New Testament. Baker Academic. Michigan: Grand Rapids, 2010. WOLTER, Michael. Das Lukas Evangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. [Abbrev.: Wolter, Lukas] 5. Monographs ÅDNA, Jostein. Jesu Stellung zum Tempel –die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner Messianischen Sendung. WUNT 2. Reihe 119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. ALBERTZ, Martin. Die Synoptischen Streitgespräche –ein Beitrag zur Formengeschichte der Urchristentümer. Berlin: Trowitzsch und Sohn, 1921. ALLISON, Dale C. Jr. The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009. ALLISON, Dale C. Jr. The New Moses –a Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. ALMQUIST, Helge. Plutarch und das neue Testament –ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti. Acta seminarii neotestamentici Upsaliensis 15. Uppsala: Appelbergs Boktiyckeri A.B, Einar Munksgaard Kopenhagen, 1946. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

284

Bibliography

BACCHIOCCHI, Samuele. From Sabbath to Sunday –a Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity. Rome: the Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1997. [Abbrev.:Bacchiocchi, the Rise of Sunday Observance] BARRETT, C.K. ed. The New Testament Background: selected Documents. London: S.P.C.K. 1957. [Abbrev.: Barrett, NT Background] BECKER, Eve-Marie. Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen Antiker Historiographie. WUNT 194. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. BECKER, Hans-Jürgen. Auf der Kathedra des Mose –rabbinisch-theologisches Denken und antirabinnische Polemik in Matthäus 23:1-12. Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte - Institut Kirche und Judentum (ANTZ) Band 4. Berlin: Institut Kirche und Judentum Berlin, 1990. [Abbrev.:Becker, Kathedra des Mose] BERGER, Klaus. Formen und Gattungen im Neuen Testament. UTB 2532. Tübingen und Basel: A Francke Verlag, 2005. [Abbrev.: Berger, Formen und Gattungen] BERGER, Klaus. Wer war Jesus wirklich? Stuttgart: Quell Verlag, 1995. BERGER, Klaus. Einführung in die Formgeschichte. UTB 1444, Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 1987. [Abbrev.: Berger, Einführung] BERGER, Klaus. Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984. [Abbrev.: Berger, Formgeschichte] BERGER, Klaus. Exegese des Neuen Testament –neue Wege zum Text zur Auslegung. UTB 658. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1977. [Abbrev.: Berger, Exegese] BERLIN, Adele. The Dynamics of biblical parallelism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. BETZ, Hans Dieter. Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature. Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti 4. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978. [Abbrev.: Betz, Plutarch] BIELINSKI, Krzysztof. Jesus vor Herodes in Lk 23:6-12 –eine NarrativSozialgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge 50. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 2003. BISCHOFF, Erich. Jesus und die Rabbinen –Jesu Bergpredigt und "Himmelreich" in ihrer Unabhängigkeit vom Rabbinismus. Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin 33. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905. BLACK, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3rd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

285

Bibliography

[Abbrev.: Black, Aramaic Approach] BLANK, Reiner. Analyse und Kritik der formgeschichtlichen Arbeiten von Martin Dibelius und Rodulf Bultmann. Theologische Dissertationen 16. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Kommisionsverlag, 1981. BOCK, Darrell. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus –a philological-historical study of the key Jewish themes impacting Mark 14:61-64. WUNT 2. Reihe 106. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. [Abbrev.: Bock, Blasphemy] BOCKMUEHL, Markus. The Remembered Peter –in Ancient Reception and Modern Debate. WUNT 262. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. BOLYKI, Janos. Jesu Tischgemeinschaften. WUNT 2. Reihe 96. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1998. [Abbrev.: Bolyki, Tischgemeinschaften] BRAUN, Willi. Feasting and Social Rhetoric in Luke 14 (SNTSMS 85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. [Abbrev.:Braun, Feasting] BROWN, Raymond. An Introduction to the New Testament. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1997. BRYSKOG, Samuel. Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community. Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament series 24. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994. BÜCHLER, Adolf. Der Galiläische Am-Ha’ares des Zweiten Jahrhunderts. Beiträge zur Innern Geschichte des Palästinischen Judentums in den Ersten Zwei Jahrhunderten. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1968 (1906). [Abbrev.: Büchler, der galiläische Am-haares] BÜCHLER, Adolf. Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century. Library of Biblical studies . JCP 11. Oxford: Clarendon, 1928. BÜHLER, William. W. The Pre-Herodian Civil War and Social Debate –Jewish Society in the Period 76-40 b.C. and the Social Factors Contributing to the Rise of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Theologische Dissertationen 11. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Kommissionsverlag, 1974. BORG, Marcus, J. Conflict, Holiness & Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 5. New York: E. Mellen Press, 1984. BULTMANN, Rodolf. Die Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition. 6. Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957. [Abbrev.: Bultmann, Synoptische Tradition] BULTMANN, Rodolf. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: JCB Mohr Siebeck (Paul Siebeck), 1953. [Abbrev.: Bultmann, Theologie] CADBURY, Henry, J. The Making of Luke-Acts. London: SPCK, 1927. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

286

Bibliography

CARAGOUNIS, Chrys, C. Peter and the Rock. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche. Beihefte 58. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter, 1990. CARAGOUNIS, Chrys, C. The Son of Man –vision and Interpretation. WUNT 38. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Sieback), 1986. [Abbrev: Caragounis, Peter] CHAE, Young, S. Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd –studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT 2. Reihe, 216. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. [Abbrev.: Chae, Jesus as Davidic Shepherd] CONZELMANN, Han, LINDEMANN, Andreas. Arbeitsbuch zum Neuen Testament. UTB 52. 14. Auflage. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2004. [Abbrev.: Conzelmann, Lindemann, Arbeitsbuch] CRÜSEMANN, Frank. Das alte Testament als Wahrheitsraum des Neuen –die Neue Sicht der Christlichen Bibel. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2011. [Abbrev.: Crüsemann, Wahrheitsraum] DAUBE, David. Ancient Jewish Law –three Inaugural Lectures. Leiden:E.J. Brill, 1981. DAUBE, David. The Sudden in the Scripture. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964. [Abbrev.: Daube, Sudden] DAUBE, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. Jordan lectures in comparative religion. London: University of London, the Athlone Press, 1956. [Abbrev: Daube, New Testament & Judaism] DEINES, Roland. Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias –Mt 5,13-20 als Schlüsseltext der Matthäischen Theologie. WUNT 177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. [Abbrev.: Deines, Gerechtigkeit] DEINES, Roland. Die Pharisäer: Ihr Verständnis im Spiegel der christlichen und jüdischen Forschung seit Welhausen und Graetz. WUNT 101. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. [Abbrev.: Deines, Die Pharisäer] DEINES, Roland. Jüdische Steingefäße und Pharisäische Frömmigkeit –ein Archäologisch-historischer Beitrag zum Verständnis von Joh 2,6 und der Jüdischen Reinheitshalacha zur Zeit Jesu. WUNT 2. Reihe 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. [Abbrev.: Deines, Steingefäße] DIBELIUS, M. Das Formgeschichte des Evangelium. Tübingen: J.C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1933. [Abbrev.: Dibelius, Formgeschichte]

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

287

Bibliography

DOERING, Lutz. Schabbat –Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum. Texts and studies in ancient Judaism (TSAJ) 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. [Abbrev.: Doering, Schabbat] DEISSMANN, Adolf. Licht vom Osten –das Neue Testament und die Neuentdeckten Texte der Hellenistisch-Römischen Welt. 4. Auflage. Tübingen: Verlag von JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1923. DOOLE, J. Andrew. What was Mark for Matthew? WUNT 2. Reihe 344. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. [Abbrev.: Doole, Matthew] DU TOIT, David, S. Der abwesende Herr –strategiem im Markusevangelium zur Bewältigung der Abwesenheit des Auferstandene. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 111. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 2006. [Abbrev.: du Toit, Der abwesende Herr] DUNN, James, D.J. Beginning from Jerusalem. Christianity in the Making. Vol. 2, Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 2009. DUNN, James, D.J. Jesus Remembered. Christianity in the Making. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 2003. ELLIS, Edward E. Prophecy and Hermeneutic in early Christianity –new Testament essays. WUNT 18. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1978. [Abbrev.: Ellis, Prophecy] EUBANK, Nathan. Wages of Cross-breaing and Debt of Sin –the Economy of Heaven in Matthew's Gospel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche (BNZW). Band 196. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2013. EVANS Craig, A., SANDERS, James, A., ed., Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel –investigations and Proposals. Journal for the study of the New Testament: Supplement series 148. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 5. Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. [Abbrev.: Evans & Sanders, Interpretation] FASCHER, Erich. Die Formgeschichte Methode –eine Darstellung und Kritik; zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Synoptischen Problems. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche: Beihefte 2. Giesen: Verlag von Alfred Töpelmann in Giessen, 1924. FEDRIGOTTI, Lanfranco, M. An Exegetical Study of the Nuptial Symbolism in Matthew 9:15. Lewiston: the Edwin Mellen Press, 2006. FIEBIG, P. Der Erzählungsstil der Evangelien –im Lichte des Rabbinischen Erzählungsstils Untersucht. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Streit um die „Christusmythe“. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1925. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

288

Bibliography

FIEGER, Michael. Im Schatten der Artemis –glaube und Ungehorsam in Ephesus. Bern: Peter Lang AG, Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1998. [Abbrev.: Fieger, Schatten] FINKELSTEIN, Louis. The Pharisees: The sociological background of their Faith. 2 Vols. Philadephia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938. [Abbrev.: Finkelstein, Pharisees] FLUSSER, David. Jesus –mit Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten dargestellt. Rowohlts Monographien 140. Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1968 [Druck 1991]. FÖRSTER, Niclas. Jesus und die Steuerfrage –die Zinsgroschenperikope auf dem Religiösen und Politischen Hintergrund ihrer Zeit; mit einer Edition von PseudoHieronymus "De haeresibus Judaeorum". WUNT 294. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. [Abbrev.: Förster, Steuerfrage] FOSTER, Paul. Community, Law and Mission in Matthew´s Gospel. WUNT Reihe 2. 177. Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2004. [Abbrev.:Foster, community] FUCHS, Albert. Die Entwicklung der Beelzebulkontroverse bei den Synoptiken – traditionsgeschichtliche und Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 3,22 27 und Parallelen, verbunden mit des Rückfrage nach Jesus. Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Serie B, 5. Linz, 1980. GARBE, Gernot. Der Hirte Israels –eine Untersuchung zur Israeltheologie des Matthäusevangelium. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament (WMANT), Band 106. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 2005. GASTON, Lloyd. No Stone on Another – Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 23. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970. GEDALYAHU, Alon. The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1980. GEDALYAHU, Alon. Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1977. [Abbrev.: Gedalyahu, Jews, Judaism] GERHARDSSON, Birger. Memory and Manuscript – Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. Acta seminarii neotestamentici Upsaliensis 22. Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1961. [Abbrev.: Gerhardsson, Memory] GIELEN, Marlis. Der Konflikt Jesu mit den Religiösen und Politischen Autoritäten seines Volkes im Spiegel der Matthäischen Jesusgeschichte. Bonner biblische Beiträge. Band 115. Philo, 1998. [Abbrev.: Gielen, Konflikt] The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

289

Bibliography

GOLDHAHN-MÜLLER, Ingrid. Die Grenze der Gemeinde –studien zum Problem der zweiten Busse im Neuen Testament unter Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung im 2 Jahrhundert bis Tertullian. Göttinger theologische Arbeiten 39. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. GOLDIN, Judah. The Living Talmud –the Wisdom of the Fathers and its Classical Commentaries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. [Abbrev.: Goldin, The living Talmud] GRAY, Timothy, C. The Temple in the Gospel of Mark –a Study in its Narrative Role. WUNT 2. Reihe 242. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. GRÄTZ, H. Geschichte der Juden –von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart. Vol. 1-10. Leipzig: Oskar Leiner. 1893. GUTTENBERGER, GUDRUN. Die Gottesvorstellung im Markusevangelium. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche (BZNW). Band 123. Berlin: Walter de Grutyer, 2004. [Abbrev.: Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung] HARRINGTON, H.-K. The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis. Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series 143. Atlanta, 1993. HENGEL, Martin. Nachfolge und Charisma –eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu Mt 8, 21f. und Jesu Ruf in die Nachfolge. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche. Beihefte 34. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmannm, 1968. HENGEL, Martin, SCHWEMER, Anna Maria. Jesus und das Judentum –Geschichte des frühen Christentums. Band I. Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2007. HERRENBRÜCK, Fritz. Jesus und die Zöllner –historische und neutestamentlichexegetische Untersuchungen. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1990. [Abbrev.: Herrenbrück, Zöllner] HIRSCH, Emannuel. Die Frühgeschichte des Evangeliums, II. Tübingen: Verlag von J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1941. HOLTZMANN, Heinrich, J. Lehrbuch der Neutestamentichen Theologie I. 2. Auflage. Tübingen: Verlag von J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1911. HUMMEL, Reinhart. Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium. Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 33. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1966. [Abbrev.: Hummel, Auseinandersetzung] JACKSON, Glenna. Have Mercy on Me –the Story of Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15:21-28. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 228. Copenhagen International Seminar 10. Sheffield Academic Press. 2002. JÄGER-BEUX, Milena. Das Verständnis der Heiligung des göttlichen Namens und des Reiches Gottes in der alten jüdischen Liturgie. Judaica et Christiana. Bern: Peter Lang, 2009. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

290

Bibliography

[Abbrev.: Jäger-Beux, Namen] JAMES, R. Edwards. The Hebrew Gospels and the Development of Synoptic Tradition. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009. JEREMIAS, Joachim. Neutestamentliche Theologie. Erster Teil. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Gerd Mohn, 1971. [Abbrev.: Jeremias, NT Theology] JEREMIAS, Joachim. Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu –kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte. 3. neubearbeitete Auflage. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen, 1969. [Abbrev.: Jeremias, Jerusalem] JEREMIAS, Joachim. Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu. 3. völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage. Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. JORDAN, Hermann. Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur. Leipzig: Verlag von Quelle & Meyer, 1911. JOSEPH, Simon, J., Jesus, Q, and the Dead Sea Scrolls –a Judaic Approach to Q. WUNT 2. Reihe 333. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. KARRER, Martin. Jesus Christ im Neuen Testament. Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament. NTD Ergängzungsreihe 11. Göttingen: Vandenhock & Ruprecht in Göttingen, 1998. [Abbrev.: Karrer, Jesus] KARRER, Martin. Der Gesalbte –die Grundlagen des Christustitels. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 151. Göttingen: Vandendock & Ruprecht, 1990. [Abbrev.: Karrer, Gesalbte] KAZEN, Thomas. Jesus and Purity of Halakhah –was Jesus indifferent to Impurity. Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament series 38. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2002. [Abbrev.: Kazen, Jesus and Halakhah] KILPATRICK, K. The Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1946. [Abbrev.: Kilpatrick, Origins of Mt] KLINGHARDT, Matthias. Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft –Soziologie und Liturgie frühchristlichen Mahlfeiern. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (TANZ) 13. Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 1996. [Abbrev.: Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl] KLINGHARDT, Matthias. Gesetz und Volk Gottes –das lukanische Verständnis des Gesetzes nach Herkunft, Funktion und seinem Ort in der Geschichte des Urchristentums. WUNT 2. Reihe 32. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1988. KLOPPENBORG, John, S. The Tenants in the Vineyard –ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine. WUNT 195. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

291

Bibliography

KLUTZ, Todd. The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts –a Sociostylistic Reading. Society for New Testament Studies 129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. KONRADT, Matthias. Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium. WUNT 215. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. [Abbrev.: Konradt, Matthäus] KUGEL, James, L. The idea of Biblical Poetry –parallelism and its History. Baltimore and London: the John Hopkins University Press, 1981. KURTH, Christina. Die Stimme der Propheten erfüllt – Jesu Geschick und "die" Juden nach der Darstellung des Lukas. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 148. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2000. LAANSMA, Jon. I Will Give You Rest –the Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3-4. WUNT 2. Reihe 98. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. [Abbrev.: Laansma, Rest] LAMPE-DENSKY, Sigrid. Gottesreich und antike Arbeitswesen –sozialgeschichtliche Auslegung neutestamentlicher Gleichnisse. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012. LAWRENCE, Lousie Joy. An Ethnography of the Gospel of Matthew –a Critical Assessment of the use of the Honour and Shame Model in New Testament Studies. WUNT 2. Reihe 165. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. [Abbrev.: Lawrence, Ethnography] LEE, Aquila, H.I. From Messiah to Preexistent Son. WUNT 2. Reihe 192. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. LEIBNER, Uzi. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism (TSAJ) 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. [Abbrev.: Leibner, Settlement] LEHNERT, Volker A. Die Provokation Israels –die paradoxe Funktion von Jes 6:9-10 bei Markus und Lukas; ein textpragmatischer Versuch im Kontext gegenwärtiger Rezeptionsästhetik und Lesetheorie. Neukirchener theologische Dissertationen und Habilitationen (NTDH) 25. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999. [Abbrev.: Lehnert, Provokation] LEVINE, Lee, I. The Ancient Synagogue –the First Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. LOADER, William, R.G. Jesus‘ Attitude towards the Law –a Study of the Gospels. WUNT 2. Reihe 97. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. LÜDEMANN, Gerd. Das frühe Christentum nach den Traditionen der Apostelgeschichte –ein Kommentar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. [Abbrev.: Lüdemann, Apostelgeschichte] LUOMANEN, Petri. Entering the Kingdom of Heaven –a Study on the Structure of Matthew's View of Salvation. WUNT 2. Reihe 101. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. [Abbrev.: Luomanen, Kingdom of Heaven] The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

292

Bibliography

LYBAEK, Lena. New and Old in Matthew 11-13 –normativity in the Development of Three Theological Themes. Forschungen zur Religion und Literaur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Band 198. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. MARGUERAT, Daniel. Lukas, der erste christliche Historiker –eine Studie zur Apostelgeschichte. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Band 92. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag (TVZ), 2011. MARGUERAT, Daniel, BOURQUIN, Yuan. How to Read Bible Stories –an Introduction to Narrative Criticism. London: SCM Press, 1999. MARXSEN, Willi. Der Evangelist Markus: Studien zu Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 67. Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956. McNICOL, Allan, J., DUNGAN, David, L. and PEABOY, David, B. ed. Beyond the Q Impass –Luke’s Use of Matthew. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996. [Abbrev.: McNicol, Dungan and Peaboy, Beyond Q Impasse] MERKLEIN, Helmut. Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft: eine Skizze. 3rd edition. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien (SBT) 111. Stuttgart: Verlag katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. [Abbrev.: Merklein, Gottesherrschaft] METZDORF, Christina. Die Tempelaktion Jesu. WUNT 2. Reihe 168. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. NEUSNER, Jacob. Hosea in Talmud and Midrash. Maryland: University Press of America, 2007. [Abbrev.: Neusner, Hosea] NEUSNER, Jacob. The Emergence of Judaism –jewish Religion in Response to the Critical Issues of the First Six Centuries. Lanham: University Press of America, 2000. NOVAKOVIC, Lidija. Messiah, the Healer of the Sick –a Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT 2. Reihe 170. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. OPPENHEIMER, Aharon. The Am Haaretz –a Study in the Social History of the Jewish people in the Hellenistic-Roman period. Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 8. Leiden: Brill E.J., 1977. [Abbrev.: Oppenheimer, Am Haaretz] OPPONG-KUMI, Peter, Yaw. Matthean Sets of Parables. WUNT 2. Reihe 340. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2013. [Abbrev.: Oppong-Kumi, Parables] OVERMAN, J. A. Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism –the Social World of the Matthean Community. Minnepolis: Fortress Press, 1990. [Abbrev.: Overman, Mt Gospel] The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

293

Bibliography

OVERMAN, J.A. Church and Community in Crisis –the Gospel according to Matthew. Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996. [Abbrev.: Overman, Church and Community] OCHS, Christoph. Matthaeus Adversus Christianos. WUNT 2. Reihe 350. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2013. [Abbrev.: Ochs, Matthaeus] PARK, Eung Chun. The Mission Discourse in Matthew’s Interpretation. WUNT 2. Reihe 81. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995. [Abbrev.: Park, Mission in Matthew] PARKER, David, C. An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. [Abbrev.: Parker, NT Manscripts] PENNINGTON, Jonathan. T. Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Vol. 126. Leiden, Bosten: Brill, 2007. [Abbrev.: Pennington, Heaven and Earth] PERRIN, Norman. What is Redaction Criticism? London: SPCK, 1982. [Abbrev.: Perrin, Redaction] PERVO, Richard, I. The Making of Paul –constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. PERVO, Richard, I. Profit with Delight –the Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. RATZINGER, Joseph Benedikt XVI, Jesus von Nazareth. 2 Teils. Freiburg: Herder, 2007-2011. RIEDE, Peter. Im Spiegel der Tiere –studien zum Verhältnis von Mensch und Tier im alten Israel. Orbis biblicus et orientalis - im Auftrag der Stiftung Bibel und Orient in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Department für Biblische Studien der Universität Freiburg Schweiz 187. Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. REITZENSTEIN, Richard. Hellenistische Wundererzählungen. 2. Auflage. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963. [Abbrev:Reitzenstein, Wundererzählungen] REPSCHINSKI, Boris. Nicht aufzulösen, sondern zu erfüllen –das Jüdische Gesetz in den Synoptischen Jesuserzählungen. Forschung zur Bibel 120. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2009. REPSCHINSKI, Boris. The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew –their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 189. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2000. [Abbrev: Repschinski, Controversy] The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

