Parables and Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount: New Approaches to a Classical Text 3161541022, 9783161541025

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

351

Ernst Baasland

Parables and Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount New Approaches to a Classical Text

Mohr Siebeck

Ernst Baasland, born 1945; since 1971 lecturer, since 1981 professor at MF Nor­ wegian School of Theology in Oslo; 1990–1993 dean of the faculty; 1986 guest professor in Tübingen, 1994 in Princeton and 1997–1998 in Hong Kong; 1998–2000 bishop in Stavanger; since retirement 2009 guest lecturer in Stellenbosch, SA and 2010 Berlin; since 2011 affiliated to MF Norwegian School of Theology and School of Mission and Theology, Stavanger.

e-ISBN 978-3-16-154107-0 ISBN 978-3-16-154102-5 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015  by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic s­ ystems. The book was printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buch­binderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Preface The Sermon on the Mount belongs to the prestigious group of classical texts that have changed the world. Every generation has to reinterpret its significance, and it is indeed possible – in spite of the vast literature on the Sermon on the Mount – to give new insights to this classical text. The present book on the Sermon on the Mount investigates primarily the parables and metaphorical language in the speech. Parable-research has to a large degree ignored the Sermon on the Mount, and the research of the Sermon on the Mount has vice versa ignored the parables. The fact that more than one third of the Sermon on the Mount has this kind of language must have great impact on the interpretation of the text. These insights give in fact a new approach to the Sermon on the Mount; taking this into consideration new insights can be given to the questions of the “radicalism”, the audience of the Sermon on the Mount and many ethical and theological issues in the text. The second focus in the book is the rhetoric of the Sermon on the Mount. The rhetorical features have great impact on the interpretation of the text, and the overall rhetorical structure illuminates the whole composition of the Sermon. The rhetoric of the Sermon is only to a certain degree the result of Matthew’s editorial work, and the parallels to Luke compel a theory of an Inaugural speech. Insights in the rhetoric of the Sermon on the Mount challenge the source problem in a new way. The parables and rhetoric of the Sermon on the Mount illuminate its religious and philosophical setting. The Jewish background for the Sermon is often investigated and this task is continued here, but simultaneously with more emphasis on the parallels in the (Greek) Hellenistic literature. Through the parables and rhetoric in the Sermon and its parallels in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Literature we obtain a better understanding of the philosophy of life in the Sermon. I have always had a scholarly interest in the Sermon on the Mount, but my students at Humboldt University (Berlin) in 2010 inspired me to write this book. I am grateful to them and more so to the staff at the libraries in Berlin, Tübingen, Cambridge, Stavanger and Oslo for providing all kinds of sources to this project. I am not least grateful to my colleagues Jostein Ådna (Stavanger), Hermann Lichtenberger (Tübingen), Cilliers Breytenbach,

VI

Preface

Hans G. Bethge and also Roger Aus (Berlin) for valuable insights to parts of the book. I have appreciated in particular the understanding and support from Mohr Siebeck, represented by Henning Ziebritzki and my colleague Jörg Frey. The skilful, meticulous work of the publisher has improved the manuscript. For possible remaining deficiencies the author has to be blamed. As retired professor one has more time for doing such an immense piece of work, but still I am grateful to my wife and family for giving me ample time for reading and writing. Oslo/Stavanger, June 2015

Ernst Baasland

Table of Contents Preface ......................................................................................................... V List of Abbreviations........................................................................... XXVII

Chapter 1: Introduction: Enigmas of the Sermon on the Mount and Ways to Solve Them ............................................. 1 1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount ...................................................... 3 1.1.1 A Neglected Feature in New Testament Scholarship ........................... 5 1.1.2 Parables in Recent Research ................................................................. 8 1.1.2.1 Categories and Their Relation to Jewish ʭʩʬʹʮ and Hellenistic Rhetoric .................................................................. 8 1.1.2.1.1 The So-Called Marburg School and Its Critics....................... 10 1.1.2.2 Jülicher and the Recent Discussion on Metaphors/Metaphorical Language.......................................... 13 1.1.2.2.1 Tropes and Other Figures of Speech in the More Basic Rhetorical Argumentation......................... 14 1.1.2.3 The Parables as Argumentation and the Tertium Comparationis............................................................ 16 1.1.2.3.1 The Path between One-Point Approach and Multiple Meaning............................................................. 17 1.1.2.3.2 Two Types of Allegorical Interpretation................................. 18 1.1.2.4 The Parable and the Frame ............................................................ 19 1.1.2.5 Sociological Approaches ............................................................... 20 1.1.3 Parables Compared with Other Forms of Sayings in the Sermon on the Mount................................................................ 21 1.1.3.1 Focus on Aphorisms, Wisdom Exhortations (“Mahnworte”) and Larger Units .................................................. 21 1.2 Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount....................................................... 23 1.2.1 Genre of the Sermon on the Mount..................................................... 26 1.2.2 The Composition of the Sermon on the Mount .................................. 28 1.2.2.1 Composition according to Jewish-Christian Patterns ................... 29 1.2.2.2 Composition according to Themes, Key-Texts and Literary Skills ....................................................... 29

VIII

Table of Contents

1.2.2.3 Symmetric and Chiastic Structure of the Composition................. 31 1.2.3 The Sermon on the Mount as Rhetorical Composition and as Deliberative Speech ................................................................. 32 1.2.3.1 Rhetoric and the Audience ............................................................ 34 1.3 Parables and the Sources of the Sermon on the Mount ............................ 35 1.3.1 An “Inaugural Discourse” as Pre-Text?.............................................. 36 1.3.1.1 Parables and the Content of the Inaugural Speech in Q: Mark and the Gospel of Thomas as Comparison .......................... 37 1.3.2 Reconstruction Possible?..................................................................... 39 1.3.3 Open Questions and Criteria for the Evaluation ................................. 41 1.4 Parables and the Question of Wisdom versus Eschatology ..................... 42

Chapter 2: Rhetoric and Metaphorical Language in the Exordium ...................................................................................... 45 2.1 Rhetoric in the Exordium ...................................................................... 45 2.1.1 The Function and Meaning of the ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȢ-Sentences .................... 46 2.2 Rhetoric in Matthew’s Additions.............................................................. 49 2.2.1 The Three (Four) Additions in the Protasis ...................................... 50 2.2.1.1 Matt 5,8: “Clean in Heart” (Ƞੂ țĮșĮȡȠ੿ IJૌ țĮȡį઀઺) ...................... 50 2.2.1.2 Matt 5,6: “Hungry and Thirsty for Righteousness” ...................... 51 2.2.1.3 Matt 5,3: “Poor in the Spirit” (Ƞੂ ʌIJȦȤȠ੿ IJ૶ ʌȞİ઄ȝĮIJȚ)................. 52 2.2.1.3.1 Matthew Has Corrupted the Original Meaning ...................... 52 2.2.1.3.2 Matthew Gives the Right Interpretation.................................. 52 2.2.1.3.3 Matthew Makes the Meaning More Metaphorically Open..... 53 2.2.1.3.4 The Meaning of “Poor” ........................................................... 53 2.2.1.3.5 The Meaning of Spirit and the Use of the Dative ................... 54 2.2.1.3.6 Traditions behind the Expression............................................ 56 2.2.2 The Three (Five) Additions in the Apodosis ...................................... 57 2.2.2.1 Matt 5,5: “The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth” (țȜȘȡȠȞȠȝ੾ıȠȣıȚȞ IJ੽Ȟ ȖોȞ) .......................................................... 58 2.2.2.2 Matt 5,9: “The Peacemakers Shall Be Called Sons of God” (ȣੂȠ੿ șİȠ૨ țȜȘș੾ıȠȞIJĮȚ) ................................................................ 59 2.2.2.3 Matt 5,8: “The Pure in Heart Shall See God” (IJઁȞ șİઁȞ ੕ȥȠȞIJĮȚ)......................................................................... 59 2.2.2.4 Concluding Remarks ..................................................................... 60 2.3 Rhetoric of Matt 5,11–12: Application or Part of the Propositio?........... 60 2.4 Argumentation and the Topos of “Reward” in Judaism and in the Sermon on the Mount............................................................... 63 2.5 Rhetoric and Metaphorical Language....................................................... 66

Table of Contents

IX

Chapter 3: The Propositio Matt 5,12–20 (5,12.13–16.17–20) .... 67 3.1 Extent of the Propositio and Possible Titles .......................................... 67 3.1.1 Genre and Outline of Matt 5,12–20.................................................. 69 3.1.1.1 Collection of Metaphorical Sayings .............................................. 70 3.1.1.2 An Old Testament Model for the Propositio (Exod 19; Deut 28) ........................................................................ 70 3.1.1.3 Structured Wisdom Sayings .......................................................... 70 3.1.1.4 Matt 5,12–20 as Transitus and Propositio .................................... 71 3.1.1.5 The Rhetorical Outline of Matt 5,13–16 ........................................ 72 3.1.2 The Composition of Matt 5,12–20 and Source Criticism................... 72 3.1.2.1 Matt 5,13–16 and Source Criticism............................................... 73 3.1.2.2 Matt 5,17–20.................................................................................. 74 3.1.2.3 The Paradigms “Tradition plus Redaction” versus “Open Theory – Rhetorical Effort”.................................... 75 3.2 The Parable Matt 5,13 (the Metaphor of ‘Salt’) ..................................... 76 3.2.1 Genre and Rhetorical Form .............................................................. 76 3.2.1.1 Possible to Find a Pre-Text?.......................................................... 77 3.2.2 Explanations through Other Source-Theories or from Q ................... 80 3.2.3 Socio-Historical Remarks: Salt as Reality and as Metaphor .............. 80 3.2.3.1 Salt – a Powerful Phenomenon...................................................... 80 3.2.3.2 Salt Has Multiple Functions .......................................................... 82 3.2.3.3 Salt as a Metaphor ......................................................................... 83 3.2.3.3.1 Salt as a Necessity, a Symbol for Something Fundamental ... 83 3.2.3.3.2 Salt as Religious Symbol......................................................... 84 3.2.3.3.3 Attributes of Salt as a Metaphor.............................................. 85 3.2.3.3.4 Salt as a Symbol for Friendship .............................................. 86 3.2.3.3.5 Salt as a Disaster and Symbol for Judgement......................... 87 3.2.4 Interpretation of Matt 5,13 as Parable................................................. 87 3.2.4.1 Perspective ..................................................................................... 87 3.2.4.2 People as Salt ................................................................................. 88 3.2.4.2.1 The Emphatic ਫ਼ȝİ૙Ȣ ................................................................. 88 3.2.4.2.2 ਥıIJİ – Indicative or Imperative? ............................................. 89 3.2.4.2.3 The Meaning of IJઁ ਚȜĮȢ.......................................................... 89 3.2.4.2.4 IJઁ ਚȜĮȢ IJોȢ ȖોȢ: What on Earth Is Meant by “Ȗો”?................ 90 3.2.4.3 A Foolish Thing: Salt or Not Salt, That Is the Question............... 91 3.2.4.3.1 Become Stupid (ȝȦȡĮȞșૌ) ...................................................... 93 3.2.4.3.2 ਥȞ IJ઀ȞȚ ਖȜȚıș੾ıİIJĮȚ .................................................................. 94 3.2.4.4 Terrible Consequence: “Except to Be Thrown Out and Trampled by Men”.................................................................. 95 3.2.4.4.1 “It Is No Longer Good for Anything” (İੁȢ Ƞ੝į੻Ȟ ੁıȤ઄İȚ ਩IJȚ).... 95 3.2.4.4.2 İੁ ȝ੽ ȕȜȘș੻Ȟ ਩ȟȦ...................................................................... 96 3.2.4.4.3 “Trampled by Men” (țĮIJĮʌĮIJİ૙ıșĮȚ ਫ਼ʌઁ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡઆʌȦȞ)..... 96

X

Table of Contents

3.2.5 Ambiguous Metaphor and a Clear Narrative ...................................... 97 3.2.6 The Basic Meaning: Application and Keys to Its Understanding ...... 98 3.3 The Metaphor of Light, Matt 5,14 .......................................................... 100 3.3.1 Traditions and Motif-Historical Remarks ......................................... 101 3.3.1.1 Jewish Parallels............................................................................ 101 3.3.1.2 Light as Metaphor........................................................................ 102 3.3.2 Interpretation ..................................................................................... 103 3.3.2.1 The Repetition: You Are (ਫ਼ȝİ૙Ȣ ਥıIJİ) ......................................... 103 3.3.2.2 The Light (IJઁ ij૵Ȣ)....................................................................... 103 3.3.2.3 Of the World (IJȠ૨ țંıȝȠȣ) ......................................................... 104 3.3.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 105 3.4 The Metaphor of the “City on the Mount” (Matt 5,14).......................... 105 3.4.1 Metaphorical Use of the Motif .......................................................... 107 3.4.2 Interpretation ..................................................................................... 108 3.4.2.1 Ƞ੝ į઄ȞĮIJĮȚ țȡȣȕોȞĮȚ ʌંȜȚȢ ਥʌ੺ȞȦ ੕ȡȠȣȢ țİȚȝ੼ȞȘ ....................... 109 3.4.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 110 3.5 The Parable of Light and Its Effects (Matt 5,15).................................... 111 3.5.1 Headings and Four Types of Interpretation ...................................... 111 3.5.2 Genre, Structure and Rhetoric........................................................... 112 3.5.2.1 Possible to Find a Pre-Text?........................................................ 113 3.5.2.2 Is Matthew or Luke Closest to Q?............................................... 115 3.5.3 Interpretation as Parable: Metaphor, Social Reality and Perspective ........................................ 116 3.5.3.1 Lamp and Light as Metaphors ..................................................... 116 3.5.3.2 Lamp and Lamp-Stand in Their Socio-Historical Setting .......... 117 3.5.3.3 The House and Socio-Economic Reality..................................... 118 3.5.3.4 The Stupid versus the Right Action and the Beam of the Light ... 119 3.5.3.5 Possible “Tertium Comparationis” and the Perspective of the Narrative ............................................................................ 119 3.6 Matt 5,13–16 in the Framework of the Propositio – Concluding Remarks............................................................................... 120 3.6.1 Litotes and Pleonasm in Matt 5,17–20.............................................. 123 3.6.1.1 The Litotes in Matt 5,19 (ਥȜ੺ȤȚıIJȠȢ) ........................................... 124 3.6.1.2 The Pleonasm in Matt 5,20 (ʌİȡȚııİ઄İȚȞ … ʌȜİ૙ȠȞ)................... 125 3.6.1.2.1 Qualitative (Theological, Eschatological) Meaning: A New Law? .......................................................................... 126 3.6.1.2.2 Quantitative(-Ethical) Meaning: A New Understanding of the Law?....................................... 126 3.6.1.2.3 Finding the Railings: An Intentional Approach of a Hyperbolic Statement? .................................. 127 3.6.1.3 Hyperbolic and Paradoxical Statements as Keys to Matt 5,19–20 .............................................................. 130 3.6.2 The Rhetoric of Matt 5,17–20 ........................................................... 131

Table of Contents

XI

Chapter 4: Rhetoric, Parables and Examples in Matt 5,21–48 .................................................................................... 132 4.1 Theses and Antitheses ........................................................................ 132 4.1.1 Core and Additions: Additions as Parables/Metaphorical Language ............................... 132 4.1.2 Titles for Matt 5,21–48: Are There Alternatives to “Antitheses”?... 133 4.1.3 Rhetorical Form and Meaning of “Theses” and “Antitheses”.......... 134 4.1.4 The Form and Content of the Theses ................................................ 135 4.1.4.1 ਱țȠ઄ıĮIJİ ੖IJȚ Used Five Times ................................................... 135 4.1.4.2 The Phrase ਥȡȡ੼șȘ Used in All Six Cases................................... 136 4.1.4.3 The IJȠ૙Ȣ ਕȡȤĮ઀ȠȚȢ (Used Twice) .................................................. 136 4.1.4.4 The Formula and the Content (Quotations and Additions)......... 137 4.1.4.5 Tentative Conclusions on the “Theses”....................................... 138 4.1.5 The Form and Content of the So-Called Antitheses (Correctio)...... 139 4.1.5.1. The Form and Content of the Corrections .................................. 141 4.1.6 The Elaboration of the Inaugural Speech in Matt 5,21(38)–48 and Luke 6,27–38 ............................................ 143 4.1.7 The Character and Outline of Luke 6,27–36 – the Heart of the Sermon on the Plain ................................................ 145 4.1.8 The Character and Outline of Matt 5,38–48 – a Part of the Argumentatio in the Sermon on the Mount ............................ 146 4.2 Hyperbolic Statement on Retaliation (Matt 5,21–22) ............................ 149 4.2.1 Rhetoric and Interpretation of Thesis and Antithesis ....................... 149 4.2.2 The Thesis.......................................................................................... 150 4.2.3 The Antithesis: A Unique Saying ..................................................... 151 4.2.3.1 ʌ઼Ȣ ੒ ੑȡȖȚȗંȝİȞȠȢ (İੁțૌ) IJ૶ ਕįİȜij૶ Į੝IJȠ૨................................ 151 4.2.3.2 Guilty of Calling Names (İ੅ʌૉ IJ૶ ਕįİȜij૶ Į੝IJȠ૨ ૧Įț੺ … İ੅ʌૉ· ȝȦȡ੼) ............................. 155 4.2.3.3 The Verdict (਩ȞȠȤȠȢ ਩ıIJĮȚ IJૌ țȡ઀ıİȚ … ıȣȞİįȡ઀૳ … Ȗ੼İȞȞĮȞ): Climax or Anticlimax?........................... 158 4.2.4 Metaphorical Value and the Character of the Antithesis.................. 159 4.3 The Parable on Forgiveness, Matt 5,23–24 ............................................ 162 4.3.1 Titles .................................................................................................. 163 4.3.2 Rhetorical Analysis and Possible Pre-Text....................................... 164 4.3.2.1 Genre............................................................................................ 164 4.3.2.2 Outline and Style ......................................................................... 165 4.3.2.3 A Pre-Text?.................................................................................. 166 4.3.3 Historical Interpretation .................................................................... 168 4.3.3.1 Lack of Information and Filling the Gap..................................... 169 4.3.3.2 The Offering, į૵ȡંȞ ıȠȣ, as Sacrifice ........................................ 170 4.3.3.3 The Procedure (ʌȡȠıij੼ȡૉȢ IJઁ į૵ȡંȞ ıȠȣ ਥʌ੿ IJઁ șȣıȚĮıIJ੾ȡȚȠȞ)........................ 171