294

Bibliography

RIVKIN, Ellis. A Hidden Revolution –the Pharisee´s Search for the Kingdom within. Nashville: Abingdon, 1978. RÖLVER, Olaf. Christliche Existenz zwischen den Gerichten Gottes – Untersuchungen zur Eschatologie des Matthäusevangeliums. Bonner Biblische Beiträge Band 163. Göttingen: V&R uniPress/Bonn University Press. 2010. [Abbrev: Rölver, Christliche Existenz] ROLOFF, JÜRGEN. Neues Testament –arbeitsbuch. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999. [Abbrev.: Roloff, NT] ROTHSCHILD, Clare, K. Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History. WUNT 2. Reihe 175. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. [Abbrev.: Rothschild, Luke-Acts] SALDARINI, Anthony. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadduces in Palestinian Society: a Sociological Approach. Edinburgh: Clark, 1989. [Abbrev.: Saldarini, Pharisees] SALDARINI, Anthony. Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994. [Abbrev.: Saldarini, Matthew] SALO, Kalervo. Luke´s Treatment of the Law –a Redaction-Critical Investigation. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae: Dissertationes humanarum litterarum 57. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1991. [Abbrev. Salo, Law] SANDERS, Ed P. Judaism –practice and Belief 63 BCE- 66 CE. London: SCM Press, 1992. [Abbrev.: Sanders, Judaism] SANDERS, Ed P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah - Five Studies. London: SCM, 1990. [Abbrev.: Sanders, Jewish Law] SANDERS, Ed P. Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM Press, 1985 [Abbrev: Sanders, Jesus] SATAKE, Akira. Die Gemeindeordnung in der Johannesapokalypse. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 21. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlage des Erziehungsvereins G.M.B.H.,1966. [Abbrev.: Satake, Die Gemeindeordnung] SCHIMDT, Karl L. Der Rahmen der Geshichte Jesu –literarkritische Untersuchungen zur Ältesten Jesusüberlieferung. Berlin: Trowitsch & Sohn, 1919. [Abbrev: Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu] SCHLATTER, Adolf. Der Glaube im Neuen Testament. 5. Auflage: Stuttgart. Calwer Verlag, 1963. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

295

Bibliography

SCHLATTER, Adolf. Der Evangelist Matthäus –seine Sprache, sein Ziel, seine Selbständigkeit, Ein Kommentar zum ersten Evangelium. Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1929. [Abbrev.: Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus] SCHLATTER, Adolf. Die Kirche des Matthäus. Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie: Reihe 1, 33,1. Gütersloh: Druck und Verlag von Bertelsmann in Gütersloh, 1929. SCHMIDT, Josef. Gesetzesfreie Heilsverkündigung im Evangelium nach Matthäus – das Apostelkonzil (Apg 15) als historischer und theologischer Bezugpunkt für die Theologie de Matthäusevangeliums. Forschung zur Bibel 113. Echter Verlag, 2007. [Abbrev.: Schmidt, Gesetesfreie Heils] SCHNELLE, Udo. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Uni-Taschenbücher 1830. 3. Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. [Abbrev.: Schnelle, Einleitung NT] SCHÜRER, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the age of Jesus Christ. Vol. 13, rev. ed. By Vermes, Geza, Millar, Fergus, Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1973-1987. [Abbrev.: Schürer, History] SCHWEIZER, Eduard Matthäus und seine Gemeinde. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 71. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 1974. SORENSEN, Eric. Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and early Christianity. WUNT 2. Reihe 157. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. STANTON, Graham. Studies in Matthew and Early Christianity. BOCKMUEHL, Markus and LINCICUM, David edited. WUNT 309. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. [Abbrev.: Stanton, Matthew] STANTON, Graham N. A Gospel for a New People –studies in Matthew. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993. [Abbrev.: Stanton, New People] STANTON, Graham, N. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford Bible series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. [Abbrev.: Stanton, Gospels and Jesus] STANTON, Graham, N. Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching. Monograph series. Society for New Testament Studies 27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. [Abbrev.: Stanton, Jesus in preaching] STEIN, Hans Joachim. Frühchristliche Mahlfeiern. WUNT 2. Reihe 255. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. STEMBERGER, G. Einleitung in Talmud und Midrash. Beck-Studium. 8. Auflage. München: C.H. Beck, 1992. [Abbrev.: Stembeger, Einleitung] The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

296

Bibliography

STENSCHKE, Christoph W. Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to their Coming to Faith. WUNT 2. Reihe 108. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. STENDAHL, Krister. The School of St. Matthew and its use of the Old Testament. Acta seminarii neotestamentici Upsaliensis 20. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1954. [Abbrev: Stendahl, Matthew] STOLDT, Hans-Herbert. Geschichte und Kritik der Markushypothese. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. [Abbrev.: Stoldt, Kritik der Markus Hypothese] STRECKER, Georg. Literaturgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Uni-Taschenbücher 1682. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. STRECKER, Georg. Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit –untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 82. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. [Abbrev.: Strecker, Gerechtigkeit] STREETER, Burnett H. The Four Gospels –a Study of Origins: Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship & Dates. rev ed. London: Macmillan, 1926. TALBERT, Charles, H. Reading Luke-Acts in its Mediterranean Milieu. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 107. Leiden: Brill, 2003. [Abbrev.: Talbert, Luke-Acts] TAYLOR, Vincent. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition - Eight Lectures. London: Macmillan and Co. Limited, 1953. [Abbrev.: Taylor, Gospel Tradition] THEISSEN, Gerd, MERZ, Annette. Der historische Jesus - ein Lehrbuch. Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. [Abbrev: Theissen & Merz, Jesus] THEISSEN, Gerd. Urchristliche Wundergeschichte -ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichtlichen Erforschung der Synoptischen Evangelien. Studien zum Neuen Testament. Band 8. 5. Auflage. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, Gerd Mohn, 1987. THOMPSON, William, G. Matthew’s Advice to a divided Community –Mt 17:2218:35. Analecta biblica 44. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970. [Abbrev.: Thompson, Mt’s advice] TRILLING, Wolfgang. Das Wahre Israel –Studien zur Theologie des MatthäusEvangeliums. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 10. 3. Auflage. München: Kösel-Verlag, 1964. [Abbrev. Trilling, Israel] TUCKETT, C.M. Christology and the New Testament –Jesus and his earliest Followers. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. [Abbrev.: Tuckett, Christology] The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

297

Bibliography

TUCKETT, C.M. The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis –an Analysis and Appraisal. Monograph series. Society for New Testament Studies 44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. [Abbrev.: Tuckett, Revival of Griesbach Hypothesis] TWELFTREE, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist –a Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. WUNT 2. Reihe 54. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993. VAHRENHORST, Martin. Ihr sollt Überhaupt nicht Schwören –Matthäus im halachischen Diskurs. WMANT 95, Neukirchner Verlag, 2002. [Abbrev.: Vahrenhorst, Nicht schwören] VAN TILBORG, Sjef. The Jewish Leaders in Matthew. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972. [Abbrev.: van Tilborg, Jewish leaders] WARDLE, Timothy. The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity. WUNT 2. Reihe 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. [Abbrev.:Wardle, Jerusalem Temple] WELLHAUSEN, J. Pharisäer und die Sadducäer –eine Untersuchung zur inneren jüdischen Geschichte. Bamberg, Greifswald, 1874. WEISS, Wolfgang. Eine Neue Lehre in Vollmacht–die Streit- und Schulgespräche des Markus-Evangeliums. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche: Beihefte 52. Berlin: Walter de Grutyer, 1989. [Abbrev.:Weiss, Lehre] WENGST, Klaus. Das Regierungsprogramm des Himmelreichs –eine Auslegung der Bergpredigt in ihrem jüdischen Kontext. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2010. [Abbrev.:Wengst, Regierungsprogramm] WILLITTS, Joel. Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King –in Search of ´the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche: Beihefte 147. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. [Abbrev.: Willitis, Shepherd-King] WILSON, S.G. Luke and the Law. Monograph series. Society for New Testament Studies 50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. [Abbrev.: Wilson, Law] WREDE, William. Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien –zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901. [Abbrev.: Wrede, Messiasgeheimnis] YIEH, John Yueh-Han. One Teacher –Jesus' Teaching Role in Matthew's Gospel Report. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche (BZNW). Band 124. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

298

Bibliography

[Abbrev.: Yieh, One Teacher] ZUNTZ, G. The Text of the Epistles –a Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1946. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1953. [Abbrev.: Zuntz, Epistles] ZWIEP, A. E. Judas and the Choice of Matthias –a Study on Context and Concern of Acts 1:15-26. WUNT 2. Reihe 187. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. [Abbrev.: Zwiep, Judas] 6. Articles ABRAHAM, I. "The Greatest Commandment" in Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, Orlinsky, H.M. ed. New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1917, pp. 1829. ADNA, Jostein. "Jesus and the Temple" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 2635-2676. ADNA, Jostein. "Jesu’ symbolic Act in the Temple (Mark 11:15-17) –the Replacement of the sacrificial cult by his atoning Death" in Gemeinde ohne Tempel - zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Ego, Beate, Lange, Armin, Pilhofer, Peter ed. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999, pp. 461-476. ALEXANDER, Loveday. "Septuaginta, Fachprosa, Imitatio: Albert Wifstrand and the Language of Luke-Acts" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65 Geburtstag. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 57. Breytebach, Cillers, Schröter, J. hg. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2004, pp. 1-26. ALKIER, Stefan. "Frucht bringen oder Gewinnmaximierung? Überlegungen zur Gestaltung des Lebens und des Wirtschaftens im Anschluss an das Matthäusevangelium". ZNT, heft 31, 16. Jahrgang (2013), pp. 11-20. ALLISON, Dale, C., Jr. "How to marginalise the traditional criteria of Authenticity" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 1. pp. 3-30. ALLISON, Dale, C., Jr. "After his resurrection (Matt 27, 53) and the Descens ad inferos" in Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog –hermeneutik, Wirkungsgeschichte, Matthäusevangelium. Festschrift für Ulrich Luz zum 70. Geburtstag. Lampe, Peter, Mayordomo, Moises und Sato, Migaku hg. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 2008, pp. 335-354. ALLISON, Dale, C., Jr. "Q’s New Exodus and the Historical Jesus" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Lindemann, Andreas hg. Bibliotheca The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

299

Bibliography

Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CLVIII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001, pp. 395-428. AMPHOUX, Christian-Bernard. "Three Questions about the Life of Jesus" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3. pp. 3373-3408. ASCOUGH S Richard. "The Apostolic Decree of Acts and Greco-Roman Association" in Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen - Gemeinschaft und ihre Ordnung. Öhler Markus hg. WUNT 280. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. pp. 297-316. AVEMARIE, Friedrich. "Der Schöpferkraft Jesu Trauen –ein Versuch über die Speisungswunder des Markusevangelium" in Kreativität Verantworten – theologisch-sozialethische Zugänge und Handlungsfelder im Umgang mit dem Neuen Testament. Dabrock, P., Keil, S. hg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukircher Theologie. 2011, pp. 61-79. AVEMARIE, Friedrich. "Die jüdischen Wurzeln des Aposteldekrets: Lösbare und ungelöse Probleme" in Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen –Gemeinschaft und ihre Ordnung. Öhler Markus hg. WUNT 280. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, pp. 5-32. AVEMARIE, Friedrich. "Warum treibt Paulus einen Dämon aus, der die Wahrheit sagt? Geschichte und Bedeutung des Exzorismus zu Philippi (Act 16:16-18)" in Dämonen –die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Lange, Armin, Lichtenberger, H., Römheld, K.F.D. ed. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Siebeck. 2003, pp. 550-576. AVEMARIE, Friedrich. "Ist die Johannestaufe ein Ausdruck von Tempelkritik? Skizze eines methodische Problem" in Gemeinde ohne Tempel –zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Ego Beate, Lange, Armin, Pilhofer, P. hg.WUNT 118, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1999, pp. 395-410. BACK Sven-Olav. "Jesus and the Sabbath" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley E. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 25972634. BACON, B. “The Five Books of Matthew against the Jews". Exp 25 (1918), pp. 56-66. BACKHAUS, Knut. "Echoes from the Wilderness: The historical John the Baptist" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley, ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 2, pp. 1747-1786. BAECK, Leo. "Die Pharisäer" in Leo Baeck Werke. Friedlander Albert H., Klappert, Bertold hg. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 2002. Band V, pp. 367-411. BAECK, Leo. "Das Reich Gottes" in Leo Baeck Werke. Friedlander Albert H., Klappert, Bertold hg. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 2000. Band IV, pp. 241245. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

300

Bibliography

BAECK, Leo. "Das Reich Gottes" in Leo Baeck Werke. Friedlander Albert H., Klappert, Bertold hg. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus. 1996. Band II, pp. 238274. BAILEY, K.E. "Inverted Parallelisms and encased Parables in Isaiah and their Significane for Old and New Testament translation and Interpretation" in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. DE REGT, L.J, de WAARD, J., FOKKELMANN, J.P. ed. Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp. B.V. 1996, pp. 14-30. BARTH, Gerhard. "Auseinandersetzung um die Kirchenzucht im Umkreis des Matthäusevangeliums". ZNW 69 (1978), pp. 158-177. BARTH, Gerhard. "Das Gesetzverständnis des Evangelisten Matthäus" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium. Bornkamm, Günther, Barth, Gerhard, Held, Heinz, J. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 1. 4. Auflage. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, GMBH, 1965, pp. 54-154. BARTH, Hermann. "Von der Mission der Kirche. Einige Überlegungen im Anschluss an das Matthäusevangelium" in Evangelium Ecclesiasticum –Matthäus und die Gestalt der Kirche. Festschrift für Christoph Kähler zum 65 Geburtstag. Böttich, Christfried, Hübner, H.-P., Voigt, K., Wiegand D. hg. Frankfurt am Main: Hansisches Druck-und Verlagshaus GmbH, 2009, pp. 15-36. BAUM, Armin, D. "Lk 1:1-4 zwischen antiker Historiographie und Fachprosa. Zum literaturgeschichtlichen Kontext des lukanischen Prologs". ZNW 100 (2009), pp. 3354. BAUM, Armin, D. "Ein aramäischer Urmatthäus im kleinasiatische Gottesdienst. Das Papiaszeugnis zur Entstehung des Matthäusevangeliums". ZNW 92 (2001), pp. 257272. BAUMGARTEN, A.I. "The Pharisaic Paradosis". HThs 80:1 (1987), pp. 63-77. BAUMGARTEN, A.I. "Korban and the Pharisaic Paradosis". JANES (1984-85), pp. 517. BAUMGARTEN, A.I. "The Name of the Pharisees". JBL 102/3 (1983), pp. 411-428. BECKER, Eve-Marie. "Die markinischen “Streitgespräche” in Plan des Evangeliums. Eine kritische relecture der formgeschichtlichen Methode" in Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur - Texte und Kontexte. Wischmeyer, Oda, Scornaienchi, L. hg. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche (BNZW) 170. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011, pp. 433-464. BECKER, Eve-Marie. "Historiographical Literature in the New Testament Period (1ste and 2nd Centuries CE)" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley E. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol.2. pp. 1787-1817. BECKER, Eve-Marie. "Dating Mark and Matthew as Ancient Literature" in Mark and Matthew I –comparative readings: understanding the earliest gospels in their first The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

301

Bibliography

century settings. Becker, Eve-Marie, Runesson, Anders ed. WUNT 271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, pp. 123-14. BECKER, JÜRGEN. "Die Gemeinde als Tempel Gottes und die Tora" in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im neuen Testament –Festschrift für Christoph Burchard zum 75. Geburtstag. Sänger Dieter, Konradt, Matthias hg. Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus: Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 57. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Academic Press Fribourg, 2006, pp. 9-25. BEENTJES, P.C. "Discovering a New Path of Intertextuality: Inverted quotations and their dynamics" in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. de REGT, L.J, de WAARD, J., FOKKELMANN, J.P. ed. Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp. B.V. 1996, pp. 31-50. BERGER, Klaus. "Jesus als Pharisäer und frühe Christen als Pharisäer". NT 30 (1988), pp. 231-262. BERGER, Klaus, "Die königlichen Messiastradition des Neuen Testaments". NTS 20 (1973), pp. 1-44. BERGMEIER, Roland. "Gesetzerfüllung ohne Gesetz und Beschneidung" in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im neuen Testament – Festschrift für Christoph Burchard zum 75. Geburtstag. Sänger Dieter, Konradt, Matthias hg. Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus : Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 57. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Academic Press Fribourg, 2006, pp. 26-40. BERNDT, Schaller. "Sabbat III". TRE 29 (1998), pp. 525-527. BETZ, Hans, Dieter. "The Logion of the Easy Yoke and of Rest - Matt 11:28-30" in Synoptische Studien – Gesammelte Aufsätze II von Hans Dieter Betz. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992, pp. 1-17. BIRD, Michael, F. "Jesus and the partings of the ways" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley E. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 2 pp. 1183-1215. BIRENBOIM, Hanan. "A Kingdom of Priests: Did the Pharisees try to live like Priests?" in Was 70CE a Watershed in Jewish History –on Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple. Schwartz, Daniel R., Weiss, Zeev, Clements Ruth ed. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 78. Leiden: Brill, 2012, pp. 59-68. BLAU, L. Tetragrammaton, JE. Vol. 12, pp. 118-120 BREYTENBACH, Cilliers. "Probable Reasons for Paul’s unfruitful missionary attempts in Asia Minor, a Note on Acts 16:6-7" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65 Geburtstag. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 57. Breytebach, Cilliers, Schröter, Jens hg. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2004, pp. 157-170.

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

302

Bibliography

BOCK, Darrell. "Jesus, Satan, and Company" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 2855-2876. BÖTTRICH, Christfried. "Das Böse hat nicht das letzte Wort. Neutestamentliche Perspektiven zur Überwindung des Bösen". ZNT. Heft 28. 14 Jahrgang (2011), pp. 24-32. BÖTTRICH, Christfried. "Fundamente. Beobachtungen zum Bildgebrauch in Mt: 2427" in Evangelium Ecclesiasticum – Matthäus und die Gestalt der Kirche. Festschrift für Christoph Kähler zum 65 Geburtstag. Böttich, Christfried, Hübner, H.-P., Voigt, K., Wiegand D. hg. Frankfurt am Main: Hansisches Druck-und Verlagshaus GmbH, 2009, pp. 65-102. BOHAK, Gideon. "Jewish Exorcism before and after the destruction of the Second Temple" in Was 70CE a Watershed in Jewish History – on Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple. Schwartz, Daniel R., Weiss, Zeev, Clements Ruth ed. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 78. Leiden: Brill, 2012, pp. 277-300. BORNKAMM, Günther. "Die Binde-und Lösegewalt in der Kirche der Matthäus" in Studien zum Matthäus-Evangelium. Zager, Werner hg. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 125. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009, pp.79-94. BORNKAMM, Günther. "Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelien" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium. Bornkamm, Günther, Barth, Gerhard, Held, Heinz. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 1. 4. Auflage. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, GMBH, 1965, pp. 13-46. BORNKAMM, Günther. "Die Stürmstillung im Matthäusevangelium" in Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium. Bornkamm, Günther, Barth, Gerhard, Held, Heinz. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 1. 4. Auflage. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, GMBH, 1965, pp. 48-53. BOVON, Francois. "Fragment Oxyrhynchus 840, Fragment of a Lost Gospel, Witness of an Early Christian Controversy over Purity" in New Testament and Christian Apocrypha. Bovon, F. ed. WUNT 237. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 174-196. BOVON, Francois. "The Laws in Luke-Acts" in Studies in Early Christianity. Bovon, F. ed. WUNT 161. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003, pp. 59-73. BROADHEAD, Edwin. "Crossroads and Communities within the Gospel of Matthew" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 421-435. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

303

Bibliography

BROWN, Michaelm J. “Performance Anxiety: The use of UPOKRITHS in Matthew 6:1-18” in Scripture and Tradition –essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay. Gray, Patrick, O´Day, Gail, R. ed. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 129. Leiden: Brill, 2008, pp. 115-136. BULTMANN, Rudolf. "Kirche und Lehre im neuen Testament" in Glauben und Verstehen –gesammelte Aufsätze. Bultmann, R. 7. Auflage. Tübingen: JCB Mohr Siebeck, 1972. Band I, pp. 153-188. BULTMANN, Rodolf. "Die Erforschung der synoptische Evangelien" in Glauben und Verstehen - gesammelte Aufsätze. Bultmann, R. 7. Auflage, Tübingen: JCB Mohr Siebeck, 1972. Band IV, pp. 1-41. BYRSKOG, Samuel. "The Transmission of the Jesus Tradition" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 2, pp. 1465-1494. CARTER, Warren. "Matthew: Empire, Synagogues and horizontal Violence" in Mark and Matthew I - comparative readings: understanding the earliest gospels in their first century settings. Becker, Eve-Marie, Runesson, Anders ed. WUNT 271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, pp. 285-308. CLARK, K.W. "The Gentile Bias of Matthew". JBL 66 (1947), pp. 165-172. CHARLESWORTH, James H. "From Old to New: Paradigm Shifts concerning Judaism, the Gospel of John, Jesus and the Advent of Christianity" in Jesus Research –an International Perspective. The First Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Prague 2005. Charlesworth James, H., Pokorny, Petr ed. PrincetonPrague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009. pp. 56-72. CHILTON, Bruce. "A Generative Exegesis of Mark 7:1-23" in Jesus in Context – temple, Purity, and Restoration. Chilton, B., Evans, A. ed. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums (AGJU) 39. Leiden: Brill, 1997, pp. 297-317. CHILTON, Bruce. "Jesus and Sinners and Outcasts" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 2801-2834. COHN, Haim, H. "Flogging". EJ, 2 ed. Vol. 7 (2007), pp. 78-80. COLLINS, J.J. "The Son of Man in Ancient Judaism" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 2, pp. 1545-1568. COLLINS, J.J. "Sibylline Oracles" in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha – apocalyptic Literature & Testaments. Charlesworth James H. ed. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983, pp. 317-472. CONZELMANN, Han "Gegenwart und Zukunft in der synoptischen Tradition" in Theologie als Schriftauslegung - Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament. Conzelmann, H. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

304

Bibliography

Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie. Band 65. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1974, pp. 42-61. DAUBE, David. "On Acts 23: Sadducees and Angels". JBL 109 (1990), pp. 493-497. DAUBES, David. "The Responsilities of Master and Disciples in the Gospels". NTS 19 (1972), pp. 1-15. DE JONG, Mattijs. "Dominion through Obedience: Matthew 12,18-21 among the Early Christian Characteristics of Jesus" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 437-451. DEINES, Roland. "Die Phraisäer und das Volk im Neuen Testament und bei Josephus" in Josephus und das Neue Testament – wechselseitge Wahrnehmungen. II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum, 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald. Böttrich, Christfried und Herzer, Jens hg. WUNT 209. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007, pp. 147-180 . DEINES, Roland. "The Pharisees between Judaisms and Common Judaism Justification and Variegated Nomism" in The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Carson, D.A., O’Brien, P.T., Seifrid, Mark, A. ed. WUNT 2. Reihe 140 Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Vol. I, pp. 443-504. DELOBEL, J. "The Text of Luke-Acts. A Confrontation of Recent Theories" in The Unity of Luke-Acts. Verheyden, J. ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXLII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999, pp. 83-108. DEWEY, Joanna. "The Historical Jesus in the Gospel of Mark" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 1821-1852. DEXINGER, F. "Limits of Tolerance in Judaism: The Samaritan Example" in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period. Sanders, E.P., Baumgarten A.I., and Mendelson A. ed. London: SCM, 1981. Vol. 2, pp. 88-114. DIBELIUS, M. "Die alttestamentlichn Motive in der Leidensgeschichte des Petrus und des Johannes-Evangeliums" in Botschaft und Geschichte - gesammelte Aufsätze von Martin Diberlius. Bornkamm, G. hg. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Siebeck, 1953. 1. Band. pp. 221-248. DIBELIUS, M. "Zur Formgeschichte der Evangelien". ThR (1929), pp. 185-216. DIBELIUS, M. "Herodes und Pilatus". ZNW 16 (1915), pp.113-126. DOWN, Sharyn.”Is Matthew 18:15-17 about Church Disciple” in Scripture and Tradition –essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay. Gray, Patrick, O´Day, Gail, R. ed. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 129. Leiden: Brill 2008, pp. 137-150. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

305

Bibliography

DULING, Dennis. "Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David". HThR 68, 1975, pp. 235-252. DULING, Dennis. "The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew's Christological Apologetic". NTS 24 (1978), pp. 392-408. DUNN, James, D.G. "Matthew as Wirkungsgeschichte" in Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog, Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäusevangelium, Festschrift für Ulrich Luz zum 70. Geburtstag. Lampe, Peter, Mayordomo, Moises und Sato, Migaku hg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008, pp. 149-166. DUNN, James, D.J. "Did Jesus attend the Synagogues?" in Jesus and Archaeology. Charlesworth, J.H. ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006, pp. 206-222. DUNN, James, D.J. "Jesus and Purity: an ongoing debate". NTS 48 (2002), pp. 449467. EPPSTEIN, V. "The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple". NZW 55 (1964), pp. 42-57. EBEL, Eva. "Regeln von der Gemeinschaft für die Gemeinschaft? Das Aposteldekret und antike Vereinssatzungen im Vergleich" in Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen –Gemeinschaft und ihre Ordnung. Öhler Markus hg. WUNT 280, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, pp. 317-340. EDWARDS, James, R. "Galatians 5:12: Circumcision, the Mother Goddness, and the Scandal of the Cross". NT. Vol. LIII (2011), pp. 319-337. ESHEL, Esther. "Jesus the Exorcist in Light of Epigraphic Sources" in Jesus and Archaeology. Charlesworth, J.H. ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006, pp. 178-185. EVANS, Craig, A. "Prophet, Sage, Healer, Messiah and Martyr: Types and Identities of Jesus" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 2, pp. 1217-1244. EVANS, Craig, A. "Have You Not Read…? Jesus' Subversive Interpretation of Scripture" in Jesus Research –an International Perspective. The First PrincetonPrague Symposium on Jesus Research, Prague 2005. Charlesworth James, H., Pokorny, Petr ed. Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009, pp. 182-198. EVANS, Craig A. "Who touched me? Jesus and the Ritually Impure" in Jesus in Context –temple, Purity, and Restoration. Chilton, B., Evans, C.A. ed. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums (AGJU) 39. Leiden: Brill, 1997, pp. 353-376. FINKELSTEIN, Louis. "The development of the Amidah" in Pharisaism in the Making. Finkelstein L. ed. New York: Ktav Publishing House Inc., 1972, pp. 245333. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

306

Bibliography

FINKELSTEIN, Louis. "Book of Jubilee and Halaka" in Pharisaism in the Making selected Essays. Finkelstein, L. ed. New York: Ktav Publishing House Inc., 1972, pp. 199-222. FINKELSTEIN, Louis. "The Pre-Maccabean Documents" in Pharisaism in the Making - selected Essays. Finkelstein, L. ed. New York: Ktav Publishing House Inc., 1972, pp. 41-120. FINKELSTEIN, Louis. "The Origin of the Synagogue" in Pharisaism in the Making selected Essays. Finkelstein, L. ed. New York: Ktav Publishing House Inc., 1972, pp. 1-12. FINKELSTEIN, Louis. "The Origin of the Pharisees" in Pharisaism in the Making selected Essays. Finkelstein, L. ed. New York: Ktav Publishing House Inc., 1972, pp. 175-187. [Abbrev.: Finkelstein, origin] FINKELSTEIN, Louis. "The Ethnics of Anonymity Among the Pharisees" in Pharisaism in the Making - selected Essays. Finkelstein, L. ed. New York: Ktav Publishing House Inc., 1972, pp. 187-198 FINKELSTEIN, Louis. "The Oral Law" in The Pharisees - the Sociological Background of their Faith. Finkelstein, L. ed.Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1946, vol. I., pp. 261-280. FITZMYER, J.A. "The Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts" in The Unity of Luke-Acts. Verheyden, J. ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXLII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999, pp. 165-184. FITZMYER, J.A. "The Matthean Divorce Texts and some Palestinian Evidence" in to Advance the Gospel - New Testament studies. 2nd edition. The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, Michigan : Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 79-112. FLUSSER, David. "Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes in Pesher Nahum" in Judaism of the Second Temple Period. Flusser D. ed. (translated by Azzan Yardin). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009. Vol. 2, pp. 214-258. FLUSSER, David. "Love your Fellow man" in Judaism of the Second Temple Period. Flusser D. ed. (translated by Azzan Yardin). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009. Vol. 2, pp. 156-171. FLUSSER, David. "The Decalogue and the New Testament" in Judaism of the Second Temple Period. Flusser D. ed. (translated by Azzan Yardin). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009. Vol. 2, pp. 172-190. FLUSSER, David. "The Half Shekel in the Gospels and the Qumran Community" in Judaism of the Second Temple Period. Flusser D. ed. (translated by Azzan Yardin). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.Vol. 1. pp. 327-333. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

307

Bibliography

FLUSSER, David. "4QMMT and the Benediction Against the Minim" in Judaism of the Second Temple Period. Flusser D. ed. (translated by Azzan Yardin). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007. Vol. 1 pp. 70118. FRANKEMÖLLE, H. "Das Matthäusevangelium als Heilige Schrift und die heilige Schrift des früheren Bundes – von der zwei-Quellen zur drei Quellen Theorie" in The Synoptic Gospels - source criticism and the new literary criticism. Focant C. ed, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CX Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993, pp. 281-310. FREY, Jörg. "Temple and Identity in Early Christianity and in the Johannine Community: Reflections on the Parting of the Ways" in Was 70CE a Watershed in Jewish History –on Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple. Schwartz, Daniel R., Weiss, Zeev, Clements Ruth ed. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 78. Leiden: Brill, 2012, pp. 447-508. FREYNE, Sean. "Matthew and Mark –the Jewish Context" in Mark and Matthew I comparative readings: understanding the earliest gospels in their first century settings. Becker, Eve-Marie, Runesson, Anders ed. WUNT 271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, pp. 179-204. GARRETT, Susan, R. "Jesus als Befreier vom Satan und den Mächten". ZNT. Heft 28, 14 Jahrgang (2011), pp. 14-23. GASSMANN, Günther. "Rezeption I". TRE XXIX (1998), pp. 131-142. GEIGER, G. "Falsche Zitate bei Matthäus und Lukas" in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Tuckett, C.M. ed. Biliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXXXI. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997, pp. 479-486. GERHARDSSON, Birger. "An ihren Früchten sollt ihr sie erkennen, die Legitimitätsfrage in der matthäischen Christologie" in The Shema in the New Testament - Deut 6:4-5 in Significant Passages. Lund: Novapress, 1996, pp. 173186. GERHARDSSON, Birger. "The Shema in Early Christianity" in The Four Gospels – Festschrift Frans Neirynck. van Segbroeck, F., Tuckett, C.M., van Belle G., Verheyden, J. ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) C. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Vol. 1, pp. 275-294. GERHARDSSON, Birger. "The Seven Parables in Matthew XIII". NTS 19 (1972-73), pp. 16-37. GRABBE, Lester L. "Synagogue and Sanhedrin in the First Century" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol.2, pp. 1723-1746. GREEN, Joel, B. "Family, Friends, and Foes" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol.3, pp. 2433-2454. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

308

Bibliography

GRUNDEKEN, Mark, R.C. "Community Formation in Matthew: A Study of Matthew 18,15-18" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 453-463. GUNDRY, Robert H. "Matthew: Jewish-Christian or Christian-Jewish? At an Intersection of Sociology and Theology" in The Old is Better –new Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations. Gundry, R. ed. WUNT 178. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, pp. 111-119. GUNDRY, Robert H. "Salvation in Matthew" in The Old is Better –new Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations. Gundry, R. ed. WUNT 178. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, pp. 120-128. GUNDRY, Robert H. "In Defense of the Church in Matthew as a Corpus Mixtum". ZNW 91 (2000), pp. 153-165. HAACKER, Klaus. "Der Geist und das Reich im Lukanischen Werk: Konkurrenz oder Konvergenz zwischen Pneumatologie und Eschaotologie?". NTS. Vol. 59, no. 3, July 2013, pp. 325-345. HAACKER, Klaus. "Die Einladung zur Mitfreude. Bekanntes und Verkanntes zu Lukas 15". ThBeitr, 10-2/3, 41 Jahrgang, (2010), pp.114-125. HAACKER, Klaus. "What Must I Do to inherit Eternal Life? Implicit Christology in Jesus´Sayings about Life and the Kingdom" in Jesus Research – An International Perspective. The First Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Prague 2005. Charlesworth James, H., Pokorny, Petr ed. Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009, pp. 140-153. HAACKER, Klaus. "Ehescheidung und Wiederverheiratung im Neuen Testament". ThQ 151 (1971), pp. 28-38. HÄFNER, Gerd. "Das Matthäus-Evangelien und seine Quelle" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-ParisWalpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 25-71. HARB, Gertraud. "Die Stellung des historischen Jesus zur Tempelsteuer: Überlegungen zu Mt 17,24-27" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 465-477. HARE, Douglas, R., A., and HARRINGTON, Daniel, J. "Make Disciples of all the Gentiles, (Mt 28:19)". CBQ. Vol. 37 (1975), pp. 359-369. HAUCK, Frederich. "karpo,j" in ThWNT, band III (1990), pp. 617-619. HENGEL, M. "Zur Matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund". ThR 52 (1987), pp. 327-400. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

309

Bibliography

HERRENBRÜCK, Fritz. "Zum Vorwurf der Kollaboration des Zöllner mit Rom". ZNW 78 (1987), pp. 186-199. HILL, David. "On the Use of Hosea vi.6 in Matthew’s Gospel". NTS XXIV (1978), pp. 107 – 119. HIMMELFARB, Martha. "Found Written in the Book of Moses: Priests in the Era of Torah" in Was 70CE a Watershed in Jewish History – on Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple. Schwartz, Daniel R., Weiss, Zeev, Clements Ruth ed. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 78. Leiden: Brill, 2012, pp. 23-42. HIRSCH, E.G. "Proselyten". JE. Vol. X, p. 220-224. HOEHNER, Harold, W. "The Chronology of Jesus" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 2315-2360. HOFIUS, Otfried. "Jesu Tischgemeinschaft mit den Sündern" in Neutestamentliche Studien. Hofius, O. ed. WUNT 132. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, pp. 19-37. HOLME/,N, Tom. "Jesus and the Purity Paradigm" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 2709-2744. HOLME,N, Tom. "A Contagious Purity: Jesus´Inverse Strategy for Eschatological Cleanliness" in Jesus Research – An International Perspective. The First PrincetonPrague Symposium on Jesus Research, Prague 2005. Charlesworth James, H., Pokorny, Petr ed. Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009, pp. 199-229. HOOKER, M.D. "The Son of Man and the Synoptic Problem" in The Four Gospels – Festschrift Frans Neirynck, van Segbroeck, F., Tuckett, C.M., van Belle G., Verheyden, J. ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) C. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Vol. 1, pp. 189-202. HORN, F.W. "Die Haltung des Lukas zum römischen Staat im Evangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte" in The Unity of Luke-Acts. Verheyden, J. ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXLII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999, pp. 203-224. HÜNEBURG, M. "Jesus als Wundertäter. Zu einem vernachlässigten Aspekt des Jesusbildes von Q" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Lindemann, A. hg. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CLVIII, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001, pp. 635-648. INSTONE-BREWER, David. "Rabbinic Writings in New Testament Research" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 2, pp. 1687-1722. JEREMIAS, J. li,qoj. ThWNT. Band 4 (1942). pp. 272-283. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

310

Bibliography

JEREMIAS, J. "Zöllner und Sünder". ZNW (1931). Band 30, pp. 293-300. 311 JOHNSON, Luke Timothy. "Anti-Judaism and the New Testament" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 2, pp. 1609-1638. KÄSEMANN, E. "Zum Thema der Nichtobjektivierbarkeit" in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen. Käsemann E. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960, pp. 233-236. KÄSEMANN, E. "Das Problem des historischen Jesus" in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen. Käsemann E. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960, pp. 187-214. KARRER, Martin. Cremer, Oliver. "Vereinsgeschichtliche Impulse im ersten Christentum" in Logos-Logik-Lyrik: engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Rede Gottes. Festschrift für Klaus Haacker. Lehnert, Volker, A., Rüsen-Weinhold U. hg. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 27. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007, pp. 33-52. KARRER, Martin. "Licht über dem Galiläa der Völker – die Forschreibung von Jes 9:1-2 in der LXX" in Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee. Attridge H.W., Martin, D.B., Zangenberg, J. eds. WUNT 210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007, pp. 33-53. KARRER, Martin. "Jesus, der Retter (Soter). Zur Aufnahme eines hellenistischen Prädikats im Neuen Testament". ZNW 93 (2002), pp. 153-176. KARRER, Martin. "Und ich werde sie heilen – das Verstockungsmotiv aus Jes 6:9 in Apg 28:26" in Kirche und Volk Gottes – Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70. Geburtstag. Karrer, Martin, Kraus, Wolfgang, Merk, Otto hg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 2000, pp. 255-271. KARRER, Martin. "Der lehrende Jesus – Neutestamentliche Erwägungen". ZNW 83 (1992), pp. 1-20. KEE, Howard, C. "The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories". NTS 14, (1967/68), pp. 232-246. KELLERMANN, Ulrich. "Wer kann Sünden vergeben ausser Elia, in der prophetischen Verkündigung" in Gottes Recht als Lebensraum – Festschrift für Hans Jochen Boecker, Mommer P. Aschermann, H., Bach, R., Karrer, M., Kreuzer, S., Vieweger, D. hg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 1993. pp.165-178. KILPATRICK, G.D. "The Historic Present in the Gospels and Acts". ZNW 68 (1977), pp. 258-262. KIM, Huat Tan. "Jesus and the Shema" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 2677-2708. KLINGHARDT, Matthias. "Gesetz bei Markion und Lukas" in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im neuen Testament – Festschrift für Christoph Burchard zum 75. Geburtstag. Sänger Dieter, Konradt, Matthias hg. Novum Testamentum et orbis The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Bibliography

antiquus : Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 57 . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Academic Press Fribourg, 2006, pp. 99-129. KLOPPENBORG, John, S. "The Theodotos Synagogue Inscriptions and the Problem of First Century Synagogue Buildings" in Jesus and Archaeology. Charlesworth, J.H. ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006, pp. 236-282. KNITTEL, Thomas. "Dass Bibel und Leben sich küssen: Beobachtungen zum Schriftgebrauch Jesu im Matthäusevangelium – eine Skizze" in Evangelium Ecclesiasticum – Matthäus und die Gestalt der Kirche. Festschrift für Christoph Kähler zum 65 Geburtstag. Böttich, Christfried, Hübner, H.-P., Voigt, K., Wiegand D. hg. Frankfurt am Main: Hansisches Druck-und Verlagshaus GmbH, 2009, pp. 219-240. KOCH, Dietrich-Alex. "Proselyten und Gottesfürchtige als Hörer der Reden von Apostelgeschichte 2:14-39 und 13:16-41" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die Hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65 Geburtstag. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 57. Breytenbach, Cilliers, Schröter, Jens. hg. Leiden, Bosten: Brill, 2004, pp. 83-109. KOCH, Stefan. "Die entscheidenden Kleinen: Beobachtungen zu den evla,cistoi und den mikroi, im Mt-Ev at the crossroads" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 511-523. KOLLMANN, Bernd. "Jesus and Magic: the Question of the Miracles" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol.4, pp. 3957-3086. KOLLMANN, Bernd. "Jesus Verbot des Richtens und die Gemeindedisziplin". ZNW 88 (1997), pp. 170-186. KONRADT, Matthias. "Rezeption and Interpretation des Dekalogs im Matthäusevangelium" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 131-157. KONRADT, Matthias. "Die Taufe des Gottessohnes. Erwägungen zur Taufe Jesu im Matthäusevangelium (Mt 3, 13-17)" in Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog, Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäusevangelium, Festschrift für Ulrich Luz zum 70. Geburtstag. Lampe, Peter, Mayordomo, Moises und Sato, Migaku hg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008, pp. 257-274. KONRADT, Matthias. "Die vollkommene Erfüllung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium" in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im neuen Testament – Festschrift für Christoph Burchard zum 75. Geburtstag. Sänger The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

312

Bibliography

Dieter, Konradt, Matthias hg. Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus : Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 57. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Academic Press Fribourg, 2006, pp. 129-152. KOPERSKI, Veronica. "The Many Faces of Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15,21-28" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 525-535. KOWALSKI, Beate. "Wunder bei den Heiden: Der heidnische Hauptmann (Mt 8:5-13) und die kanaanäische Frau (Mt 15, 21-28) in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 537-559. KRAUS, Wolfgang. "Zur Ekklesiologie des Matthäusevangeliums" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-ParisWalpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 195-239. KREPLIN, Matthias. "The Self Understanding of Jesus" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 2473-2516. KVALBEIN, Hans. "Wem gehört das Reich Gottes? Vor der Botschaft Jesu zum Evangelium des Paulus" in Logos-Logik-Lyrik: engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Rede Gottes. Festschrift für Klaus Haacker. Lehnert, Volker, A., RüsenWeinhold U. hg. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 27. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007, pp. 97-115. LABAHN, Michael. "The Non Synoptic Jesus: An Introduction to John, Paul, Thomas, and other outsiders of the Jesus Quest" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 1933-1996 LABAHN, Michael. "The Dark Side of Power – Beelzebul: Manipulated or Manipulator? Reflections on the History of a conflict in the traces left in the memory of the narrators" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 4, pp. 2911-2947. LABAHN, Michael. "Jesu Exorzismen (Q 11, 19-20) und die Erkenntnis der ägyptischen Magier (Ex 8, 15)" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Lindemann, A. hg. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CLVIII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001, pp. 617-634. LAMBRECHT, Jan. "You shall not swear falsely (Matt 5:33c): A Response on John A.L. Lee". NT. Vol. LIII, Fasc 4 (2011), pp. 315-319. LAMBRECHT, Jan. "The Weeds in Context: Composition in Matthew 13, 24-43" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

313

Bibliography

Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 561-567. LANFRANCHI, Pierluigi. "Attitudes to the Sabbath in Three Apostolic Fathers: Didache, Ignatius, and Barnabas" in Jesus, Paul and Early Christianity – Studies in Honour of Henk Jan de Jonge. Buitenwerf, Rieuwerd, Hollander, Harm W., and Tromp, Johannes ed. Supplement to Novum Testamentum 130, Leiden: Brill, 2008 pp. 243-259. LE DONNE, Anthony. "Diarchic Symbolism" in Mathew’s Procession Narrative: A dead sea scrolls Perspective" in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality. Evans, Craig & Zacharias, H. Daniel ed. Thematic Studies, London: T&T Clark, 2009, vol. 1, pp. 87-95. LEMKE, Werner, E. "Circumcision of the Heart: The Journey of a biblical Metaphor" in A God So Near - essays on Old Testament theology in honor of Patrick D. Miller. Strawn B. ed. Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 2003, pp. 299-320. LEONHARDT-BALZER, Jutta. "Kontexte zum Bösen im Neuen Testament". ZNT. Heft 28, 14 Jahrgang (2011), pp. 2-13. LEVINE, Amy-Jill, "Matthew's Portrayal of the Synagogue und its Leaders" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 177-193. LIEU, Judith. "The Synagogue and the Separation of the Christians" in the Ancient Synagogue from its origins until 200CE - papers presented at an international conference at Lund University, October 14 - 17, 2001. Olsson, B and Zetterholm M. ed. Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament series 39. Stockholm: Almqrist & Wiksel International, 2003, pp. 189-207. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Paulus und die Jesustradition" in Glauben, Handeln, Verstehen. Lindemann, A. ed. WUNT 282. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, pp. 73115. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "..und trieb alle aus dem Tempel hinaus (Joh 2:15) – Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit im Jesusbild der Evangelien" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte- Studien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte. Lindemann, A.ed. WUNT 241. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 194-225. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Jesu und das epilepsiekranke kind" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte - Studien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte. Lindemann, A. ed.WUNT 241. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 93-108. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Die Logienquelle Q – Fragen an eine gute begründete Hypothese" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte - Studien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte. Lindemann, A. ed.WUNT 241. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 164-185. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