XII

Table of Contents

4.3.3.4 Offerings with Complications: Is an Interruption Possible or Impossible? .................................. 173 4.3.3.5 The Broken Relationship (਩ȤİȚ IJȚ țĮIJ੹ ıȠ૨): An Unsolved Case and Possible Solutions.................................. 173 4.3.3.6 The Total Change in Attitude (੢ʌĮȖİ ʌȡ૵IJȠȞ įȚĮȜȜ੺ȖȘșȚ IJ૶ ਕįİȜij૶ ıȠȣ)............................... 174 4.3.3.7 Resuming the Offering (IJંIJİ ਥȜșઅȞ ʌȡંıijİȡİ IJઁ į૵ȡંȞ ıȠȣ) ... 175 4.3.4 Theological Interpretation of Matt 5,23ff as Parable........................ 176 4.3.4.1 The Right Offering: Cult Criticism in Matt 5,23ff?.................... 177 4.3.4.2 Does the Parable Illustrate the Theme of Reconciliation?.......... 178 4.3.4.3 The Right Attitude ....................................................................... 178 4.3.4.4 Perspective, Point of View (the “You” and the “Brother”) ........ 179 4.3.4.5 Intended Language and a Constructed Parable ........................... 180 4.4 The Parable on Reconciling the Adversary (Matt 5,25–26)................... 181 4.4.1 Title and Tendencies in Scholarship ................................................. 181 4.4.2 Rhetorical Analysis ........................................................................... 183 4.4.2.1 Genre............................................................................................ 183 4.4.2.2 Outline and Style ......................................................................... 184 4.4.3 Q as Source? Does Matthew or Luke Have a More Original Text? ....................... 184 4.4.3.1 The Different Context in Matthew and Luke .............................. 185 4.4.3.2 The Application ........................................................................... 186 4.4.3.3 The Narrative ............................................................................... 186 4.4.4 Historical Interpretation of the Imagery............................................ 188 4.4.4.1 The Case and Procedure .............................................................. 189 4.4.4.2 Verdict (İੁȢ ijȣȜĮț੽Ȟ ȕȜȘș੾ıૉ) and Payback (ਕʌȠį૶Ȣ IJઁȞ ਩ıȤĮIJȠȞ țȠįȡ੺ȞIJȘȞ) ............................................... 190 4.4.5 Theological Interpretation: A Single or Many Tertia Comparationis .......................................... 192 4.4.5.1 The Features Time and Decision-Making in Matt 5,25–26 ........ 192 4.4.5.2 Goodwill (İ੝ȞȠ૵Ȟ) as Key Word: A New Start? ........................ 192 4.4.5.3 Yielding of One’s Claim and Seeking Reconciliation ................ 194 4.4.5.4 ੒ ਕȞIJ઀įȚțȠȢ as Tertium Comparationis: Is ਕȞIJ઀įȚțȠȢ God and Not the Adversary? ................................... 195 4.4.5.5 Is Precautionary Measure and Clever Foresight the Point? ........ 195 4.4.5.6 Time and Timing and “Morality of Expediency” ....................... 196 4.4.5.7 To Be Judged and Judgement as the Tertium Comparationis .... 196 4.4.5.8 An Alternative Approach............................................................. 197 4.4.6 Construction of the Parable ............................................................... 198 4.4.6.1 Perspectives (Point of View) and Application ............................ 199 4.4.6.2 Between Metaphors and Allegory: Intended Language.............. 199 4.4.7 Matt 5,21–26 – Decomposed and as a Composition ........................ 200

Table of Contents

XIII

4.5 Parable on Self-Control and True Wholeness (Matt 5,29–30)............... 201 4.5.1 Context, Titles and Tendencies in the History of Interpretation ...... 202 4.5.2 Rhetorical Analysis ........................................................................... 203 4.5.2.1 Outline.......................................................................................... 203 4.5.2.2. Rhetorical Tools.......................................................................... 205 4.5.3 Why Is the Tradition Quoted Twice?................................................ 206 4.5.4 Socio-Historical Remarks on the Hyperbole of Destroying Eye and Hand ............................................................. 208 4.5.4.1 Right Eye and Right Hand........................................................... 208 4.5.4.2 The Notion ıțĮȞįĮȜ઀ȗİȚ ıİ.......................................................... 209 4.5.4.3 Dramatic Actions Must Be Taken: Mutilation? .......................... 209 4.5.5 Theological Application and the Interpretation as Parable............... 210 4.5.5.1 It Is Better for You (ıȣȝij੼ȡİȚ Ȗ੺ȡ ıȠȚ)....................................... 210 4.5.5.2 Socio- and Motif-Historical Remarks on the “Whole Body”-Concept.................................................... 211 4.5.5.3 The Final Disaster: To Be Thrown into Hell............................... 212 4.5.5.4 Tertium Comparationis?.............................................................. 212 4.5.5.5 The Perspective (Point of View) and Intended Language and Not Allegories................................ 213 4.5.5.6 The Parable as Part of the Antithesis........................................... 214 4.6 Matt 5,34–36.37: Return Truthfully Loyalty to God.............................. 215 4.6.1 Titles .................................................................................................. 216 4.6.2 Genre and Outline.............................................................................. 217 4.6.2.1 The Incongruence between Thesis and Antithesis ...................... 217 4.6.2.2 The Casuistic Addition ................................................................ 218 4.6.2.3 The Paradox Matt 5,34–36 (Three Possible Objects and a Fourth) ........................................ 222 4.6.2.4 The Paradox Matt 5,36b (to Make Black White – and Not Vice Versa) ............................ 223 4.6.2.5 The Paradox Matt 5,37: Alternative to or Rejection of Oaths?.... 224 4.6.2.6 What Is Evil-Doing or Who is Doing Evil? ................................ 227 4.6.2.7 The Metaphorical Sayings as Part of the Antithesis ................... 228 4.6.2.8 To Give Back an Oath to the Lord Is the Issue ........................... 229 4.7 Metaphorical Language in Matt 5,38–42 ................................................ 230 4.7.1 Titles and Types of Interpretation ..................................................... 232 4.7.2 Genre and Rhetorical Outline............................................................ 234 4.7.2.1 Rhetoric........................................................................................ 235 4.7.3 The Enigma of the Thesis and Antithesis ......................................... 236 4.7.3.1 The Thesis.................................................................................... 236 4.7.3.2 The Antithesis .............................................................................. 238 4.7.3.2.1 What Does ȝ੽ ਕȞIJȚıIJોȞĮȚ IJ૶ ʌȠȞȘȡ૶ Mean? ...................... 238 4.7.3.2.2 The Term ਕȞș઀ıIJȘȝȚ .............................................................. 239 4.7.3.2.3 The Logic in Matt 5,38ff and the Old Testament ................. 241

XIV

Table of Contents

4.7.4 Matt 5,38–42: Examples/Hyperbole in a Rhetorical Context........... 241 4.7.4.1 The Relation between ȝ੽ ਕȞIJȚıIJોȞĮȚ IJ૶ ʌȠȞȘȡ૶ and the Examples......................................................................... 242 4.7.4.2 Climax or Anticlimax in the Examples: How Arbitrary or Precise Are the Examples?............................. 242 4.7.4.3 Perspective (Point of View)......................................................... 242 4.7.4.4 Matt 5,39: First Example: Personal Insult or Legal Case? ......... 243 4.7.4.4.1 The Violent Action ................................................................ 243 4.7.4.4.2 The Surprising Reaction........................................................ 244 4.7.4.4.3 Possible and Probable Implication ........................................ 245 4.7.4.5 Matt 5,40: Is the Second Example from a Legal Case? .............. 245 4.7.4.5.1 The Imagery: Legal Case or Robbery? Clothing and Confusion......................................................... 246 4.7.4.5.2 Generosity and Not Halakhic Decision: ਙijİȢ Į੝IJ૶ țĮ੿ IJઁ ੂȝ੺IJȚȠȞ ...................................................... 248 4.7.4.6 Matt 5,41: A Third Example about Actions in an Occupied Country............................................................... 248 4.7.4.6.1 The Provocation..................................................................... 249 4.7.4.6.2 The Surprising Reaction, ੢ʌĮȖİ ȝİIJૅ Į੝IJȠ૨ į઄Ƞ................... 249 4.7.4.7 Matt 5,42: Fourth/Fifth Example on Giving and Receiving (Benefactor Institution) ....................................... 250 4.7.4.7.1 The Imagery in Light of Jewish Texts and the Benefactor Institution ............................................... 251 4.7.4.7.2 The Two Imperatives (įંȢ – ȝ੽ ਕʌȠıIJȡĮijૌȢ): Ethical and Theological Sayings ........................................... 253 4.7.5 The Character and Message of the Fifth Antithesis.......................... 254 4.7.5.1 The Thesis: The Logic of Lex Talionis and the Theme of Retaliation....................................................... 255 4.7.5.2 The Antithesis: The Logic of Evil and the Theme of Renunciation................................................... 255 4.7.5.3 Examples as Metaphorical Language.......................................... 257 4.7.5.3.1 The First Three Examples: Innocent, Patient Suffering or Royal Generosity .................................. 257 4.7.5.3.2 The Last Examples: The Logic of Generosity ...................... 259 4.7.5.3.3 Honour and Shame in the Two Groups of Examples ........... 261 4.7.5.4 The Metaphorical Sayings as Part of the Antithesis ................... 261 4.7.5.5 Limitations of the Text: What the Text Does Not Say ............... 263 4.7.5.6 Preparing for a Virtue Ethics....................................................... 264 4.8 Maxim and Example on Generosity (Matt 5,43–47).............................. 265 4.8.1 Title and Models of Interpretation .................................................... 266 4.8.2 Inconsistency between Thesis and Antithesis................................... 268 4.8.2.1 Is the Strange Thesis a Quotation from the Old Testament? ...... 268 4.8.2.2 Matt 5,43 as a General Topic....................................................... 271

Table of Contents

XV

4.8.2.3 The Antithesis and the Additions ................................................ 272 4.8.3 Rhetorical Tools ................................................................................ 275 4.8.4 Maxim about God’s Sun and Rain (Matt 5,45)................................. 277 4.8.4.1 God’s Sun and Rain ..................................................................... 277 4.8.4.2 God’s Sons and His Universal Agenda ....................................... 278 4.8.5 Example: Greeting Pagans and Publicans (Matt 5,46–47) ............... 279 4.8.5.1 To Give Greetings as Metaphor .................................................. 279 4.8.5.2 Stereotypes as Comparison (Ƞ੝Ȥ੿ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ IJİȜ૵ȞĮȚ/Ƞ੝Ȥ੿ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ ਥșȞȚțȠ઀).................................... 280 4.8.5.3 The “More-Than” Principle (IJ઀ȞĮ ȝȚıșઁȞ ਩ȤİIJİ; and IJ઀ ʌİȡȚııઁȞ ʌȠȚİ૙IJİ;) ............................. 282 4.8.5.4. The Message of the Last Antithesis............................................ 283 4.9 The Six Antitheses in Rhetorical Perspective and Their Theological Impact................................................................. 284 4.9.1 The Form and Content of Theses and Antitheses ............................. 284 4.9.2 The Theses as Topoi.......................................................................... 286 4.9.3 The Antithesis in Hellenistic Rhetorical Context: Topoi and Status (ȞȠȝȚțĮ੿ ıIJ੺ıİȚȢ) .................................................. 287 4.9.4 The Antitheses as an Ethical Discourse or Commandments ............ 288

Chapter 5: Rhetoric and Metaphorical Language in Matt 6,1–18 (Argumentatio II) ....................................................... 291 5.1 The Rhetoric of Matt 6,1–18 (on True Reward)..................................... 291 5.1.1 Headings ............................................................................................ 292 5.1.2 Context and Setting ........................................................................... 293 5.1.3 The Genre: Ethical Issues or Halakhic Decisions? ........................... 294 5.1.4 Outline – an Antithetical Structure ................................................... 295 5.1.5 Point of View and Tertium Comparationis....................................... 297 5.1.6 Rhetorical Opponents in Matt 6,1–18 Compared with Other Parts of the Sermon on the Mount ................ 300 5.1.7 Are Ƞੂ ਫ਼ʌȠțȡȚIJĮ઀ Rhetorical Figures or Real Historical Persons? .... 301 5.1.8 The ੮ıʌİȡ Ƞੂ ਥșȞȚțȠ઀ and Its Rhetorical Function ........................... 303 5.2 The Hyperbolical and Paradoxical Statements ....................................... 304 5.2.1 When the Trumpet Sounds: Matt 6,2 as Hyperbolic Statement? ..... 304 5.2.2 Left and Right Hand: A Paradoxical Statement (Matt 6,3) .............. 306 5.2.3 Outdoor Prayer-Meetings: Matt 6,5 as Hyperbolic Statement ......... 307 5.2.4 Matt 6,6 as Hyperbolic and Paradoxical Statement.......................... 308 5.2.5 Invisible? A Hyperbolic and Paradoxical Statement in Matt 6,16 ... 310 5.2.6 “Wash Your Face, Put Oil on Your Head” – a Paradoxical Statement?................................................................... 311 5.3 Matt 6,1–18 and Its Rhetorical Context.................................................. 313

XVI

Table of Contents

Chapter 6: Parables in Matt 6,19–34 (Argumentatio III) ............... 315 6.1 Titles and Genre ...................................................................................... 315 6.2 The Rhetoric of Matt 6,19–7,12.............................................................. 316 6.2.1 Argumentation and Outline............................................................... 317 6.3 Parables and Metaphors in Matt 6,19–24 ............................................... 321 6.3.1 Parable on Gathering True Values (Matt 6,19–21)........................... 322 6.3.1.1 Titles and Tendencies in Scholarship.......................................... 322 6.3.1.2 Rhetoric and Source Criticism..................................................... 324 6.3.1.2.1 Genre, Outline and Rhetorical Features................................ 324 6.3.1.2.2 Sequence, Audience, Content and Wording of the Maxim in the Sermon on the Mount and in Luke....... 325 6.3.1.3 Interpretation of the Parable ........................................................ 327 6.3.1.3.1 Tertium Comparationis and Point of View........................... 327 6.3.1.3.2 Motif History of a Conventional Metaphor .......................... 328 6.3.1.3.3 The Threats 330 6.3.1.3.4 Heavenly Treasures and the Rabbinic Conception of Reward ........................................... 332 6.3.1.3.5 Heart and Treasure: Internal Treasure?................................. 334 6.3.1.3.6 Honour and Pride................................................................... 335 6.3.1.4 Conclusion ................................................................................... 336 6.3.2 Parable on True Enlightening (Matt 6,22–23) .................................. 337 6.3.2.1 Titles and Tendencies in Recent Research.................................. 337 6.3.2.2 Context and Audience in the Sermon on the Mount, Luke and the Gospel of Thomas .................................................. 340 6.3.2.3 Does the Text in the Sermon on the Mount Have an Aramaic Background?................................................... 343 6.3.2.4 Genre, Outline, Rhetorical Tools – and the Perspective ............. 344 6.3.2.5 The Rhetorical Style .................................................................... 346 6.3.2.6 Perspective and Source/Target Domain ...................................... 347 6.3.2.7 The Interpretation of Matt 6,22–23 as Parable............................ 348 6.3.2.7.1 Matt 6,22a – a Definition and a Parable................................ 348 6.3.2.7.2 “Intromission” or “Extramission” and the Hellenistic Context ................................................... 349 6.3.2.7.3 The Theme of Enlightening of the Body and the Jewish Context.......................................................... 350 6.3.2.7.4 Matt 6,22b–23b: Imagery of a Good Eye or a Bad Eye ....... 351 6.3.2.7.5 The Disputed Term ਖʌȜȠ૨Ȣ ................................................... 352 6.3.2.7.6 The Evil Eye (ੑijșĮȜȝઁȢ ʌȠȞȘȡંȢ) as a Term and Concept .......................................................... 354 6.3.2.7.7 Body Language Once More (੖ȜȠȞ IJઁ ı૵ȝ੺ ıȠȣ ijȦIJİȚȞઁȞ/ıțȠIJİȚȞઁȞ ਩ıIJĮȚ)............................................. 355