314

Bibliography

LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Der äthiopische Eunuch und die Anfänge der Mission unter den Völkern" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte - Studien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte. Lindemann, A. ed. WUNT 241. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 231-252. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Der Sabbat ist um des Menschen willen geworden historische und theologische Erwägung zur Traditionsgeschichte der Sabbatperikope Mk 2:23-28 parr" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte Studien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte. Lindemann, A.ed. WUNT 241. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 15-39. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Jesus und der Sabbat" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte - Studien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte. Lindemann, A. ed. WUNT 241. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 40-54. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Einheit und Vielfalt im lukanischen Doppelwerk – Beobachtungen zu Reden, Wundererzählungen und Mahlberichten" in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte - Studien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte. Lindemann, A. ed. WUNT 241. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 186-212. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Literatur zu den Synoptischen Evangelien 1992-2000 (IV). Das Lukasevangelium". ThR 70 (2005), pp. 44-88. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Literatur zu den Synoptischen Evangelien 1992-2000 (V). Das Matthäusevangelium (Teil 1)". ThR 70 (2005), pp. 174-216. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Literatur zu den Synoptischen Evangelien 1992-2000 (I). Methoden-diskussion und Darstellungen übergreifender Themen". ThR 69 (2004), pp. 182-227. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Literatur zu den Synoptischen Evangelien 1992-2000 (II). Die Logienquelle Q". ThR 69 (2004), pp. 241-272. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Literatur zu den Synoptischen Evangelien 1992-2000 (III). Das Markusevangelium". ThR 69 (2004), pp. 369-423. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Literatur zu den Synoptischen Evangelien 1992-2000 (III). Das Matthäusevangelium (Teil 2)". ThR 70 (2004), pp. 338-382. LINDEMANN, Andreas. Eschatologie. RGG 2 (1999), pp. 1553-1559. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Literatur zu den Synoptischen Evangelien 1984-1991. Methoden-diskussion und Darstellungen übergreifender Themen". ThR 59 (1994). pp. 41-100, 113-185, 252-284. LINDEMANN, Andreas. "Herrschaft Gottes". TRE XV (1986), pp. 196-218. LOADER, William. "Jesus and the Law" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 2745-2773. LOADER, William. "Does Matthew's Handling of Sexuality Issues Shed Light on Its Context?" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

315

Bibliography

Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 569-583. LOHSE, Eduard. "Der Sohn Davids als Helfer und Retter" in Logos-Logik-Lyrik: engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Rede Gottes. Festschrift für Klaus Haacker. Lehnert, Volker, A., Rüsen-Weinhold U. hg. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 27. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007, pp. 297-304. LOHSE, Eduard. "Synagoge des Satans und Gemeinde Gottes – Zum Verhältnis von Juden und Christen nach der Offenbarung des Johannes". Franz-DelitzschVorlesung - 1989, Münster, 1992. LOHSE, Eduard. "Ich aber sage euch" in Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde exegetische Untersuchungen. Joachim Jeremias zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Schülern. Lohse, E. (ed). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970, pp. 189-203. LÖHR, Hermut. "Unzücht: Überlegungen zu einer Bestimmung der Jakobus-Klauseln im Aposteldekret sowie zu den Geltungsgründen von Normen frühchristlicher Ethik" in Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen – Gemeinschaft und ihre Ordnung. Öhler Markus hg. WUNT 280. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, pp. 49-64. LÖHR, Helmut. "Speisenfrage und Tora im Judentum des Zweiten Tempels und im entstehenden Christentum". ZNW 94 (2003), pp.. 17–37. LÜHRMANN, Dieter. "Matthäus in der Kritik. Beobachtungen am Thomas- und am Mariaevangelium" in Jesus, Paul and Early Christianity – Studies in Honour of Henk Jan de Jonge. Buitenwerf, Rieuwerd, Hollander, Harm W., and Tromp, Johannes ed. Supplement to Novum Testamentum. Vol. 130. Leiden: Brill, 2008, pp. 317-327. LÜHRMANN, Dieter. "Die Logienquelle und die Leben-Jesu-Forschung" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Lindemann, A. hg. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CLVIII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001, pp. 191-206. LÜHRMANN, Dieter. "Die Pharisäer und die Schriftgelehrten im Markusevangelium" . ZNW 78 (1987), pp. 169-185. LUOMANEN, Petri. “From Mark and Q to Matthew: An Experiment in Evolutionary Analysis” in Mark and Matthew II - comparative readings: Reception History, Cultural Hermeneutics, and Theology. Becker, Eve-Marie, Runesson, Anders ed. WUNT 271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, pp. 37-74. LUZ, Ulrich. "Spaltung in Israel. Ein Gespräch mit Matthias Konradt" in Evangelium Ecclesiasticum – Matthäus und die Gestalt der Kirche. Festschrift für Christoph Kähler zum 65 Geburtstag. Böttich, Christfried, Hübner, H.-P., Voigt, K., Wiegand D. hg. Frankfurt am Main: Hansisches Druck-und Verlagshaus GmbH, 2009, pp. 285-302. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

316

Bibliography

LUZ, Ulrich. "Fiktivität und Traditionstreue im Matthäusevangeliem im Lichte griechischer Literatur". ZNW 84 (1993), pp. 153-177. LUZ, Ulrich. "Geschichte/Geschichtsschreibung/Geschichtsphilosophie III". TRE 12 1984, pp. 595-604. LYBAEK, Lena. "Matthew’s Use of Hosea 6:6 in the Context of Sabbath Controversies" in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Tuckett, C.M. ed. Biliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXXXI. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997, pp. 491-500. MACH, Michael F. "Zur Umstruktuierung der jüdischen Religion nach der Zerstörung des zweiten Tempels in Jahre 70". Welt und Umwelt der Bibel. Heft 13, 3 Quartal, 1999, pp. 38-40. MALBON, Elizabeth Struthers. "The Jewish Leaders in the Gospel of Mark: A literary Study of Marcan Characterisation". JBL 108 (1989), pp. 259-281. MALBON, Elizabeth Struthers. "Mark 2:15 in Context". NTS. Vol. XXXI (1985), pp. 282-320. MARGUERAT, D. "Luc-Acts: une unite a construire" in The Unity of Luke-Acts. Verheyden, J., ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXLII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999, pp. 57-82. MARGUERAT, D. "Strukturale Textlektüren des Evangeliums" in Methode der Evangelien-Exegese. Theologische Berichte - hg. im Auftrag der Theologischen Hochschule Chur und der Theologischen Fakultät der Hochschule Luzern 13. Zürich: Benziger Verlag. 1985, pp. 41-85. MARTINEZ, Florentino G. "Priestly Functions in a Community without Temple" in Gemeinde ohne Tempel - zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Ego, Beate, Lange, Armin, Pilhofer, Peter ed. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999, pp. 303-322. MARTINEZ, Ernest, R. "The interpretation of oi mathetai in Matthew 18". CBQ 23 (1961), pp. 281-292. MASON, S.N. "Was Josephus a Pharisee? A Re-Examination of Life 10-12". JJS XL (1989), pp. 31-45. MASSINGBERD, Ford, J. "The Forgiveness Clause in the Matthean Form of the our Father". ZNW 59 (1968), pp. 127-130. MEIER, John. P. "The Quest for the historical Pharisee: A Review Essay on Roland Deines, Die Pharisäer". CBQ 61 (1999), pp. 713-722. MEISER, Martin. "Vollkommenheit in Qumran und im Matthäusevangelium" in Kirche und Volk Gottes – Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70. Geburtstag. Karrer, Martin, Kraus, Wolfgang, Merk, Otto hg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 2000, pp. 195-209. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

317

Bibliography

METZNER, Rainer. "Der Rückung Jesu im Matthäusevangelium – ein literarisches Deja-vu-Erlebnis". ZNW 94 (2003), pp. 258-268. MEYER, Rudolf. "Der Am ha-‘Ares. Ein Beitrag zur Religionssoziologie Palästinas im 1 und 2 nachchristlichen Jahrhundert". Jud 3 (1947), pp. 169-199. MITCHELL, Margaret M. "Peter’s "Hyprocrisy" and Paul’s: Two “Hyprocrites” at the Foundation of earliest Christianity?". NTS 58 (2012), pp. 213-234. MITTMANN-RICHERT, Ulrike. "Die Dämonen und der Tod des Gottesohns im Markusevangelium" in Dämonen - die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Lange, Armin, Lichtenberger, H., Römheld, K.F.D. ed. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Siebeck, 2003, pp. 476-504. MOYISE, Steve. "Jesus and the Scriptures of Israel" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 2, pp. 1135-1167. MÜLLER, Karlheinz. "Forschungsgeschichtliche Anmerkungen zum Thema „Jesus und das Gesetz - Versuch einer Zwischenbilanz" in Kirche und Volk Gottes – Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70. Geburtstag. Karrer, Martin, Kraus, Wolfgang, Merk, Otto hg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 2000, pp. 58-77. MÜLLER, Markus. "Proskynese und Christologie nach Matthäus" in Kirche und Volk Gottes – Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70. Geburtstag. Karrer, Martin, Kraus, Wolfgang, Merk, Otto hg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 2000, pp. 210224. MÜLLER, Mogens. "Bundesideologie im Matthäusevangelium. Die Vorstellung vom neuen Bund als Grundlage der matthäischen Gesetzsverkündigung". NTS 58 (2012), pp. 23-42. MÜLLER, U.B. "Zur Rezeption gesetzeskritischer Jesusüberlieferung im frühen Christentum". NTS 27 (1981), pp. 158-185. MÜLLER, Ulrich. "Sohn Gottes – ein messianischer Hohetitel Jesu". ZNW 87 (1996), pp. 1-32. MURAOKA, Takamitsu. "Hosea 6 in the Septuagint" in Florilegium Lovaniense – studies in Septuagint and textual criticism in honour of Florentino García Martínez. Ausloos, H., Lemmelijn B., and Vervenne M. ed., Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) 224. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2008, pp. 335-350. NEIRYNCK, Frans. "The source of Matthew – annotations to U. Luz’s Commentary" in Evangelia III – Gospel studies, études d'évangile, collected essays by Neirynck Frans. van Segbroeck, F. ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CL. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001, pp. 371-398. NEIRYNCK, Frans. "The Reconstruction of Q and IQP/CritEd Parallels" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Lindemann, A. hg. Bibliotheca The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

318

Bibliography

Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CLVIII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001, pp. 53-148. NEIRYNCK, Frans. "Luke 4, 16-30 and the Unity of Luke-Acts" in The Unity of LukeActs. Verheyden, J. ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXLII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999, pp. 357-398. NEIRYNCK, Frans. "Paul and the sayings of Jesus" in Evangelia II – Gospel studies, études d'évangile, collected essays by Neirynck Frans. van Segbroeck, F. ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) XCIX. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991, pp.511-568. NEIRYNCK, Frans. "Jesus and the Sabbath" in Evangelia – Gospel studies, études d'évangile, collected essays by Neirynck Frans. van Segbroeck, F. ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) LX. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982, pp. 637-680. NEUSNER, Jacob. "How Important was the Destruction of the Second Temple in the Formation of Rabbinic Judaism? Some Consideration" in The Words of a wise man´s mouth are gracious (QOH 10:12) – Festschrift for Günter Stemberger on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Perani M. ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005, pp. 7794. NODET, Etienne. "Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 2, pp. 1495-1544. NOEL, F. "The Double Commandment of Love in Lk 10:27" in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Tuckett, C.M. ed. Biliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXXXI. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997, pp. 559-570. NOLLAND, John, "Lukes and Acts" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 1901-1933. NOTLEY, Steven, R. "Jesus’ Jewish Hermeneutical Method in the Nazareth Synagogue" in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, Exegetical Studies. Evans, Craig & Zacharias, H. Daniel ed. London: T&T Clark, London, 2009. Vol.2, pp. 46-59. OEGEMA, Gerbern S. "Jesus Casting out of Demons in the Gospel of Mark against its Greco-Roman Background" in Dämonen - die Dämonologie der israelitischjüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Lange, Armin, Lichtenberger, H., Römheld, K.F.D. ed. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Siebeck, 2003, pp. 505-518. OSTMEYER, Karl-Heinrich."Der Stammbaum des Verheissenen: Theologische Implikationen der Namen und Zahlen in Mt 1:1-17". NTS 46 (2000), pp. 175-192. OTTENHEIJM, Eric. "The Shared Meal – a Therapeutical Device: The Function and Meaning of Hos 6:6 in Matt 9:10-13". NT. Vol. LIII Fasc 1 (2011), pp. 1-21. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

319

Bibliography

PANTLE-SCHIEBER, Klaus. "Anmerkungen zur Auseinandersetzung von evkklhsi,a und Judentum in Matthäusevangelium". ZNW 80 (1989) pp. 145-162. PENNINGTON, Jonathan, T. "Refractions of Daniel in the Gospel of Matthew" in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality. Evans, Craig & Zacharias, H. Daniel, ed. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Vol. 1. pp. 65-86. PESCH, Rudolf "Levi-Matthäus, ein Beitrag zur Lösung eines alten Problem". ZNW 59 (1968), pp. 40-56. PIPER, R.A. "Jesus and the Conflict of Powers in Q: Two Q Miracle Stories" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Lindemann, A. hg. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CLVIII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001, pp. 317-350. POKORNY, Petr "Words of Jesus in Paul: On the Theology and Praxis of the Jesus Tradition" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 4, pp. 3437-3465. POKORNY, Petr. “Demoniac and Drunkard: John the Baptist and Jesus According to Q 7:33-34” in Jesus Research – An International Perspective. The First PrincetonPrague Symposium on Jesus Research, Prague 2005. Charlesworth James, H., Pokorny, Petr ed. Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009, pp. 170-181. POPE, Marvin H., "Baal Worship". EJ. Vol. 3. 2 edition, pp. 9-13.. POPLUTZ, Uta "Verunsicherter Glaube. Der finale Zweifel der Jünger im Matthäusevangelium aus figuranalytischer Sicht" in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes. Dettwiler A., Poplutz U. hg. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 97. Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009, pp. 29-48. PRATSCHER, Wilhelm. "Der Beitrag des Herrenbruder Jakobus zur Entstehung des Aposteldekrets" in Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen - Gemeinschaft und ihre Ordnung. Öhler Markus hg. WUNT 280. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, pp. 33-48. RADL, W. "Die Beziehungen der Vorgeschichte zur Apostelgeschichte, dargestellt an Lk 2:22-39" in The Unity of Luke-Acts. Verheyden, J. ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXLII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999, pp. 297-312. RAU, Eckhard. "Jesu Auseinadersetzung mit Pharisäern über seine Zuwendung zu Sünderinnen und Sündern, Lk 15:11-32 und Lk 18:10 als Worte des historischen Jesus". ZNW 89 (1998), pp. 5-29. RÄISÄNEN, Heikki. "Matthew in Bibliodrama" in Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog, Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäusevangelium, Festschrift für Ulrich Luz zum 70. Geburtstag. Lampe, Peter, Mayordomo, Moises und Sato, Migaku hg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008, pp. 183-196. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

320

Bibliography

RÄISÄNEN, Heikki. "Exorcisms and the Kingdom, Is Q 11:20 a Saying of the Historical Jesus?" in Symbols and Strata - Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q. Uro, R. (ed). Suomen Eksegeettisen Seuran julkaisuja 65. Göttingen, Saarijärvi, Helsinki and Göttingen: Finnish Exegetical Society and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996, pp. 119-142. REPSCHINSKI, Boris. "Die literarische Form der Streitgespräche" in Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur - Texte und Kontexte. Wischmeyer, Oda, Scornaienchi, L. hg. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche (BNZW) 170. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011, pp. 415-432. RESE, Martin. "Jesus und die Dämonen im Matthäusevangelium" in Dämonen - die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Lange, Armin, Lichtenberger, H., Römheld, K.F.D. ed. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Siebeck, 2003 pp. 463-475. RESE, Martin. "The Jews in Luke-Acts. Some Second Thoughts" in The Unity of Luke-Acts. Verheyden, J. ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXLII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999, pp. 185-202. RESE, Martin. "Intertextualität – Ein Beispiel für Sinn und Unsinn „neuer“ Methoden" in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Tuckett, C.M. ed. Biliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXXXI. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997, pp. 431-440. RIESNER, Rainer. "From the Messianic Teacher to the Gospels of Jesus Christ" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 1, pp. 405-446. ROBINSON, J.M. "The Critical Edition of Q and the Study of Jesus" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Lindemann, A. hg. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CLVIII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001, pp. 27-52. RÖHSER, Günter. "Jesus – der wahre Schriftgelehrte". ZNW 86 (1995), pp. 20-33. ROLOFF, Jürgen. "evkklhsi,a" in Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Balz H., Schneider, G. hg. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 3. Auflage. Vol. 1 2011, pp. 998-1011. ROWLAND, Christopher. "Marginalia in Matthew" in Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog, Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäusevangelium, Festschrift für Ulrich Luz zum 70. Geburtstag. Lampe, Peter, Mayordomo, Moises und Sato, Migaku hg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008, pp. 197-212. ROST, Bettina. "Das Aposteldekret im Verhältnis zur Mosetora: Ein Beitrag zum Gottesvolk-Verständnis bei Lukas" in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historgraphie. Frey, J., Rothschild, C.K., Schröter J. hg. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009, pp. 563-604. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

321

Bibliography

RUNESSON, A. "Rethinking Early Jewish-Christian Relations: Matthean Community History as Pharisaic Intragroup Conflict". JBL 127 (2008), pp. 95-132. SANDERS, E.P. "Jesus and the Sinners". JSNT 19 (1983), pp. 5-36. SÄNGER, Dieter "Heiden-Juden-Christen". ZNW 89 (1998), pp. 146-172. SCHÄFER, Peter. "Der vorrabinische Pharisäismus" in Paulus und das antike Judentum - Tübingen-Durham-Symposium im Gedenken an den 50. Todestag Adolf Schlatters. Hengel, Martin hg. WUNT 58. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991, pp. 125175. SCHÄFER, Peter. "Die Torah der messianischen Zeit". ZNW 65 (1974), pp. 27-42. SCHALLER, Berndt. "Sabbat III". TRE 29, pp. 525-527. SCHNEIDER, Gerhard. "Zur Bedeutung von kaqexh/j in Lk Doppelwerk". ZNW 68 (1977), pp. 128-131. SCHOLTISSEK, K. "Geboren aus einer Frau, geboren unter das Gesetz (Gal 4:4): Die christologisch-soteriologische Bedeutung des irdischen Jesus bei Paulus" in Paulinische Christologie: Exegetische Beiträge: Festschrift for H. Hübner zum 70. Geburtstag. U. Schnelle, T. Söding, and M. Labahn ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000, pp. 194-219. SCHREIBER, Stefan. "Der Gefährliche Andere" in Welt und Unwelt der Bibel. 2/2012, pp. 37-41. SCHRÖTER, Jens. "Jesus of Galilee: The Role of Location in Understanding Jesus" in Jesus Research – An International Perspective. The First Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Prague 2005. Charlesworth James, H., Pokorny, Petr ed. Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009, pp. 36-55. SCHRÖTER, Jens. "Actaforschung seit 1982 IV. Israel, die Juden und das Alte Testament". ThR 73 (2008), pp. 1-59. SCHRÖTER, Jens. "Actaforschung seit 1982 V. Theologische Einzelthemen". ThR 73 (2008), pp. 150-196. SCHRÖTER, Jens. "Actaforschung seit 1982 VI. Gestalten und Gruppen. Einzelthemen. Bilanz und Perspektive". ThR 73 (2008), pp. 282-333. SCHRÖTER, Jens. "Die Evangelien als Augenzeugnberichte? Zur Auseinandersetzung mit Richard Bauckham". ThR 72 (2008), pp. 219-233. SCHRÖTER, Jens. "Exgese als Theologe" in Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog, Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäusevangelium, Festschrift für Ulrich Luz zum 70. Geburtstag. Lampe, Peter, Mayordomo, Moises und Sato, Migaku hg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008, pp. 213-236. SCHRÖTER, Jens. "Actaforschung seit 1982 I. Forschungsgeschichte und Kommentare". ThR 72 (2007), pp. 293-345. SCHRÖTER, Jens. "Actaforschung seit 1982 II Sammelbände, Text – und Rezeptionsgeschichte". ThR 72 (2007), pp. 179-230. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

322

Bibliography

SCHRÖTER, Jens. "Actaforschung seit 1982 III. Die Apostelgeschichte als Geschichtswerk". ThR 72 (2007), pp. 383-419. SCHRÖTER, Jens. "Heil für die Heiden und Israel. Zum Zusammenhang von Christologie und Volk Gottes bei Lukas" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die Hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65 Geburtstag. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 57. Breytenbach, Cilliers, Schröter, Jens hg. Leiden, Bosten: Brill, 2004, pp. 285-309. SCHRÖTER, Jens. "Die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus und der Charakter historischer Erkenntnis" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Lindemann, A. hg. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CLVIII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001, pp. 207-254. SCHRÖTER, Jens. "Markus, Q und der historische Jesus. Methodische und exegetische Erwägungen zu den Anfängen der Rezeption der Verkündigung Jesus". ZNW 89 (1998), pp. 173-200. SCHWARTZ, Daniel, R. "On the Jewish Background of Christianity" in the New Testament" in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Schwartz D. WUNT 60. Tübingen: JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992, pp. 1-26. SCHWARTZ, Daniel, R. "Kingdom of Priests – a Pharisaic Slogan?" in the New Testament" in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Schwartz D. WUNT 60. Tübingen: JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992, pp. 57-80. SCHWARTZ, Daniel, R. "Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites: Who are the Scribes in the New Testament" in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Schwartz D. WUNT 60. Tübingen: JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992, pp. 89-101. SCHWARTZ, Daniel, R. "On Sacrifice by Gentiles in the Temple of Jerusalem" in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Schwartz D. WUNT 60. Tübingen: JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992, pp. 102-116. SCHWARTZ, G. "SUPOFOINIKISSA CANANAIA – Markus 7:26/Matthäus 15:22". NTS 30 (1984), pp. 626-627. SCORNAIENCHI, Lorenzo. "The Controversy Dialogues and the Polemic in Mark and Matthew" in Mark and Matthew I - comparative readings: understanding the earliest gospels in their first century settings. Becker, Eve-Marie, Runesson, Anders ed. WUNT 271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, pp. 309-322. SENIOR, Donald, C.P. "Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity: An Introduction Assessment" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011. pp. 3-23. SENIOR, Donald, C.P. "The Special Material in Matthew’s Gospel" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 1875-1900. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

323

Bibliography

SIM, David, C. "Polemical Strategies in the Gospel of Matthew" in Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur - Texte und Kontexte. Wischmeyer, Oda, Scornaienchi, L. hg. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche (BNZW) 170. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011, pp. 491-516. SIM, David, C. "Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew intend to supplement or to replace his primary source?". NTS 57 (2011) pp. 176-192. SMITH, D. Moody. "Jesus Tradition in the Gospel of John", in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 1997-2040. SMITH, D. Moody. "Of Jesus and Quirinius". CBQ 62 (2000), pp. 278-293. SÖDING, Thomas. "Wenn ich mit dem Finger Gotts die Dämonen austreibe. (Lk 11:20). Die Exorzismen im Rahmen der Basilcia-Verkündigung Jesu" in Dämonen die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Lange, A., Lichtenberger, H., Römheld, K.F.D. ed. J.C.B. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003, pp. 519-559. STEIN, Hans-Joachim. "Zur Vergebung der Sünden. Erwägungen zu den israeltheologischen und ekklesialen Implikationen des matthäischen Abendmahls" in Logos-Logik-Lyrik : engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Rede Gottes. Festschrift für Klaus Haacker. Lehnert, Volker, A., Rüsen-Weinhold U. hg. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 27. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007, pp. 137-150. STEMBERGER, Günter. "Die Umformung des palästischen Judentums nach 70: Der Aufstieg der Rabbinen" in Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Oppenheimer A. hg. wege der Forschung, Schriften des historischen Kolleges 44. München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag.1999, pp. 85-99. STEYN, Gert, J. "Notes on the Vorlage of the Amos Quotations in Acts" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65 Geburtstag. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 57. Breytebach, Cilliers, Schröter, Jens hg. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2004, pp. 59-82. STOWASSER, Martin. "Am 5:25-27; 9,11 f. in der Qumranüberlieferung und in der Apostelgeschichte". ZNW 92 (2001), pp. 47-63. STUCKENBRUCK, Loren, T. "The Cleansing of the Gentiles: Background for the Rationale Behind the Apostles’ Decree in Acts 15" in Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen - Gemeinschaft und ihre Ordnung. Öhler Markus hg. WUNT 280. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, pp. 65-90. SÜHL, Alfred. "Der Davidssohn im Matthäus Evangelium". ZNW 56 (1968) pp. 57-81. THEISSEN, Gerd. "Matthew, Luke 2:22, Leviticus 12, and Parturient Impurity". NT . Vol. LIV Fasc 1 (2012), pp. 16-29. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

324

Bibliography

THEISSEN, Gerd. "Kritik an Paulus im Matthäusevangelium? Von der Kunst verdeckter Polemik im Urchristentum" in Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur Texte und Kontexte. Wischmeyer, Oda, Scornaienchi, L. hg. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche (BNZW) 170. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011, pp. 465-490. THEISSEN, Gerd. "Historical Scepticism and the Criteria of Jesus Research: My Attempt to leap over Lessing’s ugly wide ditch" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 2, pp. 549-588. THEISSEN, Gerd. "Jesus as an Itinerant Teacher: Reflections from Social History on Jesus´Roles" in Jesus Research – An International Perspective. The First PrincetonPrague Symposium on Jesus Research, Prague 2005. Charlesworth James, H., Pokorny, Petr ed. Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009, pp. 98122. THEISSEN, Gerd. "Gesetz und Goldene Regel. Die Ethik des Matthäusevangeliums zwischen Regel- und Empathieorientierung" in Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog, Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäusevangelium, Festschrift für Ulrich Luz zum 70. Geburtstag. Lampe, Peter, Mayordomo, Moises und Sato, Migaku hg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008, pp. 237-254. THOMPSON, William. "Reflections on the Composition of Mt 8:1-9:34". CBQ 33 (1971), pp. 365 -388. TILLY, Michael. "Die Sünden Israels und der Heidenbeobachtungen zu L.A.B., 25:913". JSJ. Vol. xxxvii (2006), pp. 192-211. TREBILCO, Paul. "The Significance of the Distribution of Self-designations in Acts". NT. Vol. LIV Fasc 1 (2012), pp. 30-49. TREBILCO, Paul. "Why did the early Christians call themselves h` evkklhsi,a". NTS 57 (2011), pp. 440-460. TSUMURA, D.T. "Coordination Interrupted, or Literary Insertion AX&B Pattern, in the Books of Samuel" in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. de REGT, L.J, de WAARD, J., FOKKELMANN, J.P. ed. Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp. B.V. 1996, pp. 117-123. TUCKETT, Christopher. "Matthew: The Social and Historical Context – Jewish Christian and/ or Gentile" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 99-129 TUCKETT, Christopher. "Jesus Tradition in non-Markan Material common to Matthew and Luke" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 1853-1874. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

325

Bibliography

TUCKETT, Christopher. "The Son of Man and Daniel 7: Q and Jesus" in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Lindemann, A. hg. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CLVIII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001, pp. 371-394. TUCKETT, Christopher. "The Christology of Luke-Acts" in The Unity of Luke-Acts. Verheyden, J., ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXLII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999, pp. 133-164. TWELFTREE, Graham, H. "Jesus and the Synagogue" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 4, pp. 3105-3134. ULRICH, Victor. "Der Wechsel der Tempora in griechischen erzählenden Texten mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Apostelgeschichte" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65 Geburtstag. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 57. Breytebach, Cilliers, Schröter, Jens hg. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2004, pp. 27-58. UTZSCHNEIDER, Helmut. "Überlegungen zum Verhältnis historischer und literarischer Deutung prophetischer Texte am Beispiel von Hos 5,8–6,6". ZAW 114 (2002), pp 80–105. VAHRENHORST, Martin. "Die Bergpredigt als Weisung zur Vollkommenheit. Noch ein Versuch, die Struktur und das Thema der Bergpredigt zu finden" in LogosLogik-Lyrik : engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Rede Gottes. Festschrift für Klaus Haacker. Lehnert, Volker, A., Rüsen-Weinhold U. hg. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 27. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007, pp. 115-136. VANRENHORST, Martin. "Gift oder Arznei". ZNW 92 (2001), pp. 145-167. VAN DE SANDT, Huub. "Matthew 11, 28-30: Compassionate Law Interpretation in Wisdom Language" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 313-337. VAN HENTEN, Jan Willem. "Matthew 2:16 and Josephus´ Portrayals of Herod" in Jesus, Paul and Early Christianity – Studies in Honour of Henk Jan de Jonge. Buitenwerf, Rieuwerd, Hollander, Harm W., and Tromp, Johannes ed. Supplement to Novum Testamentum 130. Leiden: Brill, 2008 pp. 101-122. VAN VOORST, Robert, E. "Jesus Tradition in classical and jewish Writings" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 2149-2182. VERHEYDEN, Joseph. "Rock and Stumbling Rock: The Fate of Matthew's Peter" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

326

Bibliography

Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 263-311. VERHEYDEN, Joseph. "The Violators of the Kingdom of God. Struggling with Q Polemics in Q 16:16-18" in Jesus, Paul and Early Christianity – Studies in Honour of Henk Jan de Jonge. Buitenwerf, Rieuwerd, Hollander, Harm W., and Tromp, Johannes ed. Supplement to Novum Testamentum 130, Leiden: Brill, 2008, pp. 397415. VERHEYDEN, Joseph. "The Unity of Luke-Acts. What are we up to" in The Unity of Luke-Acts. Verheyden, J. ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXLII. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999, pp.3-56. VERHOEF, E. "Eternal Life an Following the Commandments: Lev 18:5 and Lk 10:28" in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Tuckett, C.M. ed. Biliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXXXI. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997, pp. 571-578. VERMES, Geza. "Sectarian Matrimonial Halakhah" in the Damascan Rule" in Studies in Jewish Legal History - essays in honour of David Daube. Jackson, B. ed. The journal of Jewish studies - published by the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies 25. London: Jewish Chronicle Publication, 1974, pp.197-202. VERMES, Geza. "The use of vn rb or avn rb in Jewish Aramaic" in An Aramaic Approach to Gospels and Acts. Black, M. 3 ed. with an appendix on the Son of Man by Geza Vermes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967, pp. 310-330. VICTOR, Ulrich. "Der Wechsel der Tempora in griechischen erzählenden Texten mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Apostelgeschichte" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die Hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65 Geburtstag. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 57. Breytenbach, Cilliers, Schröter, Jens hg. Leiden, Bosten: Brill, 2004, pp. 27-58. VILJOEN, Francois, P. "Matthew, the Church and Anti-Semitism" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-ParisWalpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 665-681. VIVANO, Benedict Thomas, O.P. “Who Wrote Q? The Sayings Document (Q) as the Apostle Matthew´s Private Notebook as a Bilingual Village Scribe (Mark 2:13-17; Matt 9:9-13)” in Mark and Matthew II - comparative readings: Reception History, Cultural Hermeneutics, and Theology. Becker, Eve-Marie, Runesson, Anders ed. WUNT 271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, pp. 75-92. VIVANO, Benedict Thomas, O.P. "A Woman's Quest for Wisdom and the Adoration of the Magi as Part of Matthew's Program of Solomonic Sapiential Messianism" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 683-699. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

327

Bibliography

VOGEL, Manuel. "Das Böse ist böse genug". ZNT. Heft 28, 14 Jahrgang (2011), pp. 47-55. VÖLKER, Martin. "Freund der Zöllner und Sünders". ZNW 69 (1978), pp. 1-10. VON ARX, Urs. "Bemerkungen zu Mt 16, 17-19 und zur Rede vom Petrusamt" Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog, Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäusevangelium, Festschrift für Ulrich Luz zum 70. Geburtstag. Lampe, Peter, Mayordomo, Moises und Sato, Migaku hg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008, pp. 319-334. VON DOBBELER, Axel. "Die Restitution Israels und die Bekehrung der Heiden. Das Verhältnis von Mt 10:5b, 6 und Mt 28:18-20 unter dem Aspekt der Komplementarität. Erwägungen zum Standort des Matthäusevangeliums". ZNW 91 (2000) pp. 18-44. VON DOBSCHÜTZ, E. "Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechet". ZNW 27 (1928), pp. 33847. WAUBKE, Hans-Günther. "Die talmudische Haberim-Halacha und die Pharisäer" in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft - Standorte - Grenzen - Beziehungen. Doering, Lutz & Waubke Hans-Günther hg. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 226. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2008, pp. 108-130. WEAVER, Dorothy, Jean. "Thus you will know them by their fruits : The Roman Characters of the Gospel of Matthew" in The Gospel of Matthew in its Roman imperial context. Riches, J., Sim, David ed. Journal for the study of the new Testment supplement Series 276, London New York: T&T Clark International, pp. 102-128. WEDDERBURN, Alexander, J.M. "Jesus´Action in the Temple: A Key or a Puzzle?". ZNW 97 (2006), pp. 1-22. WEISS, Hans-.Friedrich. "Pharisäer". TRE XXVI (1996), pp. 473-485. WEISS, Zeev "Were Priests Communal Leaders in Late Antique Palestine? The Archaeological Evidence" in Was 70CE a Watershed in Jewish History –on Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple. Schwartz, Daniel R., Weiss, Zeev, Clements Ruth ed. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 78. Leiden: Brill, 2012, pp. 91-114. WENGST, Klaus. "Das Tun der Tora als Kriterium der Zugehörigkeit zur Gemeinde im Matthäusevangelium" in Evangelium Ecclesiasticum – Matthäus und die Gestalt der Kirche. Festschrift für Christoph Kähler zum 65 Geburtstag. Böttich, Christfried., Hübner, H.-P., Voigt, K., Wiegand D. hg. Frankfurt am Main: Hansisches Druck-und Verlagshaus GmbH, 2009, pp. 427-444. WENHAM, David. "Jesus Tradition in the Letters of the New Testament" in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Holmén, Tom, Porter, Stanley ed. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Vol. 3, pp. 2041-2058. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

328

Bibliography

WEREN, W. "Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem: Matthew 21:1-17 in the Light of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuaginta" in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Tuckett, C.M. ed. Biliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CXXXI, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997, pp. 117-142. WESTERHOLM, Stephen, “Hearing the Gospels of Matthew and Mark” in Mark and Matthew II - comparative readings: Reception History, Cultural Hermeneutics, and Theology. Becker, Eve-Marie, Runesson, Anders ed. WUNT 271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, pp. 245-258. WILK, Florian "Die synoptischen Evangelien des Neuen Testaments als Quelle für die Geschichte des Pharisäer" in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. Standorte - Grenzen - Beziehungen. Doering L. & Waubke Hans-Günther hg. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 226. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008, pp. 85-107. WINDISCH, H. "Die Sprüche vom Eingehen in das Reich Gottes". ZNW 27 (1928) pp. 163-197. WINDISCH, H. "kleine Beiträge zur evangelischen Überlieferubng". ZNW 18 (1917/18), pp. 73-83. WOLTER, Michael. "Die Proömien des lukanische Doppelwerks" in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historiographie. Frey, J., Rothschild, C.K., Schröter J. hg. Berlin, New York:Walter de Gruyter, 2009, pp. 476-495. WOLTER, Michael. "Prophet oder Messias? Einige Anmerkungen zu den Christologien von Lk 24:19-27" in Logos-Logik-Lyrik : engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Rede Gottes. Festschrift für Klaus Haacker. Lehnert, Volker, A., Rüsen-Weinhold U. hg. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 27. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007, pp. 170-184. WOLTER, Michael. "Das lukanische Doppelwerk als Epochengeschichte" in Die Apostelgeschichte und die Hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung, Festschrift für Eckhard Plümacher zu seinem 65 Geburtstag. Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 57. Breytenbach, Cilliers, Schröter, Jens hg. Leiden, Bosten: Brill, 2004, pp. 253-284. WOLTER, Michael. "Erstmals unter Quirinius, zum Verstaendnis von Lk 2:2". BN 102 (2000), pp. 35-41. WOLTER, Michael. "Was heisset nu Gottes reich?". ZNW 86 (1995), pp. 5-19. WILLIAMS, Margaret, H. "The use of Alternativ Names by Diaspora Jews in GraecoRoman Antiquity". JSJ. Vol. xxxviii (2007), pp. 307-327. WUCHERPFENNIG, Ansgar. "Jesus mehr als Salomo: Im Stammbaum des Matthäus" in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Senior, Donald ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (BETL) CCXLIII. Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Uitgeverij Petters, 2011, pp. 713-721. The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

329

Bibliography

ZANGENBERG, Jürgen. "Pharisees, Villages and Synagogues. Observations on the Theological Significance of Matthew´s Geography of Galilee" in Logos-LogikLyrik : engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Rede Gottes. Festschrift für Klaus Haacker. Lehnert, Volker, A., Rüsen-Weinhold U. hg. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 27. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007, pp. 151-169.

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

330

Index

Index of Ancient Sources Bible Genesis 1:1 1:2 1:17 1:26 1:27 1:28 2:2 2:18 2:24 6:5 6:9 8:21 12:7-8 17:1 17:3-10 25:29 28:11-18 48:1 49:11 49:25 49:29 50:1 50:25

270 270 133 172 134-136, 152 133 189 134 133-136, 138 143 165 143 230 164, 166, 254 164 102 230 99 196 72 54 54 54

Exodus 2:1 3:6 3:7 3:12 4:14-17 4:19 4:19-20 4:20 4:30-31 6:4

207 241-244 86, 95 83 207 83 195 196 76 242

331 Exodus 12:47 14:3 15:1 15:2 15:24 15:26 16:2 16:7-9 16:12 17:3 19:5 19:6 20:7 20:8-11 20:10 20:11 20:14 20:16 20:31 21:9 23:11 23:12 24:4 24:12 28:1 29:1 30:18-20 30:19 31:12 31:17 32:20 32:27-28 33:14 34:15-16 34:21

19 56 242 165, 197 92 62 92 92 92 92 166 165, 190 79 171, 173, 189 185 189 141 121 79 79 189 189 231 175 231 165 115 122 175 189 186 186 104 98 176, 179

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Leviticus 1:3 1:10 3:1 3:6 3:9 4:2 4:3 4:13 4:28 5:15 5:18 5:25 8:3 11:1-47 11:31-32 11:33 11:34 15:9 15:11 15:25-27 17:8-26 18:16 18:18 19:2 19:9-10 19:12 19:18 19:33 19:34 20:21 21:1 21:7 21:9 21:13 21:14 21:18 22:29 24:5-9 24:9

164 164 164 164 164 164 80, 164 19 164 165 165 165 20 126 161 129 116 161 122 161 168 141 134 165 173 155 109, 145, 150, 155, 164, 272 164 150 141 161 139, 140, 166 135 139 166 195, 226, 259 199 173 176

Leviticus 24:12 25:6 26:41 26:41-42 27:1-25 27:1-27 27:30

16 189 134 134 161 161 199

Numbers 1:49 5:2-3 6:14 11:1 14:2 14:27 14:29 14:36 15:31 15:38 19:2 19:11-16 20:8 28:3 28:9 28:9-10 30:2-3

89 161 165 92 92 92 92 92 242 118 165 161 20 165 165 174, 189 161

Deuteronomy 3:16 89 4:2 155 5:12-15 171, 173, 189 5:14 185 5:17-18 155 6:4 101, 144, 148, 151, 153, 199 6:4-5 145, 147 6:4-9 151 6:5 100, 143, 148-149, 151-152, 170, 260, 272 6:6 156, 259 6:11 101

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

332

Index

Deuteronomy 7:1-5 98 10:8 89 10:16 133-134 13:1 66 17:23 89 18:13 165 18:15 195, 263 19:21 155 23:18 98 23:19 163 24:1 131, 134-138, 152, 272 24:1-4 155 24:1-5 131 24:3 136-138 24:19-22 173 26:15 67 30:6 134 31:16 98, 242 32:27 154 33:6 242

1 Samuel 15:24 19:14 21:1-2 21:1-7 21:2 21:5 24:9

57 99 173 173, 175 175 174 163

2 Samuel 5:6-8 7:14 9:8 12:3 12:13 14:1 22:31

226 222 163 181 57 228 165

1 Kings 1:33-34 1:48 10:1 13:3 17:7-15 19:19-21 22:19

196 88 72 66 162 88 88

67 196 58 66 149 144, 149 84

Joshua 2:1

98

Judges 3:9 4:8-9 6:17 9:53 16:7 12:7-9

86, 95 231 83 212 99 122

Ruth 3:2

212

2 Kings 1:2-16 9:13 19:4 19:19 23:24 23:25 25:27-30

217 83, 66 83

1 Chronicles 3:17 80 9:2 163 9:31 96

1 Samuel 7:12 10:1 10:7

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

333

Index

1 Chronicles 15:21 96 16:5 96 29:18 143 2 Chronicles 5:6 19 18:18 88 10:1 102 29:35 115 Ezra 2:43 4:24 5:11 8:20 9:1-4 9:12 10:1 10:2-44 10:43

163 94 94 163 98 98 201 98 96

Nehemiah 1:4 8:4 12:1 13:15 13:15-22 13:23-29

201 96 80 102 171 98

Tobit 4:3 4:5 4:12 4:15 4:18 6:15 13:6 13:16 13:9-10

54 103 103 145 103 54 92 224 165, 224

Tobit 21:6

89

1 Maccabees 2:29 171 2:29-38 273 2:39-41 273 2:48 92 4:10 107 4:40 107 7:37 199 7:42 99 10:89 117 14:41 207 2 Maccabees 5:25 18 6:21 18 7:1-42 242 7:9 232 7:35 242 7:36 232 11:25 158 15:24 58 3 Maccabees 1:14 99 16:4 99 4 Maccabees 6:15 18 6:17 99 12:15 99 18:5 117, 158 Job 9:2 13:13 16:21 34:30

165 104 59 17

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

334

Index

Job 33:19-30 36:13 Psalms 1:3 2:2 7:9 8:2 8:3 8:4 9:9 9:17 15:2 17:3 18:8 18:31 19:8 22:2 25:21 33:16-7 36:17 37:5 68:6 68:20 89:20 99:4 101:2-6 104:13 105:33 109:1 110:1 118:22 118:22-23 118:25-26 118:26 119:1 119:80 119:89 146:8-9

57 17

230 145 165 103 197 59 165 92 165 154 103 165 165 113 165 87 87 102 67 102 217 165 165 230 196 220 125, 214, 216-220, 222 209, 211-212 208-209, 211, 230, 262 193 194-195, 201-202, 225-228, 241, 259 165 165 154 87

Proverbs 1:31 2:21 5:14 11:20 13:21 22:14 23:13 26:27 28:10 28:14

230 165 20 165 87 120 103 120 121 134

Ecclesiastes 10:8 120 Wisdom 5:5 12:24 14:16 15:2 15:14

246 103 117 165 103

Ben Sira 6:23-31 7:27-33 16:10 27:26 51:1 51:26 51:25-30

115 115 134 120 102 102 102, 104

Isaiah 1:9 1:11-17 1:15-17 5:1-7 5:2 6:1 6:9 6:9-10

273 192 151 210 210 88 112 268

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

335

Index

Isaiah 7:1-11 7:14 8:14 8:23 8:23-9:1 10:2 11:1 11:8 14:3 14:29 24:18 26:19 28:7 28:7-9 28:7-16 28:8 28:14-15 28:16 28:16-17 29:13 29:24 32:18 33:24 34:4 38:7-8 40:8 42:3 42:18 42:20 43:8 43:8-9 43:8-12 46:1 47:6 49:24-26 51:1-2 51:6 56:7 59:5

66 228 208, 212-213 102 102 113 217 18 104 18 120 232, 242 210 210 210 210 210 210, 230 210 122, 126 92, 212 104 99, 102 196 83 154 212 226 226 226 226 79, 258 102 101 72 231 154, 171 193, 197, 199, 200-201, 208, 226 18