Table of Contents

XVII

6.3.2.7.8 Matt 6,23c/d: Possible Outcome (İੁ Ƞ੣Ȟ IJઁ ij૵Ȣ IJઁ ਥȞ ıȠ੿ ıțંIJȠȢ ਥıIJ઀Ȟ) ................................. 356 6.3.2.7.9 What Does the Light in You (ਥȞ ıȠ઀) Mean? An Application?..................................................................... 356 6.3.2.7.10 The Final Warning: “How Great Is That Darkness!” (IJઁ ıțંIJȠȢ ʌંıȠȞ) ................................................................ 357 6.3.2.7.11 Conclusion of the Interpretation as Parable......................... 358 6.3.2.8 Intended Language and Extended Meaning ................................ 360 6.3.2.9 Matt 6,22–23 as Part of Matt 6,19–24......................................... 360 6.3.3 The Parable on True Stewardship (Matt 6,24).................................. 361 6.3.3.1 Possible Titles .............................................................................. 362 6.3.3.2 Rhetorical Analysis of Matt 6,24 and Its Context....................... 362 6.3.3.2.1 Source-Critical Remarks ....................................................... 362 6.3.3.2.2 Genre and Outline.................................................................. 364 6.3.3.3 Interpretation of Matt 6,24 as Parable ........................................ 365 6.3.3.3.1 Matt 6,24a: First Step: the Impossibility of Having Two Masters ............................................................. 365 6.3.3.3.2 Socio-Historical Comments to the Imagery (Patron/Client, Slave and Two or More Masters)................. 366 6.3.3.3.3 Matt 6,24b/c: Either-Or (Hate or Love/Despise or Be Devoted)................................. 367 6.3.3.3.4 Honour and Shame and the Topic of Friend and Foe ........... 368 6.3.3.3.5 Matt 6,24d: God or Mammon ............................................... 369 6.3.3.3.6 Conclusion of the Interpretation as Parable .......................... 370 6.3.3.4 Eschatological Message or Theological Ethics in Matt 6,19–24............................................................................ 372 6.3.3.5 The Extended Meaning of Matt 6,24........................................... 373 6.4 Parables in the Diatribe on Anxiety (Matt 6,25–34) .............................. 373 6.4.1 Possible Titles.................................................................................... 375 6.4.2 Context, Source Criticism and the Textual Question ....................... 376 6.4.2.1 A Common Text behind the Sermon on the Mount and Luke 12,22ff?........................................................................ 377 6.4.2.2 The Text/Two Parables in Other Early Sources.......................... 379 6.4.2.3 The Textual Tradition .................................................................. 381 6.4.2.4 Decomposition of the Text Is Possible, but Is It Necessary?...... 383 6.4.3 Rhetorical Analysis ........................................................................... 384 6.4.3.1 Genre............................................................................................ 384 6.4.3.2 Rhetorical Outline........................................................................ 385 6.4.3.3 Rhetorical Figures........................................................................ 387 6.4.3.4 Point of View/Perspective ........................................................... 388 6.4.4 The Socio-Historical and Philosophical Setting ............................... 389 6.4.4.1 The Phenomenon of Worrying and the Key word ȝİȡȚȝȞ઼Ȟ ...... 391

XVIII

Table of Contents

6.4.5 Maxim on Soul/Body versus Food/Clothes (Matt 6,25)................... 394 6.4.5.1. Body Language as Metaphorical Language ............................... 395 6.4.6 Two Examples Illustrating a Maxim (Matt 6,26.28ff)...................... 396 6.4.6.1 Comparison between the Two Parables (on Birds and Plants) ... 396 6.4.6.2 The Interpretation of the Parables as Parables ............................ 397 6.4.7.3 Parable on Birds in the Sky (Matt 6,26)...................................... 398 6.4.7.3.1 Motif History ......................................................................... 398 6.4.7.3.2 Birds (and Other Animals) as Examples............................... 399 6.4.7.3.3 God’s Providence for the Birds (and Other Creatures)......... 399 6.4.7.3.4 “Look at the Birds of the Air”, ਥȝȕȜ੼ȥĮIJİ ........................... 400 6.4.7.3.5 The Story: They Do Not Sow or Reap or Store away in Barns............................................................... 401 6.4.7.3.6 Conclusion ............................................................................. 401 6.4.7.4 Parable on the Plants of the Fields (Matt 6,28–30)..................... 402 6.4.7.4.1 Lilies or Grass of the Field? .................................................. 402 6.4.7.4.2 The Growing Potential (țĮIJĮȝ੺șİIJİ … ʌ૵Ȣ Į੝ȟ੺ȞȠȣıȚȞ) ... 403 6.4.7.4.3 The Lack of Work (Ƞ੝ țȠʌȚ૵ıȚȞ Ƞ੝į੻ Ȟ੾șȠȣıȚȞ) ................. 403 6.4.7.4.4 Their Beauty: More than Solomon........................................ 404 6.4.7.4.5 The Sad Destiny and Intended Language ............................. 405 6.4.7.4.6 The Double Theological Argumentation .............................. 406 6.4.7.4.7 Conclusion ............................................................................. 407 6.4.7.5 Paradoxical Statement on Length (Matt 6,27) ............................ 407 6.4.7.5.1 Literary Form......................................................................... 408 6.4.7.5.2 ਲȜȚț઀Į – ਪȞĮ ʌોȤȣȞ................................................................. 409 6.4.7.5.3 Tertium Comparationis and Conclusions ............................. 411 6.5 The Parables in Matt 6,25–34 and Their Meaning ................................. 412 6.5.1 Eschatological Treatise or Wisdom Reflections............................... 412 6.5.2 The Function of the Imperatives ....................................................... 414 6.5.3 The Function of the Parables: Otherwise No Comparison ............... 414 6.5.4 The Levels of Argumentation from a Theological Perspective........ 416 6.5.5 Kierkegaard on the Function of the Parables.................................... 417

Chapter 7: Parables on Reciprocity in Matt 7,1–12 (Argumentatio IV)..................................................................................... 418 7.1 The Rhetoric of Matt 7,1–12................................................................... 418 7.1.1 A Bridge between 6,19–34 and 7,1ff? .............................................. 419 7.1.2 Rhetorical Outline in Matt 7,1–12 .................................................... 420 7.2 Maxim on Measuring (Matt 7,2, in the Context of 7,1–5) ..................... 423 7.2.1 Titles and Scholarly Approaches ...................................................... 423 7.2.2 Socio-Historical Remarks and Glimpses of the Motif History......... 425 7.2.3 Rhetorical Analysis: Genre, Style and Point of View ...................... 427

Table of Contents

XIX

7.2.4 Theological Interpretation ................................................................. 429 7.2.4.1 What Does țȡ઀ȞİȚȞ Mean? ........................................................... 430 7.2.4.2 Judging and Measuring: A New Way of Thinking, Not a New Apodictic Law ........................................................... 431 7.3 Parable on Hypocritical Stringiness/Parsimony (Matt 7,3–5)................ 433 7.3.1 Title.................................................................................................... 433 7.3.2 A Peculiar Tradition History ............................................................. 433 7.3.3 Glimpses of the Motif History .......................................................... 435 7.3.3.1 The Imagery and Metaphors: Speck and Log, or Something Else?............................................ 436 7.3.4 Rhetorical and Theological Interpretation ........................................ 437 7.3.4.1 Genre and Outline........................................................................ 437 7.3.4.2 The Construction of the Parable: Perspective and Tertium Comparationis ..................................... 438 7.3.4.3 Metaphors, Hyperboles and Point of View ................................. 439 7.3.4.4 You Hypocrite, ਫ਼ʌȠțȡȚIJ੺! ........................................................... 440 7.3.4.5 The Imperatives (਩țȕĮȜİ ʌȡ૵IJȠȞ … IJંIJİ įȚĮȕȜ੼ȥİȚȢ) ............... 440 7.3.4.6 Extended Meaning of Judging and Measuring............................ 441 7.4 Examples of Ridiculous Wasteful Behaviour (Matt 7,6) ....................... 442 7.4.1 A Crucial Question: What Is the Context?........................................ 442 7.4.2 Titles and Tendencies in Scholarship................................................ 444 7.4.3 The Origin of the Saying ................................................................... 445 7.4.4 Rhetorical and Theological Interpretation of the Parable................. 447 7.4.4.1 Genre............................................................................................ 447 7.4.4.2 The Metaphors in the Graeco-Roman World: Socio-Historical Remarks............................................................ 448 7.4.4.3 Was Matt 7,6 Standard Polemic and a Proverbial Saying?......... 450 7.4.4.4 Four Types of Interpretation of Matt 7,6..................................... 451 7.4.4.4.1 The Allegorical Reading: Matt 7,6 as a Cultic Rule in Light of the Holiness Code............................ 451 7.4.4.4.2 Aramaic Language as the Key to Matt 7,6............................ 454 7.4.4.4.3 One Feature/Aspect in the Imagery as Key to the Interpretation........................................................ 455 7.4.4.4.4 Perspective, Socio-Historical Approach and a Comprehensive View................................................... 456 7.4.5 Matt 7,6 in a Broader Thematic Context of Matt 7,6–11/12 ............ 458 7.4.5.1 Giving, Benefactors and Three Kinds of Reciprocity in Matt 7,6–11.......................................................... 459 7.4.5.2 Benefactors and the Theme of “Giving and Receiving”............. 460 7.4.5.3 Benefactor and the Three Types of Reciprocity: Marcel Mauss and Matt 7,6–12 ................................................... 462 7.4.5.4 Reciprocity and Generosity: Symmetric and Asymmetric Relations in Matt 7,1–12 ........................................ 463

XX

Table of Contents

7.5 Matt 7,7–8 – a Hyperbole or a Saying on Prayer (Like Luke 11)? ........ 464 7.5.1 Titles and Theme of Matt 7,7–11...................................................... 464 7.5.2 Metaphorical Meaning?..................................................................... 466 7.5.3 Knocking and Opening – Seeking and Finding ................................ 467 7.5.4 Asking/Praying and Receiving.......................................................... 468 7.6 Parable on Giving (Matt 7,9–11) ............................................................ 469 7.6.1 Title and Tendencies in Scholarship ................................................. 469 7.6.2 Ways of Interpretation....................................................................... 470 7.6.3 Context of the Parable and the Meaning of ਵ ................................... 472 7.6.4 Source Criticism and Socio-Historical Remarks .............................. 472 7.6.4.1 Is Matthew or Luke Closer to Q? ................................................ 473 7.6.4.1.1 The Frame and the Audience (Matt 7,9a and Luke 11,11a) ... 473 7.6.4.1.2 The Parable (Matt 7,9b–10 and Luke 11,11b–12)................. 474 7.6.4.1.3 The Application (Matt 7,11 and Luke 11,13)........................ 474 7.6.4.2 Socio-Historical Remarks on the Narration ................................ 476 7.6.5 Interpretation as Parable.................................................................... 477 7.6.5.1 Genre............................................................................................ 477 7.6.5.2 Outline and Rhetorical Forms ..................................................... 478 7.6.5.3 The Construction of the Parable: Perspective, Point of View and Intended Language ................... 479 7.6.5.4 Interpretation of the Narrative (Matt 7,9b–10)............................ 480 7.6.5.4.1 For Bread a Stone and for Fish a Snake?............................... 480 7.6.5.4.2 Interpretation of the Simple and Extended Application (Matt 7,11) ......................................... 481 7.6.5.4.3 “If You Then, Being Evil …” (İੁ Ƞ੣Ȟ ਫ਼ȝİ૙Ȣ ʌȠȞȘȡȠ੿ ੕ȞIJİȢ) .................................................. 481 7.6.5.4.4 Good Gifts (įંȝĮIJĮ ਕȖĮș੺) ................................................... 483 7.6.5.4.5 From the First to the Second Application (ʌંı૳ ȝ઼ȜȜȠȞ).... 483 7.6.5.4.6 Your Heavenly Father (੒ ʌĮIJ੽ȡ ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ ੒ ਥȞ IJȠ૙Ȣ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞȠ૙Ȣ).... 484 7.6.5.4.7 Give Good Things to Those Who Ask Him (įઆıİȚ įંȝĮIJĮ ਕȖĮș੹ IJȠ૙Ȣ ĮੁIJȠ૨ıȚȞ Į੝IJંȞ)........................... 485 7.6.5.5 Conclusion ................................................................................... 486 7.7 Matt 7,1–12 as a Unit and the Role of the Golden Rule within 7,1–12........................................................................................... 486 7.7.1 The Golden Rule as a General Statement and within the Context of 7,1–12...................................................... 487 7.7.2 The Significance of the Many Parallels and the Positive Form of the Parable ................................................ 489

Table of Contents

XXI

Chapter 8: Parables as Peroratio (Matt 7,13–27) ............................ 492 8.1 Titles........................................................................................................ 492 8.2 Rhetoric and Source Criticism in the Peroratio ..................................... 493 8.2.1 Source-Critical Remarks: Can We Reconstruct the Original Order and Content? ....................................................... 495 8.3 The Metaphors of “Gates” and Way/Crossroad (Matt 7,13–14)............ 498 8.3.1 Title and Tendencies in Scholarship ................................................. 499 8.3.2 Textual Tradition and Source Criticism............................................ 499 8.3.3 Socio-Historical Remarks on the Metaphors of “Gate” and “Way” ............................................................................. 501 8.3.3.1 Socio- and Motif-Historical Remarks on “Gate” ........................ 501 8.3.3.2 The Gate as Metaphor.................................................................. 502 8.3.3.3 Socio- and Motif-Historical Remarks on “Way” ........................ 503 8.3.4 The Rhetoric and the Interpretation as Parable................................. 506 8.3.4.1 Genre: Wisdom Saying or Allegory ............................................ 506 8.3.4.2 Form, Outline, Rhetorical Style................................................... 507 8.3.4.3 Theological Interpretation ........................................................... 507 8.3.4.3.1 The Imperative İੁı੼ȜșĮIJİ (įȚ੹ IJોȢ ıIJİȞોȢ ʌ઄ȜȘȢ)................ 507 8.3.4.3.2 Characteristics of Gates and Ways........................................ 508 8.3.4.3.3 The End of the Road: ਕʌ੺ȖȠȣıĮ İੁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ਕʌઆȜİȚĮȞ … İੁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ȗȦȒȞ......................... 509 8.3.4.3.4 To Enter through and to Find: Ƞੂ İੁıİȡȤંȝİȞȠȚ įȚૅ Į੝IJોȢ … Ƞੂ İਫ਼ȡ઀ıțȠȞIJİȢ Į੝IJ੾Ȟ.............. 510 8.3.4.3.5 Many or Few: ʌȠȜȜȠ઀ – ੑȜ઀ȖȠȚ............................................... 510 8.3.4.3.6 Conclusions: Tertium Comparationis, Perspective, Intended and Implicit Meaning......................... 512 8.3.4.3.7 Intended and Implicit Meaning in Matt 7,13–14 .................. 512 8.4 Parable on Self-Deception and Seducing Others (Matt 7,15) ................ 513 8.4.1 Titles .................................................................................................. 514 8.4.2 The Parable as Allegory: Possible Identification of the False Prophets .................................... 515 8.4.3 The Parable Character and Its Interpretation .................................... 517 8.4.3.1 The Warning and Prophets in Matthew....................................... 517 8.4.3.2 The Hyperbolic and Paradoxical Image ...................................... 519 8.4.3.2.1 Sheep Are the Opposite of Wolves ....................................... 521 8.4.3.3 Conclusion ................................................................................... 522 8.5 Metaphors of “Tree and Fruit” (Matt 7,16–20) ...................................... 522 8.5.1 Titles and Types of Interpretation ..................................................... 523 8.5.2 Rhetorical Criticism and Source-Critical Remarks .......................... 524 8.5.2.1 Literary Context........................................................................... 524 8.5.2.2 Outline and Rhetorical Tools....................................................... 524 8.5.2.3 Can the Oldest Tradition Be Found?........................................... 525

XXII

Table of Contents

8.5.2.4 The Order and Wording............................................................... 526 8.5.2.5 The Imagery as Such (Impossibility Saying) .............................. 527 8.5.2.6 Frame and Goal............................................................................ 527 8.5.2.7 Matthew’s Addition and the Possible Original Source............... 528 8.5.3 Interpretation as Parable.................................................................... 529 8.5.3.1 Perspective ................................................................................... 529 8.5.3.2 Fruit: Glimpses of the History of the Motif ................................ 530 8.5.3.3 Conventional Metaphors and Tertium Comparationis................ 532 8.5.3.4 The Thesis: Knowledge/Recognition as Goal............................. 533 8.5.3.5 The Imagery and Impossibilities as Premise............................... 533 8.5.3.6 Tree and Fruit............................................................................... 534 8.5.3.7 Why Thorns, Thistles, Vine and Figs? ........................................ 535 8.5.3.8 First Application: Necessary Effect. Good Fruit and Deeds as Fruit on a Tree .................................... 536 8.5.3.9 Second Application: The Dimension of Hidden Existence and Judgement ................. 538 8.5.3.10 Conclusion.................................................................................. 538 8.6 Parable on the Last Judgement (Matt 7,22–23)...................................... 539 8.6.1 Titles and Tendencies in Scholarly Interpretation ............................ 539 8.6.2 Preparing for the Interpretation ......................................................... 541 8.6.2.1 Context and Source-Critical Observations.................................. 541 8.6.2.2 The Saying in Matt 7,21 .............................................................. 541 8.6.2.3 The Parable: Has Matthew or Luke the Most Original Text?..... 541 8.6.3 Genre, Outline, Perspective............................................................... 543 8.6.3.1 Genre ............................................................................................ 543 8.6.3.2 Outline, Rhetoric, Perspective (Point of View)........................... 544 8.6.4 Interpretation as Parable.................................................................... 545 8.6.4.1 The Scene (“Many Will Say to Me”, ʌȠȜȜȠ੿ ਥȡȠ૨ı઀Ȟ ȝȠȚ ਥȞ ਥțİ઀Ȟૉ IJૌ ਲȝ੼ȡ઺) ..................................... 545 8.6.4.2 The Apologies: “Lord, Lord” (ț઄ȡȚİ ț઄ȡȚİ) and “In Your Name” (IJ૶ ı૶ ੑȞંȝĮIJȚ) ........................................ 546 8.6.4.3 The Mighty Acts .......................................................................... 547 8.6.4.4 Refutations: “Then I Will Tell Them Plainly” (IJંIJİ ੒ȝȠȜȠȖ੾ıȦ Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣ)............................................................. 547 8.6.4.5 What Does ਕȞȠȝ઀Į Mean? Who Are Ƞੂ ਥȡȖĮȗંȝİȞȠȚ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȞȠȝ઀ĮȞ?....................................... 548 8.6.4.6 The Motif of Deeds instead of (Too Many) Words .................... 549 8.7 A House on a Rock Endures: The Parable Matt 7,24–27....................... 550 8.7.1 Titles and Tendencies in Scholarship................................................ 551 8.7.2 Rhetoric and Source Analysis ........................................................... 555 8.7.2.1 Genre and Its Implications: Reevaluating Old Labels ................ 555 8.7.2.2 One or Two Parables? Antithesis, Synkrisis and Other Rhetorical Forms...................... 556