Isaiah 60:7 60:21 61:3 62:11 63:15

199 120 120 196 67

Jeremiah 3:1-10 3:17 4:4 5:5 7:3-11 7:11 7:24 8:17 9:1 9:14 9:25 11:8 12:7 12:13 13:10 16:12 17:8 17:21 18:3 18:12 23:1-3 23:5 23:17 24:1 24:1-10 24:2 26:1-11 26:1-6 26:18-19 28:1-17 28:2 28:4

135 134 133-134 101 192 193, 197, 199-201, 208 134 18 201 134 134, 166 134 221 99 134 134 230 171, 273 196, 212 134 68 217 134 199 196 199 224 201 192 18 101 101

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

336

Index

Jeremiah 28:10 28:14 29:17 31:2

101 101 196 104

Ezekiel 3:7 9:9 19:12 20:12-16 20:20 20:21 20:24 22:8 23:38 28:15 28:25 34:1-16 34:4 34:5-6 34:11-13 34:14-15 34:15-16 34:16 34:23 37:24 40:1-43:27 44:7 44:9

134 221 171 171, 273 273 273 273 273 273 165 68 100 99-100, 102, 260 100 68, 100 102 99 99, 100 217 217 223 134 134

Daniel 2:34 2:44-45 7:2 7:13 7:13-14 12:2

213 208 154 57, 154 59, 108, 154 232

Hosea 2:14 6:6 9:10 10:13 11:1 13:9-10 13:10

337 196 95, 108-111, 147, 174, 189, 250, 252, 264-265 196 230 103 80 100

Joel 1:7 2:16 2:21 13:13

196 20 56 104

Amos 1:3-2:16 5:1 5:4 5:21-27 7:10-17 7:12 8:5 8:10-16 9:7-10 9:8 9:11 9:11-12 9:14-15

18 80 80 151, 192 226 230 171, 273 18 18 226 226 168 226

Jonah 3:5

72

Micah 4:4 5:1 6:7-8 7:1

104 215 151 196

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Habakkuk 3:17 199 Zephaniah 3:12-16 80 Haggai 2:5-8 2:15

223-224 222

Zechariah 14:4 223 Malachi 2:15-16 Matthew 1:1 1:1-16 1:3 1:5 1:6 1:12 1:16 1:16-18 1:18-19 1:18-25 1:18-2:23 1:19 1:21 1:22 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:8 2:11

135 33, 37, 41, 78, 80, 215-216, 220, 258 164 253 253 253 80 89, 215 216 10 215 32 134 63, 80, 98, 228 110, 121, 154, 251, 153, 228, 266 37, 215 126 50 14, 216, 252 215, 252 170, 252-253 214 106, 228

Matthew 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:15 2:17 2:18 2:23 2:35 3:1-12 3:2 3:2-17 3:3 3:6 3:7 3:7-8 3:8 3:8-9 3:9 3:9-10 3:10 3:17 4:1 4:1-12 4:2 4:3 4:4 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:10 4:12 4:13 4:14 4:15 4:15-16 4:17 4:18 4:23 4:23-24

338 173 173 173 54, 110, 121, 154-155, 215, 251 121, 154-155 251 56, 89, 110, 121, 154, 196, 215 144 204 86 11 110, 251-252 98 17, 63, 68, 246, 248, 252 248 231 65 231 78, 230, 258 17, 213, 226, 262 54, 215-216, 220 13, 17, 126 11 188 13, 17, 54, 215-216 251-252 194, 216, 224 54, 215, 251-252 144 251-252 102 102 110, 121, 154-155 111 102, 251 86, 107, 227 89, 230 20, 65, 163, 188, 197, 262 75, 80

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Matthew 4:24 5:7-9 5:1 5:1-7:27 5:1-7:28 5:3 5:5 5:7 5:8 5:10 5:11 5:12 5:15 5:17 5:17-18 5:17-19 5:17-20 5:17-21 5:18 5:19 5:20 5:21 5:21-24 5:21-48 5:22 5:23-28 5:27 5:27-28 5:28 5:29-30 5:31 5:31-32 5:32 5:33 5:33-34 5:33-37

197, 228 32 86, 95, 101, 164, 260 37 13 10, 107, 166 32 110 166, 254 107 21, 98 10 106 85, 115, 116, 128, 143, 153-158 154 153 153 156 110, 116, 138, 153, 156, 158, 259 105, 107, 117, 151, 153, 155, 160, 190, 257, 263 104, 105, 107, 142, 157, 160, 166, 528, 261, 263 126, 155, 251 32 135 155 110 251 32 136, 155 85 155, 251 135 131-132, 138-139, 140, 142, 155 155, 166, 251 155 32

Matthew 5:34 5:35 5:37 5:38 5:38-39 5:39 5:41 5:43 5:43-44 5:44 5:45 5:46 5:46-48 5:47 5:48 6:1-18 6:2 6:2-4 6:4 6:5 6:6 6:13 6:20-49 6:23 6:28 6:30 6:31 6:32 7:1-10 7:6 7:11 7:12 7:15-20 7:15-23 7:16 7:16-20 7:17 7:18 7:21

339 155 251 98 155, 251 155 98, 155, 247, 251, 260 32 109, 251 155 155 97, 98 98 97, 254 92, 97, 99, 164 81, 97, 104, 157, 164, 166, 254 32 20 110 110 20 191 98 11 98 101 126 86 97 11 32 98 116, 153, 156 213, 226 76, 257 79 196 63, 98 98 105, 107, 268

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Matthew 7:21-23 7:21-24 7:23 7:24 7:24-27 7:26 7:28 8:1-4 8:2 8:3 8:4 8:5-11 8:5-13 8:6 8:7 8:9 8:11 8:12 8:14 8:14-15 8:15 8:16 8:16-20 8:17 8:18-22 8:19 8:20 8:21 8:21-23 8:22 8:23 8:23-27 8:24 8:24-27 8:26 8:28-34 8:29 8:30 8:31

21 267 34 74 210 251 10, 14, 87 14 51, 86, 166, 215 197 96, 190, 262 105 14, 111, 163 86, 106 197 75 84, 105, 107 107 57, 135, 188, 262 14 197 57, 65, 197, 228 79 110, 121, 154-155, 251 266 86 57 78, 258 231 54, 93 57, 266 227, 266 87 78, 258 55, 57, 87, 161, 196, 266 14, 73, 75-76, 80 54, 215-216 130 77

Matthew 8:32 9:1 9:1-8 9:2 9:3 9:3-6 9:4 9:5 9:6 9:6-9 9:7 9:8 9:9-13 9:10 9:10-13 9:11 9:11-12 9:12 9:12-13 9:13 9:14 9:14-17 9:18 9:18-23 9:18-26 9:20 9:22 9:23 9:25 9:27 9:27-28 9:27-31 9:28 9:29 9:31

340 76, 80 55, 57, 266 13-17, 32, 48, 55-58, 61, 86, 256 48, 55-57, 62, 98, 256 55, 57, 64, 169 13 55, 57, 98, 120 56-57, 62, 98 48, 55-57, 62, 98, 106, 173, 203, 207, 225 63 56, 105-106 13, 15, 55-57, 61, 78, 80, 85, 95, 105, 190, 256, 262 13, 15-17, 56, 62, 81, 84-87, 95, 97, 100-101, 104-105, 108, 111, 253, 256, 260 85, 87, 97-98, 105-106, 254 13 85-87, 97-98, 103, 115, 261 119 85, 87, 99-101, 103, 246, 260 87 10, 14-15, 81, 85-87, 98, 108-111, 225, 251-252, 264 115, 119 14-15, 56, 62, 81, 100, 256 51, 100, 161 263 14, 20 263 56, 62, 161 106 161, 263 78, 110-111, 196, 215 193 14 106 197 65

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Matthew 9:32 9:32-33 9:33 9:35 9:36 9:43-47 9:57-19:16 10:1 10:1-16 10:1-42 10:2 10:3 10:5 10:5-16 10:6 10:7 10:8 10:9 10:10 10:11 10:13 10:17 10:18 10:23 10:25 10:34 10:34-35 10:35 10:35-6 10:42 11:1 11:2 11:2-3 11:2-6 11:2-19 11:4-5 11:4-6 11:5 11:6

65, 70, 74 75 56 20, 197, 228 86, 95, 99-101, 214, 260 85 11 75 86 15, 101 89 86, 89, 95, 254 18, 110 253 18, 99-100, 106 75, 107 166 135 135 15 21 20-21 96 32, 57 75, 106 85 133, 142 54, 85, 251-252 10 194 10, 14, 87, 132 103 170, 260 228 103 228 228 166 212

Matthew 11:7-14 11:8 11:10 11:11 11:12 11:12-13 11:12-24 11:13 11:14-32 11:15 11:16 11:16-18 11:16-19 11:18 11:18-19 11:19 11:20 11:20-24 11:21 11:22 11:25 11:25-27 11:25-30 11:26-27 11:28 11:28-29 11:29 11:29-30 11:30 11:39-52 12:1 12:1-6 12:1-8 12:1-14 12:2 12:2-8 12:3 12:3-4

341 204 106 251-252 107, 151 107, 138, 156 138, 207 102 116, 155-156, 158 11 193 54, 77 102 67, 204 74, 100 86, 261 57, 84, 92, 97-98, 103, 254, 261 82, 86, 261 101 86, 102, 162 261 101-103, 106, 231, 261 102, 215, 261 102, 173 102 101-104 32, 101, 103-104, 111, 256 81, 98, 101-102, 104, 106, 165, 254 101-102 256, 261 11 172-173, 181 16 13-17, 172-173, 180-181, 189-190, 240, 262 20, 56, 62, 81,101, 173, 256 172-174, 177, 181, 234 173 17, 173, 175, 208 173

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Matthew 12:4 12:4-5 12:5 12:5-6 12:6 12:7 12:8 12:9 12:9-10 12:9-13 12:9-14 12:10 12:10-12 12:11 12:12-14 12:13 12:13-14 12:14 12:15 12:16 12:17 12:18-21 12:20 12:21-22 12:22 12:22-23 12:22-24 12:22-43 12:22-45 12:22-50 12:23 12:24 12:24-42 12:24-45 12:25 12:25-26 12:25-28

Matthew 106, 172-173, 177 12:25-30 173 12:26 10, 116, 172-175, 181, 189, 208, 246, 12:27 262 174 12:27-28 151, 172-173, 262 12:28 17, 109, 110, 173-174, 187, 189, 225, 12:28-34 251-252, 262, 264 12:28-42 15, 172-174, 178, 180, 181, 250 12:29 20, 180-181 12:31 180-181 12:31-32 14 12:31-33 13-16, 180, 181, 187 12:31-37 17, 133, 144, 172-173, 180-181, 12:31-42 184, 187, 234 12:32 181 172-173, 180-181, 185, 187, 191, 12:33 12:33-36 234 12:33-37 180 12:34 180, 240 12:34-37 181 12:35 17, 181, 234 12:35-36 64, 173, 233 12:36 65 12:36-37 110, 121, 154-155 12:37 251 12:38 78 12:38-39 72 12:38-42 64-65, 70, 73-74, 193 12:38-45 250 12:39 14, 63-65 12:39-40 13 12:40 13, 16-17, 64-65, 68, 73-74 12:41 257 12:41-42 64-65, 78-79, 215-216, 258 12:42 63-65,74-75, 207 12:43-45 17 12:43-46 13, 15, 48 12:44 64, 106, 120 12:45 66 12:46 63

342 65 63, 65 48, 63-65, 75 65 64-65, 71, 74-76, 107-108 243 65, 78 63-68, 72, 76, 106, 173 55, 73, 98, 169 63-64, 66, 73 64 65 76 15, 55, 59, 66 17, 66, 68, 196, 213, 226 79 64, 73, 170, 252 17-18, 64, 67-68 66 65-66, 215 64 48, 65, 214 63 64, 68, 78, 215 64, 86 67 63, 65 67, 71 48, 64, 66-67, 74, 77, 98 66 15, 64, 66, 252, 110, 252 48, 64-66, 68, 73, 86, 172, 174 67 48, 64-65, 68, 73, 78, 102, 104, 172 73, 65, 257 77, 257 64, 65, 67, 72, 106 65, 67-68, 98 105

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Matthew 12:46-50 13:1 13:1-50 13:8 13:11 13:12 13:13-16 13:14 13:16 13:18-52 13:19 13:24 13:24-30 13:25 13:25-30 13:26 13:27 13:28 13:28-30 13:29 13:29-30 13:31 13:31-32 13:33 13:35 13:36 13:37 13:38 13:39 13:41 13:43 13:44 13:44-45 13:44-46 13:45 13:47 13:47-49 13:47-50 13:49

135 106 15, 144 196 107 191 78-79, 258 251-252 79, 258 204 98, 107 107 32, 118, 120 170, 252 170 196 106 144 253 121 81 107 106 106-107 110, 121, 154, 251 106 57 98 170, 252 57 165 106-107 145 32 106-107 107, 144 106 32 98, 165

Matthew 13:52 13:53 13:54 13:55-56 14:1-4 14:3 14:3-12 14:5-12 14:13 14:13-21 14:14 14:15 14:21 14:22-33 14:27 14:28-30 14:31 14:33 14:34-36 14:35-36 14:36 14:37 15:1 15:1-15 15:1-19 15:1-20 15:2 15:4 15:4-9 15:5 15:5-6 15:5-9 15:6 15:7 15:9 15:10 15:10-20 15:11

343 106, 107, 252 10, 14-15, 61, 87, 132 20, 195 78 134 141, 144 141-142 269-270 173 119, 227, 269-270 110 230, 262 105 269-270 56, 86 32 266 51, 54, 216, 220 269 100 118, 197 62 118-119 14-15 120 13-14, 16-17, 57, 62, 81, 101, 115, 117-121, 143, 162, 254, 256, 259, 263, 269 86, 115-117, 119-121, 129-130, 157 120, 144, 251 110, 251-252 117, 120, 155 120 153 116-120, 129-130 17, 155-156 119 129 253 79, 118, 121, 169

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Matthew 15:12 15:12-14 15:13 15:13-14 15:14 15:15 15:17 15:17-18 15:18 15:18-20 15:19 15:20 15:21 15:21-27 15:21-28 15:22 15:23 15:24 15:25 15:26 15:26-27 15:27 15:30 15:31 15:32-39 15:35 15:38 16:1 16:1-2 16:1-4 16:4 16:5-12 16:6 16:8 16:11 16:11-12 16:12 16:13 16:13-30

17, 130, 251 118, 169 119-120, 130, 170, 213, 226, 252 120-121 15, 120, 130, 226 118-119 86, 120-121, 129, 169 120 119-120, 169 119, 130 58, 64, 98, 120-121, 130, 169 119, 130 102, 111, 118, 162, 173 102 111, 162, 164, 253, 255, 269 78, 110, 163, 215 119 99, 106, 253 51 163, 255 105 105, 119 193 56, 193, 197 227 197 105 17, 144, 246, 248 246 13, 15, 67 67, 98 17, 120, 246 246, 248 266 15, 214, 240, 246, 248, 250, 252 13 170, 246, 248 195, 227 262

Matthew 16:14 16:15-16 16:16 16:16-19 16:17 16:17-19 16:18 16:18-19 16:18-20 16:19 16:19-20 16:20 16:21 16:21-23 16:23 16:24 16:27 16:27-28 16:29 17:1-8 17:4 17:5 17:6 17:9 17:10 17:10-13 17:12 17:13 17:14-20 17:14-21 17:15 17:16 17:18 17:20 17:22 17:23 17:24 17:24-27 17:25

195, 263, 270 215 54, 215-216, 220, 258 15 215 32 15, 20 230, 262 81 15, 62, 106-107 231 216 247 61, 270 230, 262 254 154 57 142 227 227 54, 157, 215-216, 220 56 57 263 269-270 57 214 75 73, 75 110-111 75, 100 65 75, 266 57, 61, 132 247 86, 239, 256 21, 32, 35, 239, 247 106

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

344

Index

Matthew 17:25-26 17:27 17:32-37 18:1 18:1-22 18:2-4 18:3 18:4 18:5-6 18:6 18:6-10 18:8-9 18:10 18:11 18:12 18:12-14 18:12-22 18:15 18:15-17 18:15-18 18:16 18:17 18:17-18 18:18 18:19 18:21 18:21-22 18:23 18:23-34 18:23-35 18:26 18:27 18:32 18:33 19:1 19:1-5 19:1-9 19:3

240 170, 240, 260 11 107, 109, 151 15 103 107, 228 107 103 101-103, 228 81 85 227 103 214 81 253 81, 98 82, 252 81 251 15, 20, 81, 97-98, 253-254 82 81-82, 231, 251 214 98 81 107 106 32, 81 51 132 98 110 10, 14, 87, 132 110, 251-252 16, 116, 131-132, 135, 142-143, 258-259, 263 13, 17, 119, 131-133, 135, 152, 234, 251

Matthew 19:3-12 19:4 19:5 19:6 19:7 19:7-8 19:8 19:9 19:10 19:10-12 19:11 19:12 19:13-15 19:14 19:16 19:17 19:18 19:18-19 19:19 19:21 19:23 19:24 19:27 19:28 19:29 19:51 20:1 20:1-16 20:11 20:17-19 20:18 20:19 20:20 20:20-28 20:27 20:28 20:29-34 20:30 20:30-31

13-14 17, 132-134, 155, 208, 246 131 131, 135 132-133, 135, 251-252 54 133-135, 166, 183 132, 135, 139, 142, 155 135 17, 131-132, 142, 152, 160 133, 135 107, 132-135, 142 261 107, 142 86 132, 155, 259 130, 251-252 110 109 142, 155, 164, 259 107, 142 107 230, 262 57 106, 133, 142 117 106-107 32, 142 106 61, 132 57 247 51 269-270 151 85 16 111, 193, 196, 215, 217 110

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

345

Index

Matthew 20:31 20:34 21:1-5 21:1-24:1 21:4 21:5 21:7 21:8 21:8-9 21:9 21:10 21:10-11 21:10-17 21:11 21:12 21:12-13 21:12-17 21:13 21:13-17 21:14 21:14-17 21:15 21:15-16 21:15-17 21:16 21:18 21:18-19 21:18-22 21:19 21:20-22 21:21 21:21-22 21:23

56, 111, 215 110 197 194 110, 121, 154-155 196, 227, 251 196 194 196 110, 195-196, 202, 209, 215-216, 225, 227-228, 241, 259 193, 195-196, 259 202 192-194, 196-198, 202, 225 194-195, 259 192-194, 197, 201, 203 13, 192-193 261 106, 110, 193-194, 197-198, 200, 202, 225, 251-252, 261 16 13, 16, 192-193, 197, 203, 227-228, 261-262 261 13, 17, 192-193, 195-197, 201-202, 215, 225, 227-228, 231, 234, 252, 259 13, 16, 202, 205 193 13, 17, 103, 110, 202, 208, 227, 251-252 202 213 196, 202 213, 262 269 240 196 192, 203, 207, 228, 231, 250, 252

Matthew 21:23-27

192, 194, 202-204, 207, 209, 346 225, 231, 252 21:23-32 13 21:23-39 203 21:23-46 13 21:23-24:1 215 21:24 203, 226 21:25 203 21:28 209 21:28-30 225 21:28-32 32, 193, 195, 203, 209, 247 21:28-46 195, 227, 233 21:31 98, 107-108, 225, 228 21:31-32 98, 207, 254 21:32 103, 203, 225, 227, 256 21:33 106, 121, 209-210 21:33-43 247, 262 21:33-46 193, 195, 209 21:34 213 21:35 209 21:41 10, 210, 213, 225, 230 21:41-46 192 21:42 110, 193, 208-210, 252 21:42-46 208-210, 213 21:43 17, 107-108, 190, 208, 210, 225, 227, 230, 247, 252, 254 21:43-45 251 21:44 208-209, 211 21:45 192, 209, 214, 231, 234, 262 21:45-46 17 21:46 203, 209, 251 22:1-14 32, 195, 224, 247 22:2 107 22:3-14 106 22:7 10, 106 22:10 98 22:11 105 22:12 144 22:13-22 262 22:15 17, 215, 233, 234, 242

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Matthew 22:15-20 22:15-22 22:15-45 22:15-46 22:16 22:17 22:18 22:19 22:20 22:22 22:23 22:23-24 22:23-27 22:23-32 22:23-33 22:24 22:25 22:26 22:28 22:29 22:31 22:32 22:33 22:34 22:34-39 22:34-40 22:34-46 22:35 22:35-37 22:36 22:37 22:37-38 22:38 22:39 22:40 22:41

13 14, 16, 195, 233, 239, 240, 242 145, 195, 227, 233 233 86, 103, 233, 256 215, 233-234 13, 17, 98, 144, 152, 233, 236 233 233 234 145, 216, 241, 246 246 16 215 13, 14, 16, 195, 233, 241-242, 250 10, 251-252 241, 246 241 215 241 17, 208, 251 110, 251-252 13, 146, 203, 241 100, 143-145 260, 263 13, 14, 16, 116, 143-146, 149-151, 156, 215, 242, 259, 264 195 13, 17, 137, 143-145, 152, 215 16 86, 116-117, 143-145 110, 143-144, 146, 153, 251-252 195 145 109-110, 146, 164, 252 116, 144, 146, 153 144-145, 214, 220

Matthew 22:41-45 22:41-46 22:42 22:43 22:43-44 22:44 22:45 22:45-46 22:46 23:1 23:1-3 23:1-32 23:1-35 23:1-36 23:1-38 23:1-39 23:2 23:2-3 23:4 23:5 23:6 23:6-7 23:7 23:7-10 23:8 23:8-10 23:9-10 23:10 23:13 23:13-14 23:13-32 23:14 23:15 23:15-22 23:16 23:16-17 23:17 23:23 23:24

347 13, 250 14, 16, 192, 195, 214-215, 220, 225, 263 214-216 155, 218 215 110, 214, 218, 252 214-216, 218 234 17, 144-146, 214, 220, 240 221 32 13 18 195 18, 37 13, 17, 27 17, 21, 169 267 101-192, 127 32 20 19, 127 127 32 103 269 231 216 17, 107, 127 79 169 106 17, 109, 164 32 118, 120-121 226 251 17, 18, 100, 109, 116, 127, 155, 189 118