Table of Contents

XXIII

8.7.3 The Frame: Source Criticism and Interpretation .............................. 557 8.7.3.1 The Parable and the Frame: Can We Cut the Parable Out of the Frame? ................................ 558 8.7.3.2 Interpretation of the Frame/Introduction (7,24.26) as a Challenge .............................................................................. 560 8.7.3.3 First Frame: ʌ઼Ȣ Ƞ੣Ȟ ੖ıIJȚȢ ਕțȠ઄İȚ ȝȠȣ IJȠઃȢ ȜંȖȠȣȢ IJȠ઄IJȠȣȢ țĮ੿ ʌȠȚİ૙ Į੝IJȠ઄Ȣ?....................................... 560 8.7.3.4 Hearing in Jewish and Christian Contexts .................................. 562 8.7.3.5 Second Frame: ਕȞįȡ੿ ijȡȠȞ઀ȝ૳ versus ਕȞįȡ੿ ȝȦȡ૶ (Matt 7,24.26) .............................................................................. 564 8.7.4 The Parable: Source Criticism and Motif History ............................ 565 8.7.4.1 Source-Criticism and History of Tradition.................................. 566 8.7.4.2 Is Matthew or Luke Closer to Q? ................................................ 567 8.7.4.3 The Imagery in Its Contemporary Context ................................. 568 8.7.5 Interpretation of the Parable (Matt 7,24–25.26–27) ......................... 571 8.7.5.1 The Four Metaphors .................................................................... 571 8.7.5.1.1 Motif- and Socio-Historical Remarks on “House-Building” (Ƞੁț઀Į, ʺʩʡ) ......................................... 571 8.7.5.1.2 The Image of the Rock (ʌ੼IJȡĮ) and the Metaphor of a House on a Rock ..................................... 573 8.7.5.1.3 The Notion of “Building” (ȠੁțȠįȠȝ੼Ȧ, Hebr. ʤʰʡ)............... 575 8.7.5.1.4 Foundation, șİȝİȜȚંȦ/șİȝ੼ȜȚȠȢ on Rock or “Sand” (ਙȝȝȠȢ, Hebr. ʸʴʲ)?............................................................... 575 8.7.5.1.5 The Threats (7,25.27): The Storm as Natural Events and as Intended Language..................................................... 576 8.7.5.1.6 The Result (7,25.27) Is Everything ....................................... 578 8.7.5.2 Interpretation of Matt 7,24–27 as Parable................................... 578 8.7.5.2.1 Application and Parable: What Are the Tertium Comparationis and the Point of View? ................... 578 8.7.5.2.2 Story-Economy: Additions and Repetitions. Constructed for the Aims of Interpretation ........................... 580 8.7.5.2.3 Overstatements ...................................................................... 581 8.7.5.2.4 Conclusion ............................................................................. 581 8.7.5.2.5 The Argumentation as Part of the Peroratio......................... 583

Chapter 9: Concluding Remarks: Parables as a Key to the Interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount ............................ 584 9.1 Preliminary Remarks: The Sources of the Sermon on the Mount.......... 584 9.1.1 The Genre of Q.................................................................................. 585 9.1.2 The Speeches in the Gospel Tradition .............................................. 586

XXIV

Table of Contents

9.1.3 Few Overlaps between Mark and Q: Mark- and Q-Overlaps in a New Light ............................................. 588 9.1.4 Thomas and the Sermon on the Mount ............................................. 589 9.1.5 The “Inaugural Speech” – More than a Hypothesis ......................... 591 9.1.6 Can Material outside the Sermon on the Plain/ Sermon on the Mount Be Part of the Inaugural Speech?.................. 594 9.1.7 Can We Reconstruct a Fundamental (Inaugural) Speech? ............... 596 9.1.8 Final Observations on Q in Light of the Sermon on the Mount ....... 596 9.2 Rhetorical Argumentation in the Sermon on the Mount ........................ 598 9.2.1 Rhetorical Genre Is Deliberative, Protreptic Speech ........................ 598 9.2.2 Rhetorical Outline as Protreptic Speech ........................................... 599 9.2.3 Rhetorical Tools: Proofs, Authoritative Sayings and Mutual Consent........................................................................... 601 9.2.3.1 Loci Communes............................................................................ 601 9.2.3.2 The Sermon on the Mount and Justin – the ʌİȡ઀-Discussions in the Early Church ................................... 602 9.2.3.3 The Rhetorical Function of Tropes.............................................. 603 9.3 Parable and Metaphorical Language as Key .......................................... 605 9.3.1 Parables, Similes and Metaphorical Language.................................. 605 9.3.1.1 The Frame and the Parables in the Sermon on the Mount.......... 605 9.3.1.2 Inventory in the Parables and Conceptual Constructions ........... 607 9.3.1.3 Tertium Comparationis (Openness, Point of View, Intended Language) ......................... 608 9.3.1.3.1 The Openness of Most Imagery ............................................ 608 9.3.1.3.2 The Application and the Imagery Are Intertwined ............... 609 9.3.1.3.3 The Intended Language Opens and Restricts the Potential in the Imagery ................................... 609 9.3.1.3.4 Struggle against an Allegorical Fallacy and the New Allegorical Interpretation........................................ 610 9.3.2 Hyperbolic Language and the Realism of the Demands ................... 610 9.3.2.1 The Parables and Metaphorical Sayings ..................................... 611 9.3.2.2 Parables and the Argumentation in the Sermon on the Mount ........................................................ 611 9.4 Rhetoric and Ethical Argumentation in the Wisdom Sayings................ 612 9.4.1 The Rhetoric of Authoritative Sayings – Theological Statements ..................................................................... 613 9.4.1.1 The Beatitudes as Authoritative Sayings..................................... 613 9.4.1.2 The I-Sayings ............................................................................... 613 9.4.1.3 Correctio ...................................................................................... 614 9.4.1.4 Apodictic Statements ................................................................... 614 9.4.1.5 Theological Statements................................................................ 614 9.4.1.6 Judgement Sayings....................................................................... 614 9.4.2 Other General Statements: ʌ઼Ȣ/੖Ȣ/੖ıIJȚȢ-Sentences.......................... 615

Table of Contents

XXV

9.4.3 The Rhetoric of Mutual Consent – Deliberative Speech .................. 616 9.4.3.1 Conditional İੁ- and ਥ੺Ȟ-Clauses .................................................. 616 9.4.3.2 The ıȣȝijʝ ȡİȚ/ʡˣʨ-Sentences........................................................ 617 9.4.3.3 Aphorisms Demonstrating the Inner Meaning as Key to the Understanding........................................................ 617 9.4.3.4 The Questions............................................................................... 617 9.4.3.5 Admonitions and Exhortations .................................................... 618 9.5 Rhetoric of Decision-Making: The Impact of Many Imperatives in the Sermon on the Mount ..................................... 619 9.5.1 The Forms: Future, Present and Aorist Imperatives ......................... 619 9.5.2 Admonitions: Does the Sermon on the Mount Primarily Give Warnings?................................................................. 619 9.5.3 Positive Exhortations: Encouraging Ethics....................................... 623 9.5.3.1 Reasons for the Exhortations and Admonitions .......................... 624 9.5.3.2 Imperatives and Ethical Argumentation...................................... 625 9.5.4 Ethical Norms and the Imperatives, Aphorisms and Parables.......... 627 9.5.4.1 Universal Ethics for Would-Be Disciples ................................... 627 9.5.4.2 The Norms ................................................................................... 627 9.5.4.2.1 The Antitheses as Moral Statements...................................... 628 9.5.4.2.2 Wisdom and Parables............................................................. 630

Bibliography ............................................................................................. 631 Index of Ancient Sources ......................................................................... 659 Index of Modern Authors ......................................................................... 688 Index of Subjects ...................................................................................... 697

List of Abbreviations Abbreviations usually follow the SBL Handbook of Style. AASF AB ABW ACW AGJU ANTF AnBib ANRW

AR ArBib ASNU ASTI ASV ATANT BA BAGD

BBB BDF

BDR

BETL BEvT BFCT BGBE BGU

BHT Bib BibInt BibLeb

Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae Anchor Bible Archaeology in the Biblical World Ancient Christian Writers Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung Analecta biblica Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase, eds. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1972ff. Archiv für Religionswissenschaft The Aramaic Bible Acta seminarii neotestamentici Upsaliensis Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute American Standard Version Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Biblical Archaeologist Walter Bauer/William F. Arndt/F. Wilbur Gingrich/Frederick W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: Chicago University Press 21979 Bonner biblische Beiträge Friedrich Blass/Albert Debrunner/Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1961 Friedrich Blass/Albert Debrunner/Friedrich Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 18 2001 Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur Evangelischen Theologie Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden. 15 vols. Berlin: Weidmann 1895– 1983 Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation Bibel und Leben

XXVIII Bill. BJS BK BKAT BN BR BT BWANT BZ BZAW BZNW CahRB CBET CBQ CBQMS CCSL CNT ConBNT DNP EBib EJ2 EKKNT ETL ETS EvQ EvT EWNT ExpTim FAT FB FRLANT GCS GNT GST HNT HST HTKNT HTR HUCA HWR

List of Abbreviations (Hermann L. Strack/)Paul Billerbeck, Kommmentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich: Beck 1922–1961 Brown Judaic Studies Bibel und Kirche Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament Biblische Notizen Biblical Research The Bible Translator Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Cahiers de la Revue Biblique Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike. Hubert Cancik et al., eds. Stuttgart: Metzler 1 (1996)–16 (2003) Études bibliques Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd edn. Fred Skolnik, ed. 21 vols. Detroit: Macmillan 2007 Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses Erfurter theologische Studien Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 3 vols. Horst R. Balz/Gerhard Schneider, eds. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 32011 Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten (drei) Jahrhunderte Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. FRLANT 29. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 81970 (11921) Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. Oxford: Blackwell 1963 Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Gert Ueding/Walter Jens/ Wilfried Barner/Gregor Kalivoda, eds. 10 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer/ Berlin: De Gruyter 1992–2009

List of Abbreviations ICC IDB Imm Int IS JAAR JBL JJS JQR JR JSHRZ JSNT JSNTSup JSPSup JTS KEK KJV KlPauly KNT Laur LCL LD LSJ

LTK2 LUÅ NAC Neot NICNT NIGTC NIV NKZ NovT NovTSup NPNF1

NTA NTD NTOA NTS NTTS OBO OCT

XXIX

International Critical Commentary The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. George A. Buttrick, ed. 4 vols. New York: Abingdon 1962 Immanuel Interpretation Inaugural Sermon Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Werner Georg Kümmel, ed. Gütersloh: Mohn 1 (1973) ff. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament King James Version Der kleine Pauly: Lexikon der Antike. Konrat Ziegler, ed. Stuttgart: Druckenmüller 1 (1964)–5 (1975) Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Laurentianum Loeb Classical Library Lectio divina Henry George Liddell/Robert Scott/Henry Stuart Jones, A GreekEnglish Lexicon. 9th edition with revised Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon 1996 Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche.Josef Höfer and Karl Rahner, eds. 10 vols. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1957–1965 Lunds universitets årsskrift The New American Commentary Neotestamentica New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Version Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Supplements A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Philipp Schaff, ed. Series 1, 14 vols. Oxford: Christian Literature Publishing 1887–1892 (repr. Peabody: Hendrickson 1999) Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Das Neue Testament Deutsch Novum testamentum et orbis antiquus New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies Orbis biblicus et orientalis Oxford Classical Texts/Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis

XXX OECT OTP PG PL PTS PW QD RAC RB RevExp RevQ RGG

RivBib RNT RSR SANT SBLSP SBLSymS SBLTT SBS SC SCHNT SEÅ SHAW SJ SJT SM SNTA SNTSMS SNTSU SOTSMS SP ST STK SUNT TB TBei TBl

List of Abbreviations Oxford Early Christian Texts Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. James H. Charlesworth, ed. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday 1983 Patrologia Graeca Patrologia Latina Patristische Texte und Studien Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. New edition by Georg Wissowa. Stuttgart: Druckenmüller 1893ff. Quaestiones disputatae Reallexikon for Antike und Christentum. Theodor Klauser et al., eds. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1950ff. Revue biblique Review and Expositor Revue de Qumran (Die) Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handwörterbuch in gemeinverständlicher Darstellung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck (RGG1: Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Friedrich Michael Schiele/Hermann Gunkel/Otto Scheel, eds. 5 vols. 1909–1912; RGG2: Hermann Gunkel/Ludwig Zscharnack, eds. 5 vols. 1922– 1929; RGG3: Kurt Galling, ed. 6 vols. 1957–1962; RGG4. Hans Dieter Betz/Don S. Browning/Bernd Janowski/Eberhard Jüngel, eds. 8 vols. 1998–2007; ET: Religion in Past & Present: Encyclopedia of Theology and Religion. 13 vols. + Index. Leiden: Brill 2007–2013) Rivista biblica Regensburger Neues Testament Revue des sciences religieuses Studien zum Alten und Testament Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Sources chrétiennes Studia ad corpus hellenisticum Novi Testamenti Svensk exegetisk årsbok Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse Studia Judaica Scottish Journal of Theology Sermon on the Mount Studiorum Novi Testamenti Auxilia Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Society for Old Testament Study Monographs Sermon on the Plain Studia theologica Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Theologische Bücherei Theologische Beiträge Theologische Blätter

List of Abbreviations THAT THKNT ThKNT ThWAT

TLZ TP TQ TRE TRev TRu TSAJ TSK TTKi TTZ TZ TU TWNT TZ VC WBC WdF WD WMANT WUNT ZAW ZDPV ZNW ZTK

XXXI

Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Ernst Jenni, ed. 2 vols. Munich: Chr. Kaiser 1971–1976 Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Gerhard Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1 (1973)– 10 (2000). Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologie und Philosophie Theologische Quartalschrift Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Gerhard Krause and Gerhard Müller, eds. 36 vols. + Index. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1977–2004 Theologische Revue Theologische Rundschau Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum/Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Theologische Studien und Kritiken Tidsskrift for Teologi of Kirke Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Theologische Zeitschrift Texte und Untersuchungen Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1 (1932)–10 (1979) Theologische Zeitschrift Vigiliae christianae Word Biblical Commentary Wege der Forschung Wort und Dienst Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Chapter 1

Introduction: Enigmas of the Sermon on the Mount and Ways to Solve Them Enigmas of the Sermon on the Mount and Ways to Solve Them Speeches can change reality. “The Sermon on the Mount” (= the SM) has probably changed the world more than any other speech. It has influenced millions of Christians, and its influence goes far beyond the Christian communities.1 In spite of its immense influence the SM is mostly perceived as a riddle, and scholars speak more about the problems than about the challenge of the SM.2 Scholarship has often dealt with radicalism3 as the problem of the SM.4 It is indeed surprising that a fundamental speech is such an extremely radical sermon. In the very beginning the radicalism of the SM was shocking. In Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho (about 150 C.E.) the Jew Trypho said: “I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them, for I have carefully read them.”5 This radicalism has too often resulted in “only”-statements: The SM was “only for the first generation”, “only for monks”, “only for utopians”, “only for ascetics”, “only for devoted Christian disciples”, “only for individuals” 1

E.g. Swami Prabhavananda, The Sermon on the Mount according to Vedanta (London: Allen and Unwin 1964). Gandhi was an example of comprehensive use of the SM, see Heikki Räisänen, “Mahatma Gandhi and the Sermon on the Mount”, Temenos 27 (1991) 83–108. The Marxists’ use of the SM is well known. 2 The SM-research has to solve seven major problems: the historical question, the radicalism, the audience, the composition, the Jewish character, the ethics and the theological issues of the SM. 3 The term “radicalism” is too wide and modern as category. B. Schüller, “Zur Rede von der radikalen sittlichen Forderung”, TP 46 (1971) 321–341 has analysed from a philosophical point of view the use of “radicalism” in NT scholarship. G. Lohfink has followed in his footsteps in Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? Beiträge zur christlichen Ethik (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1988) 66ff. 4 H. Windisch, The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount (= Der Sinn der Bergpredigt: Ein Beitrag zum geschichtlichen Verständnis der Evangelien und zum Problem der richtigen Exegese [UNT 16. Leipzig: Hinrichs 1928, 21937]) indicates that solving the problem of radicalism is to grasp its meaning, cf. L. Goppelt, “Das Problem der Bergpredigt”, in idem, Christologie und Ethik 26–45 and R. Schnackenburg, Christliche Existenz 117 (“wie schwierig und schwerwiegend die Frage der Erfüllbarkeit ist”). 5 Justin Martyr, Dial. 10. “Trypho” could be Justin’s own rhetorical construct, but the statement still reflects an early reaction on the radicalism in the SM.

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

(not for a state), etc.6 This kind of reductionism is for good reasons mostly rejected in recent scholarship, but what is the alternative? This book will give some premises for an alternative through an analysis of the rhetoric and the parables in the SM. This book argues that the metaphorical and rhetorical language clarifies the radical nature of the demands much better. Closely related to the rhetoric of radicalism is the notion of audience. Fundamental speeches usually presuppose a general audience, whereas extreme, radical speeches are mostly addressed to a smaller group. Many exegetes think that the SM in fact was designed for Jesus’ disciples, like Buddha’s Benares Sermon to his monks.7 My analysis of the rhetoric and the parables leads in a different direction. Both the frame8 and the intrinsic arguments9 give force to the thesis that the audience was the (Jewish) crowd. A fundamental question is the Jewish setting of the SM. The impressive ‘Jewish Lexicon’ from 1927 has still an article on the SM. The SM was simply perceived as part of the Jewish heritage. However, many Jewish readers of the SM ended up with ambivalence.10 For a Jew the SM was and is both a favourite part of the Christian tradition and an obstacle. People who are familiar with Jewish texts will more easily understand the metaphorical character of the SM. The rhetorical character is easier to be detected if you are familiar with Hellenistic sources. Most Christian interpreters emphasise the Jewish character of the SM.11 However, the Hellenistic setting is also vital for its understanding. J. J. Wettstein (1751), C. F. G. Heinrici (1900/1905), H. D. Betz (1995) and Neuer Wettstein12 6

The best analysis of the history of research from this point of view is that of Clarence Bauman, The Sermon on the Mount: The Modern Quest for Its Meaning (Macon: Mercer 1985). 7 Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? and D. Patte, Discipleship according to the Sermon on the Mount and others have recently formulated this position. 8 Cf. Matt 5,1 (“Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him”) and 7,27 (“the crowds were amazed at his teaching”). 9 My article “Audience in the Sermon on the Mount” (forthcoming) gives a broader assessment. 10 G. Herlitz/B. Kirschner, eds., Jüdisches Lexikon (Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag 1927) I, 857–860 (by Max Joseph). It states (p. 858) that the SM contains “genaue Parallelen im talmudisch-midraschischen Schrifttum”. The Antitheses and some other texts are problematic from a Jewish perspective, but even these texts have been interpreted positively by C. G. Montefiore, P. Lapide, and other Jewish scholars. However, many Jewish scholars have a different view, e.g. G. Friedlander who speaks about an “UnJewish asceticism in the Gospels” (Comm 166ff). It is a sad development that EJ2 lacks an article on the SM and did not recognise the SM as part of Jewish history. 11 G. Friedlander and C. G. Montefiore knew John Lightfoot (1658), A. Wünsche (1878), etc. P. Billerbeck, P. Fiebig and later M. Hengel, W. D. Davies/D. C. Allison, etc. offered even broader Jewish material. 12 Neuer Wettstein I/I.2: Texte zum Matthäusevangelium. I: Matthäus 1–10 (U. Schnelle, ed. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 2013).

1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount

3

have documented that nearly every saying in the SM has Hellenistic parallels. The influences from both Jewish and Hellenistic sources sharpen the understanding of the ethical and theological concepts in the SM and clarify its rhetorical and metaphorical character. The parables and metaphorical sayings also give a better foundation for the evaluation of the ethical and theological issues in the SM. The SM has a wisdom character and most of the SM gives ethical instructions for everyday life. The question of wisdom versus eschatology is indeed crucial for the understanding of the SM, and is one of the theological issues we have to analyse more thoroughly. An analysis of the parables can clarify the relation between wisdom and eschatology in the SM in a new way. The source problem has historical significance: Has Matthew shaped the SM? The differences between the SM and “the Sermon on the Plain” (= SP) in Luke 6,20–49 are obvious. On the other hand, the similarities between the SM and the SP are even more striking and indicate a memory of a fundamental inaugural sermon (= IS).13 This speech was apparently fundamental in their common source (Q). But how far can we reconstruct this fundamental speech?14 An analysis of the parables and the metaphorical texts in the SM can lead to some general conclusions about the IS and the nature of Q. The fundamental historical “quest” (on the SM and the historical Jesus, on authenticity, etc.) must be investigated in a broader way than this present book allows. The theme in this book is an historical analysis of the parables and the rhetoric in the SM. It started with the observation that the parables in the SM play an important role in the SM, but this is mostly overlooked in scholarship. The goal of the book is to illuminate this and to argue that this gives a more comprehensive understanding of most of the problems and challenges in the SM.

1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount The question of the literal versus metaphorical meaning of the SM is fundamental not only in the exegesis of the antitheses, but in the exegesis of all parts of the SM. 13 D. R. Catchpole, Quest (79–134 on “The Inaugural Discourse”) and L. E. Vaage (“Composite Texts and Oral Mythology: The Case of the ‘Sermon’ on Q”), S. Carruth (“Strategies of Authority: A Rhetorical Study of the Character of the Speaker of Q 6:20– 49”) and R. Conrad Douglas (“‘Love Your Enemies’: Rhetoric, Tradents, and Ethos”), in J. S. Kloppenborg, Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q (Valley Forge: Trinity 1995) 75–97, 98–115, 116–131 have recently suggested this term. 14 My article “Auf der Spur einer ‘Grundsatzrede’ vor der Bergpredigt?” (forthcoming) goes more into details.

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

It is too little observed that about one third of the SM are parables or metaphorical language. Already the statistics indicate that the parables or the metaphorical language must have an impact on the understanding of the SM. It is seldom advisable to start reading a book with the last pages. However, we discover the importance of the parables in the SM more easily if we do so. The SM concludes with a parable (Matt 7,24–27) and five other parables underline the conclusion: “Two gates and two roads” (7,13–14), “Wolves in sheep skins” (7,15), “Fruit and trees” (7,16–20) and the “Day of Judgement” scene (7,21–23). The six or seven parables entirely dominate the concluding part (peroratio). Moving back towards the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel, we continue to find elaborated parables like “Giving a loaf or a fish to your son” (7,9– 11), “A speck or a log in the eye” (7,3–4), and metaphorical sayings about dogs and pigs (7,6) and about measurements (7,2). In Matt 6,19–34 we have parables about, for instance, “birds of the air” (6,26) and “lilies of the field” (6,28–30), and numerous metaphorical sayings: “Moths and rust” (6,19–20), “eye and light” (6,22) and “two masters” (6,24). Sayings like Matt 6,2.3.5.6.16 and 17 also contain metaphorical language. Even the Antitheses have four parables: on “offerings and reconciliation” (5,23–24), “adversary and judge” (5,25–26), “skandalon” (5,29– 30) and “sun and rain” (5,45). The first part of the SM contains similes (“Bildworte”15) like “necessity of salt” (5,13), “light of the world” (5,14–16) and “city on the mount” (5,14). This means that about thirty sayings, more than forty verses (about one third of the SM) is parables. Additionally, the SM uses the rhetorical form ʌĮȡĮįİ઀ȖȝĮIJĮ, “examples”, like Solomon (Matt 6,29) and the prophets (5,12), and negative examples like “Scribes and Pharisees” (5,20), “publicans” (5,46; 6,7), “pagans” (5,47) or “hypocrites” (6,2.5.16; 7,5). Even more important is the rhetorical figure of examples as proofs,16 which the Antitheses and other texts in the SM use abundantly. One reason for introducing the word parable (ʌĮȡĮȕȠȜ੾17) in Matt 13 is Matthew’s conservative attitude towards Mark as a source.18 This general

15

Bultmann, GST 181ff/HST 167ff. K. Berger, Formen 85 differentiates between “comparison” (“Vergleich”), “example” (“Beispiel”) and “model” (“moralisches Vorbild”). 17 Matt 13,3.10.13.18.24.31.33.34.35.36.53 and also 15,15; 21,33.45; 22,1; 24,32. 18 ʌĮȡĮȕȠȜ੾ denotes for Matthew narrative parables. The only exception is Matt 15,15 where he follows Mark 7,17. Both Mark (3,23) and Luke (4,23; 5,36, and in the SP: 6,39) use ʌĮȡĮȕȠȜ੾ for similes before the big parable speech, Matthew follows Mark’s pattern and adds only other narrative parables (Matt 13,3.10.13.18.24.31.33.34.35.36.53, cf. Mark 16

1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount

5

term, like the Hebrew ʬʹʮ, has a wide range of meanings and covers both similes and the narrative parables.19 “Metaphorical language” is a slippery term. We have few narrative parables in the SM, but many texts have to be classified as similes and sayings with metaphorical character. 1.1.1 A Neglected Feature in New Testament Scholarship The form-historical approach and research on the parables (even research on Matthew’s parables) have contributed to the neglect of the parablecharacter of the SM. The classical studies on form-history were mainly interested in the decomposition of the SM. Rudolf Bultmann’s work, The History of the Synoptic Tradition,20 included in his chapter on “Similitudes, etc.” only one or two narrative texts from the SM (Matt 5,23–24; 7,24–27),21 and M. Dibelius’ Form-History concluded similarly.22 More recent books23 on form analysis do the same,24 with Zeller’s book on wisdom-sayings being a remarkable exception.25 Parable research has also neglected the parables in the SM. Studies on the parables of Jesus concentrate on the extensive narrative parables in

4,2.10.11.13.30.33.34; Luke 8,4.9.10.11 – and later in Matt 21,33.45; 24,32, cf. Mark 12,1.12; Luke 20,9.19). The only addition from Q seems to be Matt 22,1 = Luke 14,15ff. 19 B. Gerhardsson, “Meshalim in the OT” 289ff and R. Zimmermann, in idem, ed., Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag 2007) 17ff and idem, “Parabeln – sonst nichts! Gattungsbestimmungen jenseits der Klassifikation in ‘Bildwort’, ‘Gleichnis’, ‘Parabel’ und ‘Gleichniserzählung’, in idem, ed., Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Methodische Neuansätze zum Verstehen urchristlicher Parabeltexte (WUNT 231. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008) 383–419, esp. 409ff. Gerhardsson and Zimmermann started from totally different positions and reached similar conclusions. 20 Bultmann, GST 196. GST/HST was until the 1990s part of the curriculum at German universities. For a comprehensive evaluation, see E. Baasland, Theologie 162–302. 21 Bultmann, GST 179–222 (187, 218–219). In addition Matt 5,14.25–26; 6,24; 7,9ff (7,16 = Luke 6,43) are understood as “figures” (“Bildworte”). He uses them in order to illuminate the growth of the tradition (GST 181–182/HST 168ff). 22 M. Dibelius, Formgeschichte (31959) 247–258 calls Matt 7,24ff “kurze Lehrerzählung” (251) and Matt 5,13–14; 6,22–23.24; 7,6 “Bildworte” (so also Bultmann). He categorises Matt 5,29–30.44–45; 6,2ff.25ff both as “kurze Gebote” and also as “metaphorical language”. 23 G. Theißen, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition: Ergänzungsheft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 51979) 65–76. 24 K. Berger, Formen 101ff mentions some parables in the SM, and differentiates between “parables that entail something incredible” (Matt 6,24.27; 7,9ff.16.18) and “parables that entail something typical” (Matt 7,24ff). 25 D. Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche bei den Synoptikern (FB 17. Würzburg: Echter 1977) analyses the wisdom-sayings in the synoptic tradition. He did not focus on the parables as such, but still he recognises the parable-character of many wisdomsayings in the SM.

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

Matthew and Luke.26 The two rather short parables in the SM (Matt 7,9–11 and 7,24–27 = Luke 6,46–49) have not received much attention. Even Jewish scholars,27 or scholars who are reading parables from a Jewish perspective,28 have overlooked the parables in the SM. Snodgrass’s book, subtitled A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, is in this respect not comprehensive.29 There are, however, some exceptions: Adolf Jülicher,30 T. W. Manson,31 and also J. Jeremias gave brief comments on some parables,32 and Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (ed. Ruben Zimmermann) analyses even more parables in the SM.33 Chr. Münch in his overview recognises thirteen parables in the SM, but not all of them are analysed specifically.34 Consequently an analysis of all the parables in the SM is still lacking in the field of parable research. It is more surprising that works on the parables in Matthew overlook the parables in the SM. They focus mostly on the parables in Matt 13 and Matt 18; 24–25,35 perhaps due to the fact that Matthew first introduces the

26 Some books intend to cover all parables, e.g. A. Jülicher, Gleichnisreden; J. Jeremias, Gleichnisse/Parables; C. L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables; C. W. Hedrick, Parables; R. Longenecker, ed., Challenge; A. J. Hultgren, Parables; R. Zimmermann, ed., Kompendium and K. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2008). 27 D. Flusser, Gleichnisse. The parable in Matt 7,24ff is, however, very important for him (pp. 98ff). 28 B. H. Young, Parables 124–127, 244–245. 29 Snodgrass, Stories 327ff analyses only Matt 7,24ff and mentions briefly Matt 6,25ff; 7,9ff (in connection with Luke 11,5ff, pp. 427ff). Hultgren, Parables also overlooks the parables in the SM. 30 Jülicher, Gleichnisreden II, 25–36, 67–79, 79–88, 88–91, 98–108, 108–115, 116– 128, 240–246, 259–265. 31 T. W. Manson counts a few more in Teaching 67–68. 32 Jeremias, Gleichnisse/Parables has a thematic approach, but he refers briefly to most parables in the SM. 33 R. Zimmermann, ed., Kompendium lists three parables from the SP (SM), six from Q, two from the SM in addition to Mark 4,24 (= Matt 7,2). 34 R. Zimmermann, ed., Kompendium 3. 35 Cf. J. D. Kingsbury, Parables; J. Lambrecht, Treasure; C. Münch, Gleichnisse; I. H. Jones, Matthean Parables; W. Carter/J. P. Heil, Matthew’s Parables. They analyse at most two of the parables in Matt 7. Most books on the parables in Matthew start with Matt 13, recently also J. Roloff, Jesu Gleichnisse im Matthäusevangelium: Ein Kommentar zu Mt 13,1–52 (Biblisch-theologische Studien 73. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2005), Peter Yaw Oppong Kumi, Matthean Sets of Parables (WUNT 2/340. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2013) and even R. Zimmermann in an important study on “Ethico-Aesthetic” in Matthew: “Die Ethico-Ästhetik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Ethik durch literarische Ästhetik am Beispiel der Parabeln im Matthäus-Evangelium”, in F. W. Horn/ idem, eds., Jenseits von Imperativ und Indikativ (WUNT 238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2009) 252–265.

1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount

7

word “parable” in Matt 13.36 The parables in the SM so far have not been analysed in the overwhelming number of studies on the SM.37 Jewish scholars have observed this feature best, but a thematic analysis is lacking.38 One reason for neglecting the parables in the SM could be the understanding of the audience. “[Jesus] did not say anything to them without using a parable”, according to Mark 4,34. The formulation that Jesus exclusively spoke in parables is of course an exaggeration and part of the parable theory in Mark.39 The Synoptic Gospels convey more than forty narrative parables and the speeches to the public (in Matt 13 and 24–25) consist entirely of parables.40 Jesus explained everything to his own disciples according to the same “parable theory” (Mark 4,34). This might also be an exaggeration, but the two disciple instructions, Matt 10 and 18, have indeed relatively few parables.41 What about the SM, the fifth speech in Matthew? Most scholars tend to read the SM as a speech to Jesus’ disciples, with relatively few parables. Matthew gives three different titles of the speeches: 7,28, 19,1 and 26,1 conclude with the words țĮ੿ ਥȖ੼ȞİIJȠ ੖IJİ ਥIJ੼ȜİıİȞ ੒ ੉ȘıȠ૨Ȣ IJȠઃȢ ȜંȖȠȣȢ IJȠ઄IJȠȣȢ. This general phrase, IJȠઃȢ ȜંȖȠȣȢ IJȠ઄IJȠȣȢ, is replaced in the disciple-speech Matt 10 by “demands” (11,1: įȚĮIJ੺ııȦȞ IJȠ૙Ȣ įઆįİțĮ ȝĮșȘIJĮ૙Ȣ Į੝IJȠ૨) and in 13,53 by “parables” (IJ੹Ȣ ʌĮȡĮȕȠȜ੹Ȣ IJĮ઄IJĮȢ). It is significant that Matt 10 – and not the SM – is called an instruction speech/“demands to the twelve disciples” (įȚĮIJ੺ııȦȞ). The SM is called ȜંȖȠȚ like Matt 18 (with two concluding parables) and Matt 24–25, which is entirely a metaphorical speech.

The parables are not dominant in the SM as they are in Matt 13 and 24–25, but they occur more frequently than in Matt 10; 18; 23. The chiastic inclusio-structure in Matthew indicates that the SM is a speech to the general public using many parables.

36

Lambrecht, Treasure 20 counts four parables in Matt 5–12. The commentaries on Matthew are most comprehensive, esp. Luz, Comm, Davies/ Allison, Comm and not least H. D. Betz, Comm. Except for Betz’s contributions the studies on the SM in the 1980s – e.g. Guelich, Comm; G. Strecker, Comm; Weder, Comm – do not pay attention to the parables. 38 C. G. Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels; idem, Rabbinic Literature and Friedlander, Comm. 39 Since W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 31963) 54–65. 40 Also Matt 23 should be analysed from this perspective. There are relatively few parables, but many metaphorical sayings in the polemics against the Pharisees. 41 W. Pesch, “Die sogenannte Gemeindeordnung Matt 18”, BZ 7 (1963) 220–235 and extensively in idem, Matthäus als Seelsorger (SBS 2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1966). He has correctly seen that the two parables in Matt 18 (18,9–14 and 18,22–35) are the climax of the two parts of the instruction in Matt 18. 37

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

Matt 5–7 1937 words About 7 narrative parables, at least 20 metaphorical sayings

Matt 10 640 words No narrative parables, a few metaphorical sayings

Matt 13 929 words 7 narrative parables + some metaphorical sayings

Matt 18 639 words 2 parables + some metaphorical sayings

Matt 23–25 2221 words 7 narrative parables + a few metaphorical sayings

The main reason for neglecting the theme could be that the SM is read as basically instructions and commandments and the parables are accordingly perceived as peripheral illustrations. This book challenges this view. The parables are in fact crucial for the understanding of the instructions and commandments in the SM. 1.1.2 Parables in Recent Research The history of “parable-research since Jülicher” has often been told.42 It is, however, an amazing fact that Adolf Jülicher represents a milestone and turning point in scholarly research. He wrote his famous book on parables (published in 1886) when he was a 29-year-old clergyman at an institution for social work (Waisenhaus) in Berlin.43 The book earned him a “lic. theol.” title, and he would hardly have expected that it would become the model for parable research for 100 years. The legacy of his work persists in current research, but most of Jülicher’s principles are highly disputed in the recent comprehensive studies on parables (K. Snodgrass44 and R. Zimmermann45). We will in the following comment on five important issues. 1.1.2.1 Categories and Their Relation to Jewish ʭʩʬʹʮ and Hellenistic Rhetoric Jülicher’s clear categories (parables, similitude/“Gleichnis”, examplestories) are based on the differentiation between simile and metaphor. C. A. Bugge46 and P. Fiebig47 criticised Jülicher’s western, rationalistic

42

More recently G. Theissen/A. Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (London: SCM 1998) 287–292; K. Erlemann, Gleichnisauslegung 11–52; C. L. Blomberg, “The Parables of Jesus: Current Trends and Needs in Research”, in B. D. Chilton/ C. A. Evans, eds., Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTTS 19. Leiden: Brill 1994) 231–254; K. Snodgrass, “From Allegorizing to Allegorizing”, in R. Longenecker, ed., Challenge 3–29; R. Zimmermann, “Gleichnishermeneutik in Rückblick und Vorblick”, in idem, ed., Hermeneutik 25–63. 43 At Großes Friedrichs-Waisenhaus in Berlin (Rummelsburg). Two years later a revised version came out, and as professor in Marburg (from 1888) he completed vol. II in 1899. 44 Snodgrass, Stories. 45 The contributions of R. Zimmermann (in idem, ed., Kompendium and idem, ed., Hermeneutik). 46 Bugge, Die Haupt-Parabeln Jesu (Gießen: Ricker 1903), esp. 4–14.