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Matthew 23:25 23:25-26 23:26 23:27 23:28 23:29 23:31 23:32 23:33 23:33-35 23:33-36 23:34 23:34-35 23:34-36 23:36 23:37-39 23:38 23:39

17, 166 127 121 17 10, 34 17, 201, 221, 227 96 155 17 82 18 20, 21, 103 21 67, 127 10 16, 18 251 77, 195, 202, 209, 221, 225, 227, 253, 259 23:43 251 23:47-48 127 24:1 197, 221 24:1-2 192-193, 221, 223 24:2 193, 221 24:3 76 24:3-4 77 24:3-25:46 222 24:5 216 24:12 34 24:14 107 24:15 52, 224 24:17 106 24:20 188, 264 24:21 10 24:23 216 24:25 153 24:27 57 24:28 10 24:29 86 24:29-31 59, 154

Matthew 24:30 24:31 24:33 24:35 24:37 24:39 24:43 24:44 25:1 25:1-13 25:2 25:3 25:8 25:10 25:14-30 25:24 25:26 25:31 25:31-45 25:31-46 25:32 25:35 25:38 25:43 26:1 26:2 26:3 26:6 26:7 26:9 26:14 26:18 26:20 26:22 26:24 26:28 26:31 26:34 26:36

57 10 153, 154 128, 153-154, 259 57 57, 252 106 57 106-107 32 251 251 251 106 32 144 98, 144 57 267 32 144 144 144 144 10, 14, 87, 132 57 203, 252 106 105 251 240, 250 86 105 79 57 10, 58, 63, 80, 98, 214 251-252 230, 262 89

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

348

Index

Matthew 26:45 26:47 26:53 26:54 26:57 26:57-59 26:59 26:59-67 26:60 26:61 26:63 26:64 26:65 26:66 26:68 27:1 27:3-10 27:4 27:7 27:9 27:11 27:16 27:17 27:18 27:19 27:19-20 27:20 27:22 27:23 27:24-25 27:32 27:33 27:37 27:39 27:40 27:43 27:45 27:46 27:51

57, 98, 102, 104 240, 250 76 121, 154 250 252 240 115 96 192, 202, 222, 224, 229 54, 216, 220 154, 251-252 58, 64, 169 169, 214 216 203, 234, 250, 252 32 98 234 154-155 144 89 216 115 32 33 250, 252 216 144 32 196 89 247 64 192, 216, 22, 224 54, 216 87 252 196, 230

Matthew 27:51-53 27:54 27:60 27:62 27:62-54 27:62-66 27:64 28:1 28:2-4 28:4 28:5 28:7 28:9 28:9-15 28:12 28:15 28:16-20 28:17 28:18-20 28:19

28:21

349 32 54, 56, 215-216, 220 230 66 250, 252 32 250-251 66, 188 32 196 56 217 51, 90 32 234 249-250 162 22, 51, 250, 266 18 21, 39, 54, 62, 103, 167, 253, 255, 261 111 104, 153, 190, 225, 227-228, 262-263, 266-267 87

Mark 1:1 1:2 1:5 1:6 1:8 1:9 1:11 1:15 1:16 1:16-20 1:16-39 1:18 1:21

217 125 122 56, 90 122 122, 176, 216 54 107 88, 222 88, 91 91 91 60, 172-173

28:19-20 28:20

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Mark 1:21-26 1:21-28 1:22 1:23-28 1:24 1:26 1:27 1:28 1:29-31 1:29-32 1:30 1:31 1:35-39 1:39 1:40 1:41 1:43 2:1-5 2:1-8 2:1-12 2:1-22 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:4-5 2:5 2:6 2:6-10 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:10 2:11 2:11-12 2:12 2:13 2:13-14 2:13-17 2:14

188, 262 78, 91,188 183, 252 73, 80 56, 80, 216 188 12, 91, 155, 251 183 188 262 105 91, 147 91 20 51, 122 122 63 58 56 16, 32, 55, 58-60, 91, 147 91 59 59 58-59, 105 60 58-59, 62, 91, 98,177 58, 60 58 55, 58-59, 62, 91, 148, 225 60 55, 58-59, 62, 91, 98 56, 58-59, 62, 91, 98, 207 59 58 58, 237 88 90-91 16, 84-85, 87, 89-91 91, 95

Mark 2:15 2:15-16 2:15-17 2:16 2:16-17 2:16-18 2:17 2:18 2:18-22 2:19 2:21 2:22 2:22-30 2:23 2:23-24 2:23-28 2:24 2:24-28 2:25 2:25-26 2:26 2:27 2:27-28 2:28 3:1 3:2 3:4 3:5 3:6 3:11 3:13 3:16 3:18 3:20 3:21 3:22 3:23 3:25 3:26

350 88-90, 105 87, 89 87, 90-91 84-85, 89, 91, 94, 126 87 92 87, 91, 99, 177 115 91 177 91 91, 207 73 157, 172-173, 175, 177, 188 175 16, 27, 172, 175-177, 183 172-173, 177 176 175-177 175, 179 175 172, 175-178 175 59, 172, 174-177 20, 182, 184 172-173, 182, 187 173, 182 182-184, 199 13, 176, 182-183, 237, 240 54, 217 75 95 89 69, 90 69 67-69, 74, 126, 225 70 68-69 69

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Mark 3:27 3:28 3:29 3:31 3:32 3:34 3:35 3:40 4:4 4:5 4:11 4:12 4:13 4:30 4:39 4:40 5:2 5:7 5:9 5:12 5:13 5:18 5:21 5:22 5:24 5:26 5:30 5:32 5:35 5:41 6:7 6:14 6:17 6:22 6:24 6:26 6:27 6:35 6:44

63, 68 59, 68 68, 69 69 69, 136 199 69 161 176 230 107 50 126 107 176 126 80, 196 54, 217 76 77 76, 90 76, 157 136 51 136 88 161 92, 139, 199 161 125 75 122, 235 141 235 122 105, 125, 235 235 147 105

Mark 6:52 6:55 6:56 7:1 7:2 7:3 7:4 7:5 7:6 7:7 7:8 7:9 7:10 7:11 7:12 7:13 7:14 7:15 7:16 7:18 7:19 7:20 7:21 7:22 7:23 7:24 7:25 7:26 7:27 7:28 7:34 8:9 8:11 8:12 8:14 8:15 8:20 8:28 8:29

351 126 58 123 118, 123, 126 122-127, 157 117, 122, 124-125, 127 122-123, 125, 127 115, 117, 123, 125 121-122, 125, 198, 236 123-124 116-117, 122, 124 117, 123-125 121, 125 124 77 117, 123-126, 129 125-126 121-122, 125-127, 129, 248 126 125 46, 115, 117, 121-122, 124, 126, 130 125 119 122, 127 124-125 102, 106 124, 162 124, 162 123 162 125 105 12, 70, 136, 138 68-69 246 120, 237, 240 270 205 217

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Mark 8:30 8:31 8:38 9:1 9:7 9:8 9:9 9:10 9:12 9:14 9:16 9:19 9:21 9:25 9:28 9:31 9:40 9:43 9:45 9:47 10:1 10:1-2 10:1-12 10:1-45 10:2 10:2-3 10:2-9 10:3 10:5 10:5-8 10:6 10:7 10:7-9 10:8 10:9 10:10 10:10-12 10:11 10:11-12

59 59, 61, 205 57, 59-60, 77 107 54 199 57, 59 12 57, 59 12 12, 147 77 147 136 126 57, 59, 61 75 137 137 137 136 136 131, 136-138 136 126, 133, 136-138 131 136, 138 136-137 117, 125, 133, 183 138 136 136 138 136 136, 138 106, 126, 136 138, 140 137-139 131, 136, 138-139

Mark 10:12 10:14 10:15 10:21 10:23 10:25 10:27 10:29 10:29-31 10:32-34 10:33 10:35-40 10:38 10:45 10:46 10:47 10:47-48 10:48 10:49 11:2 11:4 11:5 11:7-14 11:8-10 11:9 11:10 11:11 11:12-14 11:13 11:14 11:15 11:15-17 11:15-18 11:1512:40 11:16 11:17 11:18 11:18-19 11:20

136-137 107 107, 136 157 107, 199 107 148 122, 142 146 137 57, 59, 61 269 70, 122 59 196 215-217 216 215 56 199 199 199 204 241 201 196, 201 198-200, 202 202 199 90 198-200 192 198-200 127 122, 193, 198 125, 193, 198-200 13, 60, 198, 205 204 76

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

352

Index

Mark 11:20-25 11:20-26 11:21 11:22-25 11:27 11:27-28 11:27-33 11:28 11:29 11:30 11:31-32 11:32 11:33 12:1 12:1-11 12:1-12 12:1-12:44 12:9 12:10 12:10-11 12:10-12 12:11 12:12 12:13 12:13-17 12:13-34 12:13-37 12:14 12:15 12:16 12:17 12:18 12:18-27 12:19 12:20-22 12:21 12:22 12:23 12:24

202 269-270 205 196 205, 226, 236-237 204, 235 202, 204-206 147, 203-207, 225 147, 205 203-204 204 203-205 147, 205 106, 210 205 211, 236 204 211, 225 208, 211 211 208, 211 211 13, 211 146-147, 235-237 233, 235-237, 243 146, 217, 236 233 235-237 136, 138, 235-236 235, 241 235, 237, 243 126, 242-243, 246, 248 27, 241-245 242 241 242, 244 242 148 243-244

Mark 12:25 12:26 12:26-27 12:27 12:28 12:28-34 12:29 12:30 12:32 12:33 12:34 12:35 12:35-37 12:36 12:37 12:38-39 12:39 12:49 13:1 13:1-2 13:2 13:4 13:14 13:18 13:21 13:24-27 13:26 13:29 13:31 13:32 14:1 14:3 14:3-8 14:18 14:18-26 14:21 14:26 14:27 14:41

243-244 243-244 242-243 243-244 12, 117, 126, 146-147 16, 146-149 144, 148, 243 100, 147-148, 260 147-148 146-147 126, 146-148 214-215, 217-218, 220 16, 177, 214, 216-218 125, 217-218 214-218 19 127, 218 218 221-222, 224 192, 222-223 221-223 77 52, 106, 224 188 217 59 59, 154 154 128, 153 237 148 105 84 90, 105 84 59 198 125 59, 99

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

353

Index

Mark 14:45 14:53 14:55 14:55-64 14:56 14:58 14:60 14:61 14:61-64 14:62 14:67 15:1 15:2 15:22 15:26 15:29 15:32 15:34 15:39 15:42 15:44 15:46 15:47 16:1 16:6 16:7 16:8 16:11 16:14 16:16-18 16:17

147 205 205 115 224 50, 192, 202, 205, 222-223, 229 147 54, 217 58 59, 154 216 205 147 125 247 222, 224 217 112, 125 54, 217 125, 188 147 230 188 188 216-217 46 22, 90 90 105, 133, 136 141 141

Luke 1:1 1:1-3 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6

41, 42 51 50 267 77 117, 158

Luke 1:8 1:8-24 1:9 1:10 1:17 1:26 1:27 1:32 1:35 1:35-36 1:36 1:37-54 1:72 2:1 2:1-3 2:1-5 2:2 2:2-4 2:2-5 2:6 2:11 2:14 2:22 2:22-24 2:23 2:24 2:25-28 2:26 2:27 2:30 2:32 2:34 2:36 2:36-38 2:37 2:38 2:39 2:42 2:46

22, 92, 179 229 117, 231, 264 201 270 127 184, 220 219 219 207, 208 77 127 117, 159 50, 92, 238 50 241 50 220 179 92, 179 157 200-201 117, 128 115, 158, 229 117 117, 231 229 219 115, 117, 127, 158 44 111, 255 77, 212 184 229 201 231 115, 117, 158 117 229

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

354

Index

Luke 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:7 3:8 3:8-9 3:10 3:10-13 3:10-14 3:11 3:12 3:13-14 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:18 3:19 3:20 3:21 3:22 3:24 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:5-6 4:9 4:11 4:12 4:14 4:15 4:16-24 4:18 4:30 4:31 4:31-37 4:32 4:33-37 4:34

50, 167 61, 207-208 61 18, 61 230 170, 252 148 141 141 128 95, 111, 148 97 148 219 61 212 156 141 207 92, 127, 179 54, 207-208, 219 89 179 188 54, 219 65 54, 219, 224 54 148 61 188 56 156, 259 77 172-173, 178, 206 74, 188, 262 155 80 80, 179

Luke 4:38 4:38-40 4:41 4:43 4:44 5:1 5:8 5:12 5:12-14 5:14 5:17 5:17-25 5:17-26 5:17-39 5:18 5:19 5:20 5:21 5:23 5:24 5:25 5:26 5:27 5:27-28 5:27-32 5:27-37 5:28 5:29 5:29-32 5:30 5:30-31 5:31 5:32 5:33-35 5:33-39 5:36-39 5:37-39 5:38-39 6:1

355 191 188, 262 219 156, 259 188 92, 94 112 51 191 63 55, 93, 60-61, 206 92 16, 32, 56, 60-61 92 55, 60 60 58, 61-62 55, 58, 60, 62, 93, 225 58, 60-62, 93 58, 61-62, 81-82, 93, 207, 257 61, 93 61 90, 93-95 95 84, 91-94, 255 93 91, 93 91-95, 105, 111 94, 111 86, 90-95, 111-112, 115 93 92-94, 111 91-94, 112, 255 93 93 93 179 155 92, 172, 177-179, 184

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Luke 6:1-5 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:6 6:6-10 6:6-11 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:10 6:11 6:12 6:13-15 6:15 6:17 6:20 6:22 6:32 6:33 6:36 6:39 6:43 6:43-45 6:44 6:45 6:47 7:1-10 7:2 7:3 7:5 7:6 7:8 7:9 7:13 7:14 7:24-28 7:28

16, 177-178 173, 177-179 177, 179, 185 177-178 57, 61, 174, 177-179 92, 172, 178, 184-185, 191 187 180, 183-186, 191, 265 172, 184, 191, 238 185, 187 172, 184-185 178, 184, 191, 265 178, 184 92 95 89 111 107 21 99, 112 92 166, 254 120 70 63, 70, 73 70 149, 170, 252 74 111 111 51 112, 255 19 75 105 128 128 204 107, 156

Luke 7:29 7:30 7:31 7:31-35 7:32 7:33 7:34 7:36 7:36-50 7:37 7:43 7:44 7:47 7:47-50 8:1 8:2-3 8:4 8:4-21 8:6 8:10 8:12 8:13 8:16 8:16-18 8:16-19 8:16-21 8:19-20 8:21 8:24 8:26-37 8:26-39 8:27 8:28 8:30 8:32 8:33-34 8:38 8:41 8:41-56

356 95, 111 144 77 204 103 74 57, 61, 84, 92, 94-95, 101, 111112, 261 16, 94 94, 129 105-106, 112 150 106 82 81, 257 156 77 72 71 230 50, 107 77 230 71 72, 77, 128 71 74, 258 72 51 127 111 74, 76 106 54, 219 76 77 76 76 51 20

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Luke 8:44 8:53 9:1 9:2 9:3 9:7-9 9:9 9:11-13 9:12-17 9:14 9:19 9:20 9:22 9:26 9:27 9:34 9:35 9:36 9:37-43 9:39 9:44 9:49-50 9:51 9:54 9:56 9:57-60 9:57-61 9:58 9:60 10:1 10:1-20 10:4 10:5 10:7 10:9 10:9-12 10:9-19 10:13-14 10:17-20

161 161 75 156 51 142 141 270 270 184 270 219 61, 270 57, 61 107 61, 127 54, 219 127 74-75 238 57, 61 76, 257 200 270 87 266 266 57, 61, 93 156 128 266 128 106 106 107 75 238 111 76, 257

Luke 10:20-24 10:21-42 10:25 10:25-28 10:26 10:27 10:28 10:29 10:29-37 10:36 10:37 10:38 10:38-42 10:42 11:1 11:1-13 11:4 11:14 11:14-16 11:14-26 11:14-32 11:15 11:15-16 11:16 11:17 11:17-20 11:17-22 11:18 11:19 11:20 11:21 11:22 11:23 11:24 11:24-25 11:24-26 11:25 11:26 11:27

149 156, 259 144, 148, 150 117, 144, 148-150 115 148-150, 156, 259 67, 150 150 111, 150 150 150 127 94, 150 150, 259 206 71 82 71 71 70, 74 71 67, 70, 71, 74, 207 72 63, 70-72, 225 70, 72 63 72 70, 72 70, 72, 75 70, 72, 74-75, 78, 107 70, 77 66, 70 63, 70-72, 76 70, 77 72 63, 71, 77, 257 70-72, 77 70 72

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

357

Index

Luke 11:27-28 11:27-36 11:28 11:29 11:29-30 11:29-32 11:30 11:31 11:32 11:33 11:33-36 11:34 11:35 11:36 11:37 11:37-41 11:37-44 11:37-54 11:38 11:39 11:39-40 11:39-41 11:40 11:41 11:42 11:42-44 11:43 11:44 11:45 11:46 11:46-48 11:47 11:47-48 11:49-51 11:50 11:52 11:54 12:1 12:2

71-72, 74 72 72, 77, 258 70, 72, 77 66 63, 70-72, 77-78, 128 61-71 70-71, 73, 172 66, 70-71, 73, 172 128 71, 72, 74, 77, 128, 258 128 128 128 94, 127-128 94, 117, 128-129 94 129 157 127-129 129, 256 127 128-129 127-128 100, 127 129 19, 127 127, 129 144 127, 144 129 129 127 127 77 107, 127, 129 129 120, 170 128

Luke 12:4 12:8 12:8-9 12:9 12:10 12:17 12:30 12:39 12:40 12:42 12:51-53 13:1 13:2 13:6 13:6-7 13:10 13:10-17 13:11 13:13 13:14 13:15 13:15-16 13:16 13:17 13:18 13:20 13:25 13:28 13:30 13:31 13:35 13:42 13:44 14:1 14:1-6 14:1-24 14:2 14:3 14:4

358 93 61, 139 73 73 69-71, 73, 82 148 111 106 57, 61 128 142 223 112 187 200 172-173, 186, 191 183-186, 191, 265 184, 191, 265 184, 186, 191, 265 172, 184, 191, 265 128, 172, 180, 184, 186 186 184, 186 184, 186, 191, 265 107 107 106 107 128 142 201 191 191 16, 94, 127, 185-187, 191, 238, 265 94, 183, 185, 191, 265 191 185, 191, 265 172, 187, 191 185, 187, 191, 265

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Index

Luke 14:4-6 14:5 14:6 14:7-11 14:12-14 14:14 14:16-23 14:21 14:26 15:1 15:1-2 15:2 15:4 15:6 15:7 15:8 15:10 15:11-24 15:18 15:22 15:23 15:24 15:32 16:3 16:9-12 16:13 16:14 16:14-15 16:14-18 16:16 16:16-17 16:17 16:18 16:31 17:2 17:3 17:3-4 17:4

191 180, 185, 187 187, 191, 265 94 94, 186 165, 245 94 106 141 92, 94-95, 112 94 92, 94, 112 94 94 93-94, 112 94 94 93 112 93 94 94 94 148 140 140 141 141 140 107, 138, 140-141, 156, 158, 207, 259 138-141, 156 128, 138, 140, 142, 156-158 117, 136, 138-141, 143, 184, 265, 270 156, 259 213 112 81-82 98, 112

Luke 17:6 17:8 17:11-17 17:11-19 17:16 17:17-19 17:18 17:20-21 17:21 17:23 17:24 17:26 17:30 18:6 18:8 18:10 18:10-14 18:11 18:13 18:14 18:15 18:16 18:17 18:18 18:22 18:24 18:25 18:29-30 18:31 18:31-33 18:32 18:38 18:39 19:1 19:1-7 19:1-9 19:1-10 19:2 19:4

128 93 191 128 255 111 111 107 104 104 57, 61 57, 61 57, 61 128 61 111 95, 229 111 92, 111-112 95 159 107 107 148, 150 157 107 107 142-143 57 61 111 219 219 94 94 94 94-95 94, 111, 203 94

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

359

Index

Luke 19:7 19:8 19:9-16 19:10 19:15 19:28-40 19:29 19:31 19:37 19:37-40 19:38 19:39-40 19:40 19:41 19:41-44 19:41-45 19:43 19:45 19:45-48 19:46 19:47 19:48 20:1 20:1-2 20:1-7 20:1-8 20:2 20:3 20:5 20:6 20:9 20:9-19 20:15 20:16 20:17 20:17-18 20:17-19 20:18 20:19

92, 94, 112 94 212 61, 87, 94 127 200 201 128 201 241 200-201 193 201 201 201, 224, 227 201 201 192, 200-201, 206, 241 200 200 206 200 156, 203, 206, 212, 238, 259 214 22 202, 206 207-208, 225 203, 206 203, 206 203, 206 106, 212 206 212 212, 225 209, 211-214 212 211-212, 214 209, 211-213 211, 212, 214, 238-239, 245

Luke 20:19-20 20:19-44 20:20 20:20-21 20:20-26 20:20-40 20:21 20:22 20:23 20:24 20:25 20:26 20:27 20:27-39 20:28 20:28-33 20:30 20:31 20:32 20:34 20:34-35 20:34-36 20:35 20:36 20:37 20:37-39 20:39 20:39-40 20:40 20:41 20:41-44 20:42 20:42-44 20:43 20:44 20:45 20:45-47 20:46 21:1-4

239 22 237-239 206 16, 237-238 219 237-238 237-238 237, 239 237-239 239 128, 237-239, 265 248 244-245 107, 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 244 245 245 245 244 245, 248, 250 218 245 218-220 214, 219, 245 218 220 218 216, 219, 245 223-224 219 127 223

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

360

Index

Luke 21:5 21:5-6 21:6 21:7 21:8-18 21:8-34 21:12-13 21:20-38 21:24 21:25-28 21:31 21:32 21:33 21:37 22:14-19 22:23 22:25 22:27 22:30 22:35 22:35-38 22:39 22:46 22:49-51 22:53 22:54-71 22:61 22:67 22:70 23:2 23:2-3 23:5 23:8 23:15 23:34 23:35 23:38 23:39 23:56