1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount

9

approach to the parables early on. The OT and other Jewish texts make abundant use of metaphors, similes and parables without operating with such differentiations. Jülicher simply overlooked the ʬʹʮ-form48 and the parallels in Jewish wisdom literature,49 but D. Flusser has more recently renewed Fiebig’s position. B. Gerhardsson suggested similarly that we should call all parables ‘meshalim’ (ʭʩʬʹʮ). He divides them into “aphoristic meshalim” and “narrative meshalim”.50 In the SM we have relatively few narrative meshalim, but quite a number of aphoristic meshalim. The study of the Jewish ʭʩʬʹʮ gives a different starting point for studying the parables, because it challenges the one-point approach without returning to an allegorical method.51 Jülicher’s position implied at the same time a limited use of Hellenistic rhetoric. He avoided even the classical definitions from the rhetorical handbooks. Jülicher made limited use of Aristotle (basically Rhet. 3.4ff), but Bultmann had no dialogue with classical rhetoric at all, and J. Jeremias argued similarly: “An inappropriate law is imposed on Jesus’ parables when one forces them into the categories of Greek rhetoric.” 52 This is in fact a false alternative. Before Jülicher’s book, the parables were seen in the framework of “hermeneutics”53 and the rhetorical tradition. Jülicher refers occasionally to the rhetorical handbooks, rhetorical theories and practices, but only a few passages in the Rhetoric of Aristotle were import-

47

P. Fiebig, Altjüdische Gleichnisse (p. V) starts with a quotation from J. Wellhausen who claimed that the ʬʹʮ includes all aspects: comparison, riddle, gnome, parable and allegory. On the very first page he criticises Jülicher (pp. 1ff, 107ff) and concludes (148– 149): to operate with a clear-cut “either-or” may satisfy logical thinking, but wisdom literature and Jesus think in terms of “both-and”. 48 This criticism was launched very early (Bugge, Fiebig, etc.) and is repeated and strengthened in recent contributions, e.g. Snodgrass, Stories 570–575 and Gerhardsson, “Meshalim in the OT” 289, 297ff. 49 Cf. Flusser, Gleichnisse; Young, Parables; and Fiebig, Altjüdische Gleichnisse; idem, Gleichnisreden; idem, Rabbinische Gleichnisse. Cf. more recent contributions by C. Thoma/S. Lauer/H. Ernst, eds., Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen I–IV (Bern: P. Lang 1986–2001) and P. Dschulnigg, Rabbinische Gleichnisse und das Neue Testament: Die Gleichnisse der PesK im Vergleich mit den Gleichnissen Jesu und dem Neuen Testament (Bern: P. Lang 1988). 50 B. Gerhardsson, “Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels” 339–342. 51 J. Jeremias’s book on the parables became a model for scholarly research in several decades. He still advocated the one-point approach, despite his studies on Jewish ʭʩʬʹʮ. He added an eschatological interpretation of many parables to Jülicher’s approach. 52 Jeremias, Gleichnisse 13 (“Es heißt den Gleichnissen Jesu ein sachfremdes Gesetz aufzwingen, wenn man sie in die Kategorien griechischer Rhetorik preßt”). 53 Schleiermacher, Tholuck, W. M. L. de Wette and his teacher B. Weiß represented this heritage in Berlin.

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

ant for him. 54 Jülicher’s lack of interest in rhetoric and hermeneutics was typical of his generation, and his one-sidedness and limited use of rhetorical tools became an object for criticism after the renewal of rhetorical analysis in the 1980s. This renewal has led to more emphasis on the Hellenistic sources. For Jülicher the dialogue with ancient rhetorical theorists was not important 55 except for his overall view of similes and parables as “proof” (“Beweismittel”). 56

The rabbinic interpretation (developed by Hillel and his contemporaries) shows links to Hellenistic rhetorical traditions.57 In Hellenistic rhetorical handbooks metaphorical language (the use of tropes, similes/parables) was a major issue,58 and Jewish and Hellenistic speeches in the first century C.E. show how frequently metaphorical language was used. K. Berger59 has shown that the Hellenistic parallels to the Jesus tradition are important: for the wording (use of IJ઀Ȣ, ȝ੾IJȚ, Ƞ੝įİ઀Ȣ, etc.), for the categories (IJ઀Ȣ į੻ ਥȟ ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ,60 exemplum61), for much of the imagery and for ways of arguing in the parables.62 1.1.2.1.1 The So-Called Marburg School and Its Critics The phrase “Marburg School”63 has meaning because Jülicher and Bultmann had basic assumptions in common, e.g. the definitions of parable64 as the opposite of allegory, the one-point interpretation of parables (similes and example stories), and the clear-cut separation of image and life-setting (“Bild- und Sachhälfte”).65 54

Cf. R. Zimmermann,“Urchristliche Parabeln im Horizont der antiken Rhetorik”, in Linus Hauser et al., eds., Jesus als Bote des Heils (FS D. Dormeyer. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2008) 201–225 (= ET in R. Zimmermann, ed., Hermeneutik 238–258) 55 Quintilian is mentioned only once, Cicero three times. Aristotle is referred to more than 10 times. 56 Jülicher, Gleichnisreden I, 202, 205. 57 A. Schwarz, “Enthymematische Analogieschlüsse”. 58 Aristotle, Poet. 21 (1457b); Rhet. 3.2.6–9 (1404b/1405a) or Quintilian, Inst. 5.11.22–23 (“Similitudo has much the same force as Example especially when it is based on nearly equal things without any mixture of metaphors”), cf. 8.6. 59 K. Berger, “Hellenistische Gattungen” 1111 (“die Beziehungen der neutestamentlichen Gleichnisse zur Literatur der hellenistischen Umwelt sind fast völlig unerforscht”). 60 K. Berger, “Materialien” 31–32. 61 E. Baasland, “Zum Beispiel der Beispielerzählungen: Zur Formenlehre der Gleichnisse und zur Methodik der Gleichnisauslegung”, NovT 28 (1986) 193–219. 62 K. Berger, “Materialien” 20ff. 63 U. Mell, ed., Die Gleichnisreden Jesu 1899–1999: Beiträge zum Dialog mit Adolf Jülicher (BZNW 103. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1999). Jülicher and Bultmann developed their theories on parables before 1920. The term “Marburg School” is also used for the philosophical school in Marburg before 1920 and for Bultmann’s Heideggerinfluenced approach to theology. 64 Both saw parables, similes (“Gleichnisse”) and “example-stories” (“Beispielerzählungen”) as different categories. 65 The image and life-setting is identical in the example-stories.

1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount

11

However, Jülicher and Bultmann disagreed on the exact classification.66 Bultmann follows his teacher’s classification only in one single case in the SM (Matt 5,25–26):67 Jülicher’s categories in the SM

Bultmann’s categories in the SM

Parable: 7,24–27 7 similitudes: 7,9–11; 5,13; 5,14; 5,25– 26; 6,22–23; 6,24; 7,16–20

No parable 2 similitudes (“Gleichnisse”): 5,25–26; 7,24–27; 5,2368 is a special case. Similes (“Bildworte”): 5,14; 6,24; 7,9–10 Metaphors:69 5,13.14.16; 7,3–5.6.13–14.16.20

This demonstrates the general difference between Jülicher and Bultmann: Jülicher

Bultmann

22 parables 28 similitudes (“Gleichnisse”) 9 (only one third) in common with Bultmann (Matt 11,16–19; 13,33; Mark 13,28–29.34–37; Luke 12,42–48.54– 56.57–59; 14,28–30; 17,7–10)

15 parables 17 similitudes (“Gleichnisse”) Bultmann calls 7 of Jülicher’s “parables” similitudes (Matt 7,24–27; 13,44–46.47–49; Mark 4,26–29.30–32; Luke 15,4–7.8–10). Bultmann labels 12 of Jülicher’s similitudes as “similes” (= “Bildworte”).

The differences reflect partly Jülicher’s and Bultmann’s interests. Jülicher makes the similitudes the dominating category, because they illustrate most clearly his principles (opposite to allegory, the one-point interpretation, the clear-cut separation of image and life-setting/“Bild- und Sachhälfte”). Bultmann’s main concern is the development of the tradition. He therefore puts more emphasis on the smaller units.70 Partly Jülicher and 66 For Jülicher’s and Bultmann’s different views, cf. R. Zimmermann, ed., Kompendium 5–8, 17–23 and idem, “Parabeln, sonst nichts!”, in idem, ed., Hermeneutik 385ff; Baasland, Theologie 273. 67 Bultmann, GST 181 on figures/similes (“Bildworte”). 68 Jülicher did not analyse the parable in Matt 5,23–24. Bultmann reads it as “Church order”, GST 140. 69 Bultmann, GST 181ff is not consistent or is perhaps purposely vague in his definition of “metaphor”. He presupposes a development starting with “Bildworte” (figures) and ending with metaphors. “Not infrequently particular elements are used by the evangelists as metaphors in their editorial formulations” (HST 169). GST 183/HST 169: Matt 7,6 is something in-between simile and metaphor. 70 In his study on ‘form-history’ Bultmann was less interested in the parable as a form. His interest was the smallest entities and to describe the growth of the tradition from the smaller units “figures” and similes (“Bildworte”), also hyperbole, paradox, comparison, metaphor to the similitude (“Gleichnis”), parable and example-stories. The subdivision of the smaller units is “comparison” (explicitly so), “metaphor” (without any particle indicating a comparison) and the original “figures”/similes (“Bildworte”), which have more similarity with the Jewish meshalim (GST 181/HST 167–168).

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

Bultmann have slightly different approaches to the categories. “Similitude”, according to Jülicher, is comparison with a similar or different area of life,71 and parable has a different form;72 he defines parables more in analogy to Aesop’s fables.73 According to Bultmann a “similitude” is an extended “figure” (simile, “Bildwort”),74 and he sees similitude as a level before the “parable”.75 The parable elaborates the similes and metaphors into a narrative that is not a typical situation, but a peculiar event.76 The internal debate within the “Marburg School” is often overlooked and also the disagreement among the “form-critics” is too often harmonised in scholarship.77 One should note that Dibelius had a different approach from Bultmann and is closer to Jülicher. He used “comparison” and “fable” as general categories; the fables78 tell about normal but also about extraordinary events. He also observed that some of Jesus’ parables were constructed in order to give the imagery direction and meaning. This latter aspect included a criticism of basic conceptions in both Bultmann and Jülicher, which is – together with his fable category – often overlooked.79 The distinction between “similitude” and “parable” has never really functioned in Anglo-Saxon scholarship. Recently Snodgrass suggested the 71 Jülicher, Gleichnisreden I, 80: “diejenige Redefigur, in welcher die Wirkung eines Satzes (Gedankens) gesichert werden soll durch Nebenstellung eines ähnlichen, einem andern Gebiet angehörigen, seiner Wirkung gewissen Satzes”. 72 Jülicher, Gleichnisreden I, 93. 73 Jülicher, Gleichnisreden I, 98: “Ich kann die Fabel nur definieren als die Redefigur, in welcher die Wirkung eines Satzes (Gedankens) gesichert werden soll durch Nebenstellung einer auf anderm Gebiet abzulaufenden, ihrer Wirkung gewissen erdichteten Geschichte, deren Gedankengerippe dem jenes Satzes ähnlich ist.” This means: only two categories are sufficient, and all parables must fit into one of these categories (except for example stories/“Beispielerzählungen”, Luke 10,29ff; 12,16ff; 16,19ff; 18,9ff). 74 Bultmann, GST 184: “die sich … nur durch die Ausführlichkeit … unterscheiden” (HST 170: “distinguished … only by the detail in which the picture is painted”). 75 Bultmann, GST 184/HST 170, also GST 193 (similar to Luke 14,7ff, a preliminary stage to the example-stories) and in general GST 181–182/HST 167–168). 76 Bultmann, GST 188: “als Bild nicht einen typischen Zustand oder typischen bzw. regelmäßigen Vorgang, sondern einen interessierenden Einzelfall bringt” (HST 174: “gives as its picture not a typical condition or a typical, recurrent event, but some interesting particular situation”). 77 Cf. G. Strecker, Literaturgeschichte 181–184; G. Sellin, “Allegorie und Gleichnis”, ZTK 75 (1978) 281–335; Theissen/Merz, Jesus 294–296 underline the difference between short comparison versus longer narrative (or normal versus peculiar, hyperbolic or doubtful). 78 M. Dibelius, Formgeschichte 252–257. 79 W. Harnisch, Gleichniserzählungen 97–105; F. Vouga, “Formgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu den Gleichnissen und zu den Fabeln der Jesus-Trradition auf dem Hintergrund der hellenistischen Literaturgeschichte”, in F. van Segbroeck et al., eds., The Four Gospels 1992 (FS F. Neirynck. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press 1992) I, 173– 187, here 175ff.

1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount

13

following categories: aphoristic sayings, similes (double indirect), interrogative parables (also double indirect), narrative parables.80 The German scholar Ruben Zimmermann makes “parable” the general term and claims boldly that we have “parables and nothing else”.81 His claim is in general correct, but one should be open for divisions into subgroups of parables. 1.1.2.2 Jülicher and the Recent Discussion on Metaphors/Metaphorical Language According to Aristotle, metaphor is “the application of a strange term either transferred from the genus and applied to the species or from the species and applied to the genus, or from one species to another or else by analogy”.82 The revival of ancient rhetoric in scholarship and society also implies the rethinking of metaphors and of metaphorical language. The metaphor was neglected in Jülicher’s approach, contrary to recent interest in the metaphor, inspired by studies of literature (Max Black), cognitive linguistics (G. Lakoff 83) and philosophical (P. Ricoeur, M. Johnson) and theological (R. W. Funk, E. Jüngel, H. Weder, W. Harnisch) reflections.84 It is impossible to put the different and sometimes contradicting approaches into one consistent definition. One has to choose one definition or give a consistent perspective on metaphors and interpret the metaphors accordingly. The first step is to evaluate the metaphor as one of the tropes. Taxonomically, the metaphor can be placed among other figures of speech, but is the crown of all tropes. The Marburg School (Jülicher, Bultmann) did in fact subordinate the metaphor under the simile. They used the famous example of Achilles, mentioned by Aristotle: Homer said he was a lion (= metaphor) and not that he fought like a lion (= simile), and consequently metaphors are understood as a shorter form (brevior) of similitude.85 80

Snodgrass, Stories 11. R. Zimmermann, ed., Hermeneutik 383–419 (“Parabeln – sonst nichts!”). He uses four types of arguments: the categories in the Gospels, ancient rhetoric, the vagueness in scholarly works and the lack of precise criteria when it comes to content (395–404). 82 Aristotle, Rhet. 3.2.8ff (1405a); 3.10 (1410b14–15); Poet. 21 (1457b), esp. 9–16 and 20–22. 83 G. Lakoff/M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2003); also G. Lakoff, “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor”, in A. Ortony, ed., Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1993) 202–251. 84 R. Banschbach Eggen, Gleichnis, Allegorie, Metapher: Zur Theorie und Praxis der Gleichnisauslegung (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 47. Tübingen: Francke 2007) 270–298. 85 M. H. MacCall, Ancient Rhetorical Theories of Simile and Comparison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1969). This common view is based on the definition in Quintilian, Inst. 8.6.8: “Metaphor is a shorter form of simile” (in totum autem metaphora brevior est similitudo) and continues with the problematic statement that the simile gives a comparison whereas the metaphor gives “ipsa re”. 81

14

Chapter 1: Introduction

The second step is to define what exactly ȝİIJ੺ + ij੼ȡİȚȞ or ȝİIJ੺ + ijȠȡ੺ means. Is the imagery transferred to a similar or to a different level? Shall everything be transferred or only one aspect of the imagery? The third step is to differentiate between a metaphor in a narrative (e.g. the king as metaphor in some parables) and the elaboration of a metaphor into a narrative, which means that the whole narrative must be seen as metaphor. The phrase “Kingdom of God” is developed into many different stories in the Gospels.86 The fourth step is to see that metaphors have a bigger potential than any other figure of speech. The very function of opening up reality gives the metaphor this potential. The metaphor can – theoretically – open up for the following: for the beauty of a phenomenon, for feelings involved, for the many aspects of a matter or an event (the secrets, the most important feature, the focus), and for the purpose of persuasion. A fifth step is to avoid the confusion between metaphor and allegory. A metaphor can never say “something else” (ਙȜȜȠȢ) whereas the allegory can bring the imagery to a different level. Jülicher’s polemic against the allegory correctly made allegorical exegesis a place of no return for scholarly research. The SM has at least thirty different metaphors (salt, light, city, shrine, court, eye, trumpet, closet, treasure, moth, rust, thieves, eye, body, master, bird, stature, lilies, measure, beam, log, dog, swine, stone, snake, way, gate, wolves, sheep, tree, fruit, house, foundation, rock). Some of them are significant, some nearly invisible. According to Lakoff and Johnson’s understanding of metaphors, they are “conceptual constructions”, and the application of one domain of knowledge to another domain of knowledge offers new perceptions and understandings. We put the metaphors into a frame of associations and create “conceptually sustained metaphors”. Many of the metaphors in the SM like “way”, “fruit”, “foundation”, “light”, “master”, “treasure” have this potential. They are, according to Lakoff and Johnson’s terminology, the “source domain”, and we have to see how the metaphors are used (“goal/target-domain”). 1.1.2.2.1 Tropes and Other Figures of Speech in the More Basic Rhetorical Argumentation The investigation of tropes and figures of speech is also neglected in scholarship. Many observations on the tropes and figures are of course given in 86 N. Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress 1976) and my article “Jesu Verkündigung vom Reich Gottes: Semantische Analyse von ȕĮıȚȜİ઀Į IJȠ૨ șİȠ૨”, in H. Foerster, ed., Reich Gottes und Kirche (Veröffentlichungen der Luther-Akademie Ratzeburg 12. Erlangen: Martin-Luther-Verlag 1988) 15–35.

1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount

15

the commentaries on the SM,87 but the rhetorical force of the tropes and figures must be focused in a more comprehensive approach. The system of tropes and word- and thought-figures is complicated, and Cicero’s or Quintilian’s comprehensive lists were never standard for rhetoricians. If we concentrate on their rhetorical function, I suggest three ways of persuasion in the tropes and figures: 88 a. Confirming reality by repetitions and paraphrases. Tools can be tropes like periphrasis, euphemism, etc. or “word-figures of addition” (like epanalepsis, anadiplosis, anaphor, antistrophe, symploke, synonymia, epitheton, polysyndeton, climax and also geminatio, figura etymologica) and sometimes also “thought-figures” like e.g. parallelism. b. Correcting or focusing on one aspect of reality will use the following tools: The tropes emphasis, synecdoche, litotes, often isocolon and homeoteleuton, or irony (often taken as a trope) are designed for this purpose. The same are “word-figures of transposition” (like hyperbaton, synchresis, chiasm and also isocolon and homeoteleuton) and some “thought-figures” (epimone, metabasis, exclamatio, enargeia and irony, taken as a thought-figure and not a trope). c. Changing reality or appealing to the feeling of the audience. Tropes like similes and metaphor can often focus on one aspect, but particularly the crown of the tropes, the metaphor, can change the reality and appeal to feelings. Allegory is less powerful, and is hardly used in the SM. The “word-figures of omission” (like ellipsis, zeugma, often interrogatio) and the “thought-figures” (antithesis, correctio, often interrogatio, apostrophe, synchoresis, proparaskeue) are often used in the SM.

Some of the tropes in the SM are merely embellishments, and some are more poetical than rhetorical, but an analysis of the tropes and figures in the parables can contribute to a better understanding of the parables. The tropes and figures are frequently parts of a narrative and we call these narratives parables. The distinction between similitude and parable (typical versus peculiar event) is seldom important. We concentrate therefore on three types of rhetorical arguments: – The sentences (maxims, gnomai, sententiae) are very powerful.89 – The examples – metaphorical, historical or imaginative – are also effective.90 – The parable (narrative with one or more similes and metaphor) is most powerful.

87 More recently W. Petersen, Eigenart 88ff and 313ff has collected most of them, but he uses them primarily in order to differentiate between “tradition” and redaction. 88 The most extensive treatments are found in Rhet. Her. 4.19–69; Cicero, De or. 3.177, 201; Quintilian, Inst. 8.6 and in modern handbooks: M. Fuhrmann, Rhetorik 126– 138; G. O. Rowe, “Style” 125–150; H. Lausberg, Handbuch I, 282–307. 89 Aristotle, Rhet. 2.21.2 (1394a); 2.21.15–16 (1395b). 90 Cicero, De or. 3.205 (similitudo et exemplum); 1.180; 2.173 (on irony); Cicero, Inv. 1.31, 51; Quintilian, Inst. 5.11.6.

16

Chapter 1: Introduction

The difference between example and parable is often maximized in scholarship.91 In this book the difference is minimized, and accordingly also examples like Matt 5,35ff and 5,39ff are analysed here. The examples are more than parables included in sophisticated patterns of thought like the “enthymeme”, a thought-pattern the reader and audience have in common. We find the form enthymeme particularly in Matt 5,17– 7,12 (the “main body” of the SM). In extensive argumentation one has to expect so-called “proofs”,92 giving sound reasons for exhortations or arguments.93 Aristotle calls them enthymeme(s) or topics,94 and Cicero and Quintilian call them loci communes. In practice few speakers had in mind the twenty-five Aristotelian topics, for example, and the audience of the SM had hardly any of these enthymemes present. However, a number of topics were indeed “loci communes”, general conceptions, and simply common notions like95 contraries, possible and impossible, past or future fact, from lesser to greater or vice versa (a minore ad maius or a maiore ad minus), what necessarily causes something, etc. It is unusual to read NT texts in light of these categories. However, A. Schwarz argued (already in 1912) that many prophetic texts in the OT entail enthymemic conclusions,96 and there are obvious connections between the loci communes and the “middoth”, often ascribed to Hillel. They are universal thought patterns, and why should they not also illuminate the SM? 1.1.2.3 The Parables as Argumentation and the Tertium Comparationis The “one-point theory” (the doctrine of only one tertium comparationis) gave Jülicher an enormous influence in scholarship.97 The task in the exegesis of the parables was to find the only tertium comparationis, and this tool could effectively stop all allegorical speculations. The relation between 91

E.g. Theissen/Merz, Jesus 324–337. Premise is the alternative “using image” versus “without image” ending in a distinction between “parable” and “example”. Luke 10,30ff is an extreme case of beneficial action. 92 Rhet. Her. 2.1–26; Cicero, De or. 2.114–177 (esp. 155ff); Quintilian, Inst. 4.5ff; 8.6.1–76 (de tropis); 9.1.1–2 (on the difference between tropes and figures of speech). 93 Aristotle, Rhet. 2.22 (1395b) had sharper distinctions than those in later handbooks. 94 Aristotle, Rhet. 2.23 (1397a–1400b). 95 Melanchthon used loci communes (in Loci communes rerum theologicarum seu hypotyposes theologicae, 1521 = H. G. Pöhlmann, ed. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag 1997) as rhetorical and philosophical arguments in favour of the new Lutheran understanding of “Gospel and Law”. 96 A. Schwarz, “Enthymematische Analogieschlüsse” 185–205 demonstrates it mostly on the Qal-wachomer pattern using twelve crucial texts from the Tanak as examples. 97 Erlemann, Gleichnisauslegung 50 sees this as one of four commonplaces (“gemeinsamer Nenner”) in scholarly research.

1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount

17

imagery and object (“Bild- und Sachhälfte”) became the key problem in scholarly research. For example, R. E. Brown says: “the parable is there to illuminate … one point, a rule, an idea, an experience that is valid on the spiritual as on the secular level”.98 Rhetorically trained interpreters like Augustine, Chrysostom or Calvin would hardly understand the thesis of only one “tertium comparationis”. They gave a spiritual reading, but they never treated the parables as riddles. The spiritual reading, according to Augustine, does not mean to impose a new meaning, but the deeper meaning, rooted in the vital force of Scripture with its pious intention to nurture the reader spiritually.99 The literal, grammatical-historical meaning was the basis, and Augustine was basically doing the same as every scholar is doing today: e.g. the parable in Matt 18,23–35 is understood as a narrative about sin and forgiveness and not only about ordinary debts. 1.1.2.3.1 The Path between One-Point Approach and Multiple Meaning Scholars since Jülicher have tried to find a way between Jülicher’s minimalistic approach and the maximalist and arbitrary allegorical interpretation. This path is not easy, but it is possible to find it. More recently, G. Theißen and others have challenged this most important pillar of Jülicher’s parable-interpretation.100 Instead of searching for the one and only tertium comparationis, one should search for the perspective (point of view) in the narrative itself. One has to ask: Is the narrative seen from the outside or from the inside? Who are the important figures? Which aspect of the event is crucial? There are at least six objections against the one-point approach: The degree of “likeness” varies from one parable to another, and the parables must be treated accordingly. We have to consider the degree of “likeness” in the parable or metaphor, and also see if the likeness is to be found in the premise, in the argumentation and in the consequence drawn in the parable.

98 R. E. Brown, “Parable and Allegory Reconsidered”, in idem, New Testament Essays (Milwaukee: Bruce 1966) 324. 99 Augustine’s early writings do not always follow the more advanced hermeneutics he presented in De doctrina Christiana. Rhetorical tools and the conviction that the Scripture itself gives meaning to the text, open its deeper meaning. 100 In his appendix (Ergänzungsheft) to Bultmann’s GST (101995) 430, G. Theißen correctly puts the finger on three aspects that are not sufficiently taken into account: 1. Conventional metaphors can have their own meaning; 2. Odd features in the parable must be recognized; 3. Parables are told in order to provoke a reaction from the audience.

18

Chapter 1: Introduction

Surprising features in the parables must be recognised as important for the interpretation. The role of the OT – as authoritative text – in the parables varies, because the reference sometimes influences the metaphor, parts of the action in the narrative, or the argument as such. The parables often give signals for interpretation, and one has to differentiate between these signals and entire interpretations given to some parables (e.g. Matt 13,14ff; 13,28ff). Parables have a variety of functions.101 Jülicher was not wrong, but onesided in his statement about the parable as argumentation. Parables are like images open for different interpretation. The modern emphasis on the one and only meaning (“der Sinn”) is a misleading presumption. However, that does not imply a post-modern understanding of plurality of meanings. There have to be certain objective standards to limit the subjectivists and there has to be openness for the potential in imageries. Scholars who observe the literary skills in the parables will often see the limitations of the tertium-comparationis approach. An analysis of the outline and the narrative techniques of a parable give insights into plot, point of view, and also of the rhetoric in a parable. Jülicher and even more Bultmann discovered the artistry in the parables, but they also used these insights in order to find the tertium comparationis or to describe the development of the tradition. The more recent literary analysis (since the 1970s and particularly in US scholarship) is closer to rhetorical analysis, because it includes the genre or type of parable, style, outline, the narrative or proverbial techniques.102 The genre question has great impact on the understanding of the text. Relatively new is the question of the perspective (point of view) in the parable, which includes a protest against the dogmatic separation of imagery and interpretation (“Bild- und Sachhälfte”). Instead of separation one should see the dynamic between them. 1.1.2.3.2 Two Types of Allegorical Interpretation Jülicher’s one-point interpretation should not be replaced by “two- or threepoint interpretations”.103 Imagery and metaphorical language are resonant

101 B. Gerhardsson gave many important insights to this question, in “Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels”, and “Meshalim in the OT”. 102 Particularly D. O. Via, The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension (Philadelphia: Fortress 1967) pushed the research a long step forward. 103 Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables 171–286 designs a new system, and distinguishes between parables with one, two or three (simple & complex three) points. This gives a broader perspective, but repeats previous failures.

1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount

19

and allusive; they open up for a range of possible meanings.104 However, looking into modern scholarship we see a new type of allegory developing. The classical allegorical interpretation was interested in theological issues like Christ, discipleship, word of God, Jesus’ mission, wisdom, martyrdom, etc. However, more recently a more arbitrary allegorical interpretation has developed; one assumes that the text is mirroring an historical event, that the imageries reflect the history of the early church. This approach can easily be perceived as historical exegesis, but is in fact a kind of allegorical reading of the text. This type of allegorical reading is old, but it is renewed in recent scholarship and has become so common that scholars do not seem to recognise it as an allegorical fallacy. 1.1.2.4 The Parable and the Frame The separation between frame and parable was constitutive for both Jülicher and J. Jeremias. Jeremias had the new form-critical tool available; he claims that all parables “originally” were independent and every frame was secondary. Most of the frames were ascribed to the “redaction” of Mark, Matthew and Luke.105 Jeremias assumes that three tendencies can be seen in the synoptic tradition: The parables are placed in secondary contexts (Matt 5,23ff; 18,12ff, etc.), redactional introductions are produced (Matt 7,21.24.26), and explanations are given. The explanation might be an explicit application (Matt 5,26), an extension of a given frame or an addition of short general sayings (Matt 6,21.24).106 Jeremias correctly observes that metaphors and parables are regularly used in different contexts. However, the problem with the form-history premise was its dogmatic character (claiming that every parable was originally independent, and that every given context is secondary). The dogmatic position could not accept that a parable really was used in different contexts, and worked basically with the conception of Jesus as a wisdom teacher who gave brief statements/ short parables and left it to the audience to interpret them. A much better approach is that of Gerhardsson. He starts with the question: “What happens if we do not cut the parables out of their frames?”,107 and he differentiates between eleven types of frames in the fifty-five

104 “Possible” also implies that a lot of meanings are not possible, are superficial or artificial and not worth considering. 105 Jeremias, Gleichnisse 95–112. This relatively brief investigation is currently the most extensive analysis of the question. 106 Jeremias, Gleichnisse 103–112. 107 Gerhardsson used his Presidential address at SNTS 1990: “If We Do Not Cut the Parables out of Their Frame”, NTS 37 (1991) 321–335.

20

Chapter 1: Introduction

narrative meshalim.108 In spite of the fact that a number of the frames are “redactional”, Gerhardsson does not allow the historical “quest” to be dominating. The dynamic between frame and parable is always an important task in parable research. Two or three of the eleven categories seem to be used in the SM. The evangelist’s use of parables has been focused on much in scholarship since the 1950s.109 For the interpretation of the SM it is important that Matthew in general has assembled most of the “parables of growth” in Matt 13, most of the stewardship-parables (and King-parables) in Matt 18 and 24–25. Matthew has IJ઀Ȣ-ਥȟ-ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ parables both in the SM and in Matt 18.110

Rhetorically the frame is highly significant. Every speaker has to frame his sayings, and the context for a saying is often decisive. One should therefore rather have an undogmatic approach, and give intrinsic arguments priority. 1.1.2.5 Sociological Approaches Jülicher used many socio-historical insights in his exegesis of the parables, and G. Dalman and J. Jeremias111 gave an elaborated socio-historical investigation as a result of their personal experiences with Palestinian culture. K. Bailey has recently given important insights into the Lukan parables in light of the rural Middle Eastern mentality.112 The claim of a real sociohistorical perspective became stronger in the 1970s, and the renewal of the socio-historical perspective113 has indeed been very fruitful for parable research. The same holds true for the socio-anthropological approach, but it is not often integrated with other socio-historical approaches.114 108 B. Gerhardsson, “Illuminating the Kingdom: Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels”, in Henry Wansbrough, ed., Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSNTSup 64. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1991) 266–309. 109 R. Zimmermann, “Ethico-Ästhetik” 235–265 could have proved his thesis also from the SM-texts. 110 H. Greeven, “Wer unter euch …?”, WD 3 (1952) 86–101. 111 One of the advantages of Jeremias’s book on parables was his use of material Dalman had collected and of observations from his own memory. As a child he lived in Palestine and his upbringing gave him many insights in the Arab-Jewish Middle-East cultures. 112 Mostly in his books on the parables in Luke (K. Bailey, Poet and Peasant: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1976]). 113 L. Schottroff, Die Gleichnisse Jesu (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag 2004), esp. 109–119 and B. J. Malina/J. H. Neyrey, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts”, in J. H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts (Peabody: Hendrickson 1991) 225–265. 114 In addition to B. J. Malina’s contributions, William R. Herzog II, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press 1994) and V. George Shillington, Jesus and His Parables: Interpreting the Parables of Jesus Today (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1997).

1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount

21

The socio-historical approach is also significant in this study, for three reasons: We can determine the amount of realistic and unrealistic features in the parables if we include a socio-historical perspective. We also become more alert to the expectations among the first listeners/readers who were hearing the metaphors and parables. This approach detects thirdly the basic convictions behind the parables: honour/shame, patron/client, etc. The socio-historical approach gives more than “background”. It is an integral part of the theological exegesis illuminating the theme and ideas with cultural observation (Dalman, Jeremias, Bailey), with socio-historical (L. Schottroff) and socio-anthropological (Malina) perspectives. The socio-historical approach and motif history are part of a theological interpretation. Motif analysis asks: What is really new in the ideas or images in a parable? 115 We employ the following procedure in this book: Firstly, some general remarks on section-titles and tendencies in scholarly research. The historical tradition behind the parable has to do with the source problem, but even more with the history of a motif and its sociological setting. It has a damaging effect on the exegesis of the parable if the historical-Jesus question becomes crucial as in Jülicher’s critical study or in the apologies from, e.g., Fiebig. The rhetorical and literary analysis of the text as parable is the main issue. It includes a theological interpretation, but the main effort is to understand the sayings as parables.