223 223 50, 223-224 77 223 224 224 223 111 59 154 156 153, 259 206 94 12 111 105 57 170 51, 247 117 220 170 206 115 128, 212 219 54, 219 206, 219, 238, 241, 247 241 206 77 142 82 219 247 219 117, 188

Luke 24:11 24:26 24:30 24:30-31 24:33 24:37 24:41-43 24:44 24:46 24:46-49 24:48 24:49 24:52 24:53

90 219 127 94 128 111 94 115, 156 219 268 96 128 51 229

John 1:6 1:14 1:37-38 1:46 2:15 2:18 2:18-22 3:16 5:10-12 5:16-18 5:17 5:17-18 6:30 7:23 7:40-44 7:42 8:42 9:1 9:14-39 9:22 12:15 13:3 14:5

100 109 88 196 201 204 198 157 271 271 189 271 76 271 215 195, 215, 259 216 226 271 52, 273 196 105 103, 256

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

361

Index

John 14:6 14:26 19:7

103 9 271

Acts 1:1 1:1-4 1:3-8 1:4 1:8 1:13 1:16 1:21 1:22 1:21-22a 1:23-26 1:26 2:1-11 2:4 2:22 2:23 2:24-40 2:29-33 2:29 2:32 2:36 2:37 2:38 2:43 2:46 3:1 3:1-2 3:5-6 3:12-26 3:14 3:14-15 3:15 3:17 3:17-18

41, 44 268 268 22, 94 96, 111, 231, 255, 264, 268 89 51 264 264 268 264 96, 231 111, 255 231, 264 77, 268 231 268 220 51 96, 264 220 51, 148 54, 112 77 229 201, 226, 229 195, 259 77 268 231 66 96, 264 51 66

Acts 3:19 4:1 4:1-2 4:1-3 4:1-18 4:7 4:10 4:10-12 4:11 4:11-12 4:12 4:19-20 4:25-27 4:27 4:30 4:32 5:9 5:10 5:11 5:12 5:14 5:17 5:17-18 5:20 5:21-33 5:28 5:30-32 5:31 5:32 5:34-39 5:34-42 5:36-37 5:40-42 5:42 6:1 6:1-7 6:3 6:3-4 6:7

82, 112, 257 22, 248 248 9, 193 214 214 231 264, 268 214 213 214 214 220 142 77 268 184 184 15, 20, 51 77 184 248 250 229, 231 214 115 268 112 96 50 269 54 54 229 9, 164 268 51 150 93, 190

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

362

Index

Acts 6:8 6:11 6:12-15 6:13 6:13-14 6:14 7:2 7:2-53 7:8 7:26 7:38 7:43 7:51-54 7:52 7:53 7:56 7:58 7:60 8:1 8:3 8:4-40 8:9-25 8:12 8:17-20 8:22 8:26-39 8:27 8:29-38 9:1-8 9:1-19 9:2 9:5-6 9:26-29 9:30 9:31 9:41 10:1-48 10:1-11:18 10:2

77 115 115 115-116, 157-158 117, 158, 192, 229 115, 117, 158, 224, 268 51 43 159 51, 77 15, 20, 51 51 50 268 116 62 96 82, 257 15, 20, 21, 51, 112 20, 51, 184 112 75 184 77 112 112 51, 201 167, 256 51 271 184 268 51 51 15 165 130 162 255

Acts 10:9-16 10:10-17 10:13-16 10:25 10:25-28 10:26 10:29 10:37-39 10:38 10:39 10:39-43 10:43 10:47 10:48 11:1 11:1-18 11:2 11:2-3 11:3 11:12 11:15 11:18 11:20 11:22 11:26 11:27-30 11:28 12:1 12:5 12:17-18 12:20-23 12:25 13:1 13:14 13:14-16 13:15 13:17 13:17-25 13:23

112 167, 256 268 51 148 51 148 268 75 96, 231 268 264 264 112 51, 112 9, 112, 115, 130 112 112 112, 115, 158, 271 51 127 112 167 20, 51 54 51 50 20, 51 20, 51 192 50 51 142 185, 191 185 51, 116 51 43 220

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

363

Index

Acts 13:23-41 13:26 13:27 13:28 13:28-30 13:31 13:38 13:42 13:44 13:45 15:1 15:1-2 15:1-19 15:1-29 15:1-33 15:1-35 15:3 15:4 15:5 15:5-6 15:7 15:9 15:10 15:12 15:13 15:13-21 15:19 15:19-20 15:19-21 15:21 15:22 15:22-23 15:22-31 15:23 15:24 15:28 15:28-29 15:29 15:32

268 51 191 116 231 96 51, 265 185, 191 191 50 112, 117, 158, 271 112, 167, 256 167 51, 130, 160, 264 167-168, 190, 256 9 159 20, 51 92, 112, 116, 159 105 51 134 101, 150, 152, 157, 167 77, 112 231, 264 256 167, 271 168, 256 168 191 20, 51 51, 168, 256 268 157, 260 112 157, 260, 264 156, 260 157, 168, 256 271

Acts 15:38-40 16:1 16:1-3 16:2 16:16-20 16:21 16:30 17:2 17:12 17:30 17:31 18:4 18:13 18:15 18:22 19:4 19:13 19:14-17 20:7-12 20:8-12 20:9 20:21 20:35 21:12 21:17-18 21:20 21:20-21 21:21 21:24 21:26-30 21:27 21:27-36 21:28-29 22:3 22:4 22:8 22:12 22:15-21 22:16

271 97 271 168 75 117, 159, 265 148 191 184 112 268 191 115-116, 158 116 51 268 65 76, 257 90, 105 105 105 112, 113 268 229 229 116, 158 115 117, 158 116 192 229 193 229 116, 158 184 268 116, 158 229 82, 257, 268

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

364

Index

Acts 22:17 22:26 22:28 23:1-10 23:2 23:3 23:6 23:7 23:8 23:26 23:29 24:2 24:3 24:4 24:5 24:6 24:11 24:12 24:14 24:18 24:24 24:27 25:8 25:13 25:16 25:26 26:3 26:20 26:21 26:23 26:28 26:30 26:31 28:3-6 28:8 28:17 28:19 28:22 28:23

201, 229 201 236 115 51 117, 158, 265 248, 250 248 244, 248 51 117 51 51 158 158 117, 158 201 229 115, 117, 158-159 229 51 51 117, 158-159 51 117 142 117, 158-159, 265 112 229 268 54 159 142 76 158, 265 117, 158-159, 265 50 50 117

Acts 28:25 28:27 28:28

51 112 44-45, 267

Roman 1:1-3 1:3 1:3-4 1:7 1:16 2:9 2:10 3:9 10:12 13:1-7 14:5-6 14:14 15:8 16:1 16:4

216 216 195, 259 165 162 162 162 162 162 247, 271 271 115, 126, 271 162 20 20

1 Corinthians 1:2 20, 165 1:24 162 1:26 191 4:17 20 6:11 54 7:1-7 190 7:7 143 7:10 9, 131, 133, 140 7:10-11 9, 136 7:11-16 140 7:12 190 7:14 271 7:15 190 9:5 133 9:14 9 10:32 162 11:23 9 The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

365

Index

1 Corinthians 12:13 162 14:37 9 15:5 231 15:10 269 15:12 23 15:12-17 232 15:12-19 232 15:55-57 232

Colossians 1:2 2:16 3:5 3:11

2 Corinthians 1:1 165 5:16 268 12:12 76

2 Thessalonians 2:9 76

Galatians 1:2 1:14 1:16 1:18-19 1:22 2:1 2:9 2:11-13 2:13 2:14 2:15 3:28 4:8-11 5:1 5:19

20 117 51 51 20 168 51 168, 271 17 99 99 162 271 101 271

Ephesians 1:1 165 4:19 271 5:3 271 Philippians 1:1 165

165 271 271 162

1 Thessalonians 4:15 9 4:15-17 59

1 Timothy 1:15 87 3:2 133 3:16 95 Titus 1:6

133

Philemon 1:1 165 Hebrew 2:4 7:9 7:12 10:25 12:13

76 89 190, 262-263 117 62

James 5:14

20

1 Peter 1:2 2:4-8 2:5 2:7-9 2:9

165 271 190, 230 210 190

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

366

Index

1 Peter 2:17 4:12-19 4:16 4:18

271 9 54 92

3 John 9-11

9

Revelation 1:6 2:9 3:9 5:10 7:7 7:11-12 21:22 26:28

190 19, 273 273 190 89 227 224 54

Jubliees 2:28-33 2:29 2:31 7:20 8:2-3 20:4 23:23-24 23:29 25:1-3 27:8 32:13 36:2

176 179 272 168 76 98 92 75 98 98 227 103

4 Ezra 5:41 7:31 12:32

59 272 216

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1 Hennoch 15:67 50:7 38:1-2 38:4-6 39:5-6 45:5-6 46:3-4 48:7-8 63:5-7 90:28-30 93:1-2 104:1-6

242 59 60 60 272 59 59 60 60 199 60 246

2 Hennoch 71:28-29 71:33-34 71:37 150:14

227 227 227 230

Jubliees 2:1 2:17 2:17-21 2:24 2:28

176 176 272 176 272

Adorah Sarah 20b 117 Psalms of Solomon 2:1-2 92 2:16 95 3:3 95 3:5 95 The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

367

Index

Psalms of Solomon 3:11 87 4:6 18 4:9 95 4:20 18 4:22 18 8:7 95 8:27 95 9:7 87

Testament of Benjamin 244, 272 10:6 Testament of Judah 14:6 98 Testament of Levi 18:4 244

Testament of Asher 2:8 272

Dead Sea Scrolls CD 1:12 104 12:23-13:1 55 13:4-7 190 CDA 4:21 5:1 6:18 7:5 9:13 10:14-23 10:22 12:23 14:19 19:10-11

134 134 171 165 181 171, 173 179 216 216 216

CDB 20:1 20:7 21:1

165, 207, 216 165 216

QG 2:15

272

1Q 28a 2:20-21 216 5:9 231 2Q test9 1QHa 10:6 10:18 10:31-35 19:5 1QS 2:12 2:26 3:3 3:6-9 3:7-12 3:9 4:9-11 5:4-5 5:5 5:13 5:25 6:16-21

207

134, 166 134, 166 100 166

134 134 134, 165, 170 62-63 165 165 170 134, 166, 170 134 84 134 124

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

368

Index

1QS 6:8-13 7:21 7:26 8:1-4 8:4-10 8:5 8:7 8:20 9:4-5 9:6 9:7 9:10 9:11 9:20 11:8 aII 9b-10(11)

167 134, 170 134, 170 165 121, 231 120 229 165 109 120, 229 165 134, 170, 207 55, 216 165 120, 229 226

1QpHab 2:2-3

190

1QSa 2:12 2:14 2:20

55 55 55

2Q test9

207

4Q 159 1, 2:7 161 8-10, 3:7-16 171 52:13, 16, 17 174 1, 1:1-3, 11 175:17-18

171 54 216-217 134, 170 170 134 229 181 181 190 190 67 165 227 210, 230 230 229 124 67

11Q 19 2:13 T 29:7-10 56:18 T 57:17-19 T 57:17-18

98 224 134 133 134

240 216-217 190 216-217 190

Philo De sobrietate 44

4Q 216 7:8-17 246 2:21 252 5:3-4 256 5:4 257 1, 3:4-5 258 1, 1:4 258 2 1:2 270 6, 5:18 271 5, 1:9 272 1, 1,5-19 273 4, 2, 1-11 286 7, 2:1-3 397:5-7 403 I, 1-39 500 501 511 35:3-5 514 534 2

163

De specialibus legibus 2:147 158 2:148 158 2:188 158 The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

369

Index

De specialibus legibus 3:13 158 3:29 158 3:34 134 3:205-206 161 De virtutibus 7

120

De decalogo 93

58

Legatio ad Gaium 1:5-6 189 115 114 De vita Mose 1:76-77 1:82-83 1:90-91 2:206

Quaestiones et solutions in Genesin 29 134 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 173 126 De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 5 243, 272 De Abrahamo 228 240

272 272

76 76 76 58

Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae 1:33 175 1:154 163 1:169 163 1:237 163 2:274 76 2:276 76 3:143 175 3:255 175 4:219 90 4:300 163 5:7-8 98 5:54-56 163 5:90 158 5:101 158 5:107 163

Antiquitates Judaicae 5:108 163 5:113 158 5:179 163 6:242-244 174 8:45 65 8:47 77 8:340 158 9:2 67 9:118 98 9:243 158 9:290 158 11:291-301 229 12:113 168 12:175-177 86, 91 12:180 97 12:263 158 12:274 175, 273 The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

370

Index

Antiquitates Judaicae 13:3 273 13:252 175 13:281-283 76 13:297 114 13:297-298 246 13:298 114 13:401-404 16 14:72-73 229 15:417 192 17:20 86 17:28 232 17:42 16 17:89 50 17:204 232 17:204-205 232 17:205 86, 232 17:308 86-87, 232 18:1 50 18:1-4 246 18:2 246 18:2-38 50 18:4 50, 246 18:4-10 235 18:16 244 18:16-17 246 18:17 246 18:23 115, 232 18:23-25 235 18:26 50 18:33 50 18:45 67 18:63 71 18:85-87 76 18:109-115 134 18:109-117 141 18:116-119 141 18:136 141 18:179 51 18:182 51

Antiquitates Judaicae 76 18:211 18:254 131 18:319-324 273 19:274-291 51 19:343-350 50 20:2 50 20:5 50 20:38-48 166 20:47 158 20:51 50 20:81 158 20:97 50 20:97-99 76 20:98 50 20:102 50 20:142 51 20.148 51 20:169-170 198 20:200-201 115 20:205 198 Bellum Judaicum 1:111 81 1:146 273 1:152-153 229 1:648 100 1:649 100 1:650 100 1:653 100 2:96 86 2:118 50, 232, 235 2:139 84 2:160 158 2:117-118 232, 234 2:162-166 246 2:165 244 2:167 50 2:195 158 2:259 76 The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

371

Index

Bellum Judaicum 2:262 76, 198 2:287-288 98 2:296 232 2:392 273 2:409 229 2:433 50, 232 3:103 158 4:102 158 4:136 158 4:181 229 4:270-287 197 5:9 231 5:193 192 5:237 158 5:416 229 5:482 158 6:125 192 6:438 163 6:439 163 7:9 163 7:43-45 229 7:185 65 7:218 239 7:253 234 7:356-357 272 7:424 158 Mishnah, literature

Talmud

m. ɔAbot 1:1 2:6 4:2 4:4

114 145 108 108

b. Baba Batra 60b 121a

104 81

and

Bellum Judaicum 11:217 158 14:216 158 158 15:254 15:328 158 16:172 158 17:317-319 232 Contra Apionem 1:59 58 1:223 58 1:279 58 1:317 158 2:139 158 2:269 158 Vita 50 112 149 191

related

166 166, 272 166, 272 145

b. Baba Qamma 113a 234, 272 b. Baba Mesica 5.6 168 59b 114 b. Berkorot 1:1 17b 28b-29b 30b

199 54 33 267

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

372

Index

b. Berkorot 31a 46b 47b 61b 63a

99 115 85, 272 145 151

b. Berakot 75a 83a 85b

163 181 176

t. Berakot 4:8 4:9 4:12 5:5 Dam 1:7 4:20

90 90 115 90

120 134

j. Demai 22d

169

t. Demai 2:2 2:3 2:17 2:18-24 3:1 3:3-5 3:4 3:6 3:7 3:8 8:4

85, 99 85 85 99 99 97 85, 90, 99, 272 85 85 85 85

b. Gittin 1b

272

b. Gittin 60b 90a

114 131, 134, 159, 272

b. Hagigah 2:7 25a

85 97

m. Hagigah 2:5

124

b. Ketubbot 59b 63a

132 132

m. Macas 1-5

100

b. Menahot 95b

174

b. Nedarim 26a,b 27a 28a 31b 31a 46a 66a 78b

81 81 97 164 166 161 161 81

Peɔah 1:1

161

b. Pesahim 68b 112b

186 234, 272

y. Pesahim 33a

114

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

373

Index

y. Pesahim 49a b. Sabbat 12a 31a

170

b. Sanhedrin 104b 107b

272 272

171 114, 145-146

j. Sanhedrin 9:2

98

t. Sanhedrin 7:12

160

b. Sebicit 7b

98

b. Shabbat 14b 31a 31b 33b 73a 73a-74b 75a 88b 111b 128

272 103 272 87 176 179 79 98 186 179

b. Sotah 22b 47a

15, 17, 168, 273 272

t. Sotah 6:4

197

y. Sotah 1:1 1:16b 3:4 3:199 4:7

272 272 273 273 272

b. Sukkah 30a

272

m. Sabbat 7:2 7:7 10:6

179 176 176

t. Sabbat 9 17

176 176

y. Sabbat 7:2 7:9c 7:10a

176 176 176

b. Sanhedrin 1-4b 3:3 13a 21b-22a 25b 35b 38a 43a 56a-b 58b 65b 67a 90a,b 90b 90b-91b 97a 98a 98ab

102 90 55 267 85 174 189 71, 86, 272 168 272 171 80, 272 76 272 242 214 76 199

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

374

Index

b. Sukkah 49a 49b

210 108

b. Tamid 30b 33b

227 227

m. Tamid 5:1

151

b. Temurah 29a-30a

98

t. Terumot 3:1-2

97

Yadayim 1:1-4

125

m. Yadayim 1:2

124

Apostolic Fathers Barnabas 4:14 4:50 5:9 5:11 6:2-4 7:2 9:1 9:4 9:5 9:6 15 21:4 51:5

80 272 87, 272 272 214 272 159 159, 166, 272 159 159 273 17 246

Yebamot 1:6 8:4

133 133

b. Yoma 19b 39b 40a 54b 75a 83a 85b

246 227 227 230 163 181 176

y. Yoma 40a 42c

227 230

b. Zebahim 52b 85b

98 98

1 Clement 7:7

67

2 Clement 2:4

87

Didache 1:1-2 2:6 4:10 6:2-3 8:1 11:7 11:7-8 11:9 16:4

145 17 87 104 17 66 66 69 272

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

375

Index

Ignatius

to the Philadelphians 3:1 170, 252

to the Ephesians 14:2 66

To the Smyrnaeans 1:1 10

to the Magnesian 9:1 273 New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Thomas Evangelium 47 93 65-66 209

66 90 100 107

210 104 235 93

Other Greek and Latin Works Epipanius

Justin

Adversus haereses 24 33 28 167

Apologia I 30:1 54-58

Eusebius

Dialogus cum Tryphone 63:1-3 272 69 80 69:7 272 107:1-2 66 108:1 66 134:3 11 137:1-3 216

De ecclesiastica theologia 3:16 193 3:39 193 Historia ecclesiastica 3:37 273 4:15 272 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 5.24.1 239 29 272

272 65

Lucian Philopsseudes 13

270

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

376

Index

Plato

377

Leges 668c 817c

18 18

Plutarch Moralia 71C 116 139A 228A 230F 350E 370c 612 671F 672A 736C

105 272 120, 168 245 87, 99 227 272 84 171, 273 171, 273 235

Kimon Lucullus 1:2 134 Suetonius Domitianus 12:2

87

Tertullian De Pudicitia 9:5

98

The Reception of Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew

Jerusalemer Texte

Schriften aus der Arbeit der Jerusalem-Akademie herausgegeben von Hans-Christoph Goßmann Band 1:

Peter Maser, Facetten des Judentums. Aufsätze zur Begegnung von Christen und Juden sowie zur jüdischen Geschichte und Kunst, 2009, 667 S.

Band 2:

Hans-Christoph Goßmann; Reinhold Liebers (Hrsg.), Hebräische Sprache und Altes Testament. Festschrift für Georg Warmuth zum 65. Geburtstag, 2010, 233 S.

Band 3:

Hans-Christoph Goßmann (Hrsg.), Reformatio viva. Festschrift für Bischof em. Dr. Hans Christian Knuth zum 70. Geburtstag, 2010, 300 S.

Band 4:

Ephraim Meir, Identity Dialogically Constructed, 2011, 157 S.

Band 5:

Wilhelm Kaltenstadler, Antijudaismus, Antisemitismus, Antizionismus, Philosemitismus – wie steht es um die Toleranz der Religionen und Kulturen?, 2011, 109 S.

Band 6:

Hans-Christoph Goßmann; Joachim Liß-Walther (Hrsg.), Gestalten und Geschichten der Hebräischen Bibel in der Literatur des 20. Jahrhunderts, 2011, 294 S.

Band 7:

Hans-Christoph Goßmann (Hrsg.), Geschichte des Christentums, 2011, 123 S.

Band 8:

Jonathan Magonet, Schabbat Schalom. Jüdische Theologie – in Predigten entfaltet, 2011, 185 S.

Band 9:

Clemens Groth; Sophie Höffer; Laura Sophie Plath (Hrsg.), „... das habe ich nie vergessen, bis heute ...“. Jugendliche befragen Menschen, die die Zeit des Nationalsozialismus erlebt haben, 2011, 200 S.

Band 10:

Hans-Christoph Goßmann, Altes Testament und christliche Gemeinde. Christliche Zugänge zum ersten Testament der Bibel, 2012, 198 S.

Band 11:

Bernd Gaertner; Hans-Christoph Goßmann (Hrsg.), Der Glaube an den Gott Israels. Festschrift für Joachim LißWalther, 2012, 254 S.

Band 12:

Wilhelm Kaltenstadler, Maqāla fī al-rabw. Die Abhandlung des Maimonides über das Asthma, 2013, 171 S.

Band 13:

Hans-Christoph Goßmann; Joachim Liß-Walther (Hrsg.), Gestalten und Geschichten der Hebräischen Bibel im Spiegel der Literatur des 20. Jahrhunderts, 2015, 434 S.

Band 14:

Wilhelm Kaltenstadler, Ernährung im medizinischen Werk des Moses Maimonides, 2015, 132 S.

Band 15:

Yee Wan SO, „And Jesus Replied...” – But what issues did Jesus address in his replies?! The Reception of the Conflict Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew, 2015, 377 S.