1.1.3 Parables Compared with Other Forms of Sayings in the Sermon on the Mount The form-history school gave the issue of “form” high priority in NT exegesis, but the main interest was the growth of the tradition from the earliest beginnings to the four Gospels. Dibelius and Bultmann perceived form as a “sociological fact”, and consequently they tried to give every category a setting in the life of the early church. Dibelius successfully analysed the narratives from this perspective, but he did not take the sayings of Jesus much into account. He just listed sentences, similes, parables, prophetic sayings, shorter and longer precepts.116 Bultmann’s categories of the sayings became therefore very influential, and he found most of his categories for sayings in the SM:117 115 We have to differentiate between three types of parallels: in the metaphors, in the narratives and between both the meaning and ideas of the parable. 116 M. Dibelius Formgeschichte 247 (under the general category “paraenesis”: “Weisheitswort …, Bildwort, Gleichniserzählung, prophetischer Ruf …, kurzes Gebot, ausgeführtes Gebot”). The categories for narratives are very different, because of Dibelius’s and Bultmann’s different premises and approaches. 117 “Wortüberlieferung”, Bultmann, GST 73ff. He saw in GST these sayings more as memories of Jesus than as sayings rooted in the life of the early Christian community.

22

Chapter 1: Introduction

A number of sayings in the SM are “wisdom sayings” (Matt 5,13–16.[25–26.34].39–42. 43–48; 6,19–21.22–23.24.25–34; 7,1–5.6.7–12.13–14) reflecting Jesus as wisdom teacher. Some are prophetic sayings (5,3ff; 7,15.21–23) reflecting Jesus as prophet. Some are “legal sayings and church rules” (“Gesetzesworte und Gemeinderegeln”): 5,17–19.21–34, even 5,23–24 and 5,29–30, “antitheses” like 5,26; 6,2.5.16.29; headlines like 5,20; 6,1 and 6,2–18. These sayings reflect the theology of the early Christian church and their need for instruction: 118 Bultmann finds one “I-saying” (“Ich-Wort”, ਷ȜșȠȞ-saying, 5,17) and a number of similes, figures (“Bildworte”, 5,13.14.25–26; 6,24; 7,9ff), a few similitudes (7,24ff), but no parable. He sees some figures (5,13–14; 6,24; 7,9–10) and one similitude (5,25–26) as wisdom sayings.

German scholarship tends to repeat Bultmann’s categories in spite of new developments in scholarship.119 Scholars after 1945 have had less interest in the historical reconstruction, but have focused more on the forms of longer or shorter units: beatitudes,120 “Holy-Law decisions”,121 Amen-sayings,122 “eschatological correlative”,123 “prayer”,124 “quotations from Scripture”,125 chreiai,126 etc. K. Berger has contributed most to the analysis of NT forms and their relation to Jewish and particularly Hellenistic forms.127 He has also increasingly used a rhetorical framework.128 There are oceans 118 Bultmann assumed that most of the sayings in the SM derived from the historical Jesus, a fact that might surprise some because of Bultmann’s extreme criticism of the synoptic tradition (Baasland, Theologie 230–303). The “Jesus-seminar” was far more critical: R. W. Funk/R. W. Hoover, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Macmillan 1993) 138–157. 119 Cf. G. Strecker, Literaturgeschichte 173/175–189 and H. Köster, “Formgeschichte/ Formenkritik II: Neues Testament”, TRE XI (1983) 286–299, esp. 289–291 add nearly nothing to them. G. Theißen (Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments 55ff) also repeats Bultmann’s categories, but gives the old categories a new frame based on an historical understanding of Jesus (the prophet-, wisdom-, law-teacher and story-teller use three types of language: appellative, sachliche, Selbstaussagen). 120 Chr. Kähler, Studien zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte der biblischen Makarismen (Diss., Jena 1974). 121 Cf. E. Käsemann, “Sätze heiligen Rechtes im Neuen Testament”, NTS 1 (1954/55) 248–260, modified by K. Berger, “Zu den sogenannten Sätzen heiligen Rechts”, NTS 17 (1970/71) 10–40 and idem, “Die sogenannten ‘Sätze heiligen Rechts’ im Neuen Testament: Ihre Funktion und ihr Sitz im Leben”, TZ 28 (1972) 305–330. 122 K. Berger, “Zur Geschichte der Einleitungsformel ‘Amen, ich sage euch’”, ZNW 63 (1972) 45–75. 123 R. A. Edwards, “Eschatological Correlative as a Gattung in the New Testament”, ZNW 60 (1969) 9–20. 124 D. Dormeyer, “Formen/Gattungen”, RGG4 III (2000) 190–196, here 191. 125 Dormeyer, ibid. (“Schriftverwendung”). 126 K. Berger, Formen 142ff. 127 He lists “Gnomische Gattungen”, in “Hellenistische Gattungen” (ANRW II 25,2) 1057–1066 and correctly sees the alternative “Jewish” and “Hellenistic” parallels as inappropriate. Even the parable- (mashal-) form has parallels in the Graeco-Roman world. 128 K. Berger, Exegese 42ff (later in Formgeschichte, “Hellenistische Gattungen” and Formen).

1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount

23

between Berger and Bultmann when it comes to categories for the synoptic sayings. Only a few of Bultmann’s categories remain in Berger’s formhistory.129 His form-history is indeed an alternative to Bultmann and classical form criticism.130 The cultural environment, education, conventions, perhaps rituals, as setting for different forms are underlined. One form can serve in many settings and many forms can be used in the same setting. The one-to-one relation in classical form-history has nearly disappeared. However, few scholars have adopted Berger’s complicated lists. M. Hengel operates only with wisdom- and prophetic sayings in order to simplify the matter a bit.131 G. Vermes uses only the categories proverbs and parables132 like P. Fiebig who saw aphorisms (“Aussprüche”) and parables (“Gleichnisse”) as the only forms.133 J. D. Crossan likewise concentrates on aphoristic sayings. He counts 36 of 133 sayings in the SM as “aphoristic statement”.134 To conclude: Bultmann is the only scholar who gives a comprehensive analysis of all the forms in the SM. His list and his approach must be improved. Recent research on the wisdom-sayings gives a good starting-point. 1.1.3.1 Focus on Aphorisms, Wisdom Exhortations (“Mahnworte”)135 and Larger Units Bultmann based his analysis of the wisdom-sayings on the approach in contemporary OT scholarship (particularly W. Baumgartner).136 Bultmann 129

K. Berger, Formen 95ff. Berger calls parables “Gleichnisse” (similitudes). A critical assessment of Bultmann’s categories in a study of the SM is necessary. The genres “Gemeinderegeln” and “Ich-Worte” are focusing too much on content instead of form. The genres “wisdom saying” and “prophet saying” are too broad and unclear. Cf. Baasland, Theologie 262ff. 131 M. Hengel/A. M. Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007) 387ff use both content and style as criteria for a differentiation. Also Kloppenborg, Formation 263 limits the categorisation to sapiential, instructional (and prophetical). 132 G. Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew (Minneapolis: Fortress 1993) 76–119 sees “Proverbs” and “parables” as the two basic forms in Jesus’ teaching. 133 Fiebig, Erzählungsstil 3–31, 32–77 (adding stories, 78ff, and prayers, 131ff). The two categories, parables and sapiential (“wisdom”) exhortations, cover more than two thirds of the teaching in the SM. 134 J. D. Crossan, In Fragments 330ff. Scholars in the “Jesus Seminar” (or the “Third wave” scholars) paid great interest to the aphorisms, like W. A. Beardslee, “The Wisdom Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels”, JAAR 15 (1967) 231–240; idem, “Use of the Proverb in the Synoptic Gospels”, Int 24 (1970) 61–73. C. E. Carlston, “Proverbs, Maxims, and the Historical Jesus”, JBL 99 (1980) 87–105 identified 102 aphorisms (p. 91). 135 The wisdom literature became a main theme in scholarly research in the 1970s, partly because this field of study had been neglected during the period of time when the “Dialectical Theology” dominated. 136 W. Zimmerli, “Zur Struktur der alttestamentlichen Weisheit”, ZAW 51 (1933) 177– 214, here 183ff gave a very clear overview. He modified the categories of W. Baumgartner (“Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit Jesus Sirach”, ZAW 34 [1914] 161– 130

24

Chapter 1: Introduction

differentiated therefore principles (general- and personal-formulated sentences, beatitudes, arguments a minore ad maius), exhortations and questions,137 and “larger compositions”.138 Both OT139 and NT scholarship (e.g. R. A. Piper,140 K. Berger,141 J. G. Gammie,142 L. G. Perdue143 and particularly H. von Lips144) have analysed the wisdom-sentences further. M. Küchler suggests that about 30 of 108 verses in the SM are wisdom-sentences.145 Fiebig’s book on “narrative styles in the Gospels” from 1925 had – due to Bultmann’s criticism – little impact on research of the wisdom-sayings.146 Fiebig compared the aphoristic sayings of Jesus with rabbinic texts in order to give a supplement to Billerbeck’s collection of rabbinic parallels. He sorted out fifteen different types of aphoristic sayings and suggested the following categories: conditional and unconditional sayings, sayings with imperatives, ʌ઼Ȣ- and ੅ıșȚ-sentences, and “a-minore-ad-maius” texts, etc.147 Fiebig and Bultmann had only the categories “questions”, the beatitude-form and the I-sayings in common.148 198) and P. Volz (Hiob und Weisheit [Die Schriften des Alten Testaments 3/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1921]). Zimmerli differentiated between commandment and advice, and between “Mahnwort” (exhortation addressing people directly) and “Aussagewort” (shorter, more general sayings). 137 Bultmann, GST 77ff/HST 73 (“material formulations” and “personal formulations”). 138 Bultmann, GST 77ff/HST 79ff calls the fourth category “longer passages” (“größere Kompositionen”). 139 Cf. E. Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft des “apodiktischen Rechts” (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1965); W. Richter, Recht und Ethos; R. E. Murphy, “Form Criticism and Wisdom Literature”, CBQ 31 (1969) 475–483; B. Mogensen, Israelitiske leveregler og deres begrundelse (Copenhagen: Gad 1983); L. G. Perdue, “The Social Character of Paraenesis and Paraenetic Literature”, Semeia 50 (1990) 1–39, etc. 140 R. A. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus (SNTSMS 61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1989). 141 K. Berger, Formen 178ff (“die einfache Aufforderung”) and 182ff (on paraenesis). 142 J. G. Gammie, “Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre”, Semeia 50 (1990) 41–71. 143 L. G. Perdue, “The Wisdom Sayings of Jesus”, Forum 2/3 (1986) 3–35. 144 H. von Lips, Weisheitliche Traditionen 193–256 gives a comprehensive analysis. 145 M. Küchler, Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen 587ff. 146 Fiebig, Erzählungsstil 2–29. Bultmann, in his reviews in TLZ 52 (1927) 226–228; AR 24 (1927) 126 and M. Dibelius, “Rabbinische und evangelische Erzählungen: Eine Diskussion”, TBl 11 (1932) 1–11, had a critical dialogue with Fiebig. Both Dibelius and Bultmann blamed Fiebig for not taking into account the historical character (Sitz im Leben) of the sayings. 147 Fiebig, Erzählungsstil 3–31. 148 Bultmann admits that Fiebig gave valuable insights, but he in fact denounced them. Bultmann’s criticism was not based on sociological observations, but rather on his reconstruction of the history of the tradition. The sociology behind the transmission of texts was later analysed by Swedish scholars.

1.1 Parables in the Sermon on the Mount

25

D. Dormeyer has recently used categories closer to Fiebig,149 and also D. Aune’s eight categories (macarism, whoever-sayings, synonymous couplets, antithetical/paradoxical, admonitions, sentences, statements of reciprocity)150 are reminiscent of Fiebig. 151 The forms and parts of the argumentation in the SM have parallels in OT wisdom literature and Graeco-Roman literature, but the SM still has an original voice. D. Zeller’s important book on exhortations (“Mahnsprüche”) concentrates on only one form, but about one third of the SM comes into this category.152 Zeller is closer to Bultmann than to Fiebig,153 but he was primarily influenced by OT scholarship, particularly by W. Richter’s very precise text-linguistic approach.154 According to Zeller we have a wisdom exhortation (“Mahnspruch”) if the saying has 2nd pers. sing. or pl. A certain syntactic form (particularly the so-called vetitive) has a dualistic form (e.g. good/foolish) with analogies in Jewish wisdom literature.155 Zeller later extended the perspective to three categories. To the exhortations (“Mahnungen”) he now adds aphoristic sayings and rhetorical questions (different from interrogatio).156 R. A. Piper157 also uses the term “aphoristic sayings”. They are brief, self-contained, pithy, and characterised by succinctness of expression. They are open, can be applied to a variety of contexts and situations, and

149 D. Dormeyer, Das Neue Testament 67ff (indikativische, interrogative, imperativische Weisheitsworte). 150 D. E. Aune, “Oral Tradition and the Aphorisms of Jesus”, in H. Wansbrough, ed., Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition 211–265, here 227–236. 151 Fiebig, Erzählungsstil 3–31. 152 Zeller, Mahnsprüche 21–22 (cf. 53) analyses other categories than wisdom-sayings (prophetische Worte, apokalyptische Paränese, Gesetzesentscheidungen). These categories come very close to those used by Bultmann. 153 Zeller, Mahnsprüche 17–20 defines wisdom-saying in a similar way as R. A. Piper, but he adds two more aspects: its use of metaphorical language and parallelism. 154 Richter, Recht und Ethos 190: “Der Mahnspruch besteht aus der grammatischen Form des Vetitivs und enthält immer eine Begründung.” “… neigen zum Parallelismus in Mahnung und Begründung”. “Prohibitive neigen zur Reihenbildung”. Richter sees also certain conflations between the two forms (118ff). 155 Zeller, Mahnsprüche 21–22 (31–32) on Prov 10–29 and Qohelet (37). His analysis of the sentences emphasises grammatical form and the distinction “with/without reasons”. 156 Zeller is closer to Fiebig’s categories in “Jesu weisheitliche Ethik”, in L. Schenke, ed., Jesus von Nazaret 195. K. Berger has a similar approach in “Hellenistische Gattungen” 1056–1077 and Formen 92–94, 217–224, 226–245, 257–260, 271, 276–279 (metaphorische Mahnrede, begründete Mahnrede, Mahnrede im Tat-Folge-Schema, Unheilsansage als Mahnung, persönliche Mahnrede, protreptische Mahnrede). Berger gives many sayings different names, and this results in overloaded descriptions and lack of clarity. 157 R. A. Piper, Wisdom 4–6.

26

Chapter 1: Introduction

do not necessarily require a narrative. Third-person and impersonal terms are used frequently and expressly.158 Generally Zeller and particularly Piper were also interested in larger units, and here they follow Bultmann who found four “longer passages” in the SM (5,39ff; 6,25–34; 7,1–5; 7,7–11).159 Piper similarly analyses five units from Q (Luke 6,37–42; 6,43–45; 11,9–13; 12,22–31, all of them in the SM, and 12,2–9 = Matt 10,26–33). He found a four-fold pattern:160 exhortation – maxim – examples, questions or parables – concluding exhortation. The occurrence of these larger units – together with the parables – give the SM a certain flavour, and should be analysed more in depth. They must, however, be seen in the light of rhetorical pattern.

1.2 Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount Scholars have, due to the complicated problem of its source, paid little attention to the rhetorical structure and argumentation of the SM. The questions of genre, literary outline and rhetorical tools are, however, extremely important and contribute to a better understanding of the speech. The rhetorical approach opens also for the (often neglected) question about the forms of the sayings in the SM. John Chrysostom and Augustine, both orators trained in rhetoric, found in the SM a beautiful piece of rhetoric. In medieval studies and in the exegesis by Luther, Calvin and other reformers the ethical and theological argumentation came more in focus, but e.g. Thomas Aquinas and Calvin also had open eyes for rhetorical argumentation. With the Enlightenment came scepticism against the rhetorical approach, and A. Tholuck, for example, who found “a logic of heart” and many rhetorical features in the SM,161 was considered as outdated by contemporary scholars. After 1830 scholars focused on sources (C. H. Weisse, K. Lachmann, etc.) or historical processes (D. F. Strauß, F. C. Baur, etc.) behind the SM-text and not on the outline of the SM itself.162 Twenty years before 158

Fiebig, Crossan, Piper, and Zeller do not take the sociological perspective into account. K. Berger adds the rhetorical perspective, and in this light form and sociological perspectives are integrated. 159 Bultmann, GST 82ff (“größere Kompositionen”)/HST 79ff (“larger passages”). 160 R. A. Piper, Wisdom 15ff. 161 Tholuck, Comm (21835) 23. 162 K. Lachmann, “De ordine narrationum in evangeliis synopticis”, TSK 8 (1835) 570–574 gave the premise for Weisse to reconstruct Q and establish the two-document hypothesis (Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet [Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel 1838]). The SM or rather the IS was the first step towards the reconstruction of the pretext (“Vorlage”), Q.

1.2 Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount

27

the wake of form criticism (in 1900) Heinrici concluded that shorter sentences and some groups of logia were the origin of the SM.163 The (rhetorical) outline is an arbitrary result. E. Peterson in RGG2 (1927) summed up the results of Bultmann’s and Dibelius’s works by stating that the SM is an arbitrary collection of sayings with an equally arbitrary composition.164 Many scholars, particularly outside Germany,165 denied these results and observed compositional principles in the SM. These observations of the compositional efforts in the SM166 were taken more seriously in redaction criticism. One tried to achieve a synthesis of form-critical analysis and literary observations of the present text. However, a rhetorical outline was not proposed, mostly because the SM was perceived as a more or less arbitrary collection of ethical sentences.167 Even H. D. Betz, a pioneer of rhetorical criticism in NT research, did not recognise the SM as a rhetorical speech. Also W. Petersen, who analysed the rhetoric of the SM more closely, came to the same conclusion: The SM is not really a speech and as a whole it does not follow the concepts of classical speeches.168 On the other hand, classical scholars like G. A. Kennedy169 and J. C. Thom,170 and some exegetes (e.g. B. L. Mack, C. H. Talbert and F. Zeilinger171) put the research on the right track by seeing the SM as a deliberative speech with sophisticated rhetoric. Rhetoric analyses rhetorical tools used in the argumentation, and also the genre and composition. The choice of genre and the choice of outline are important in the art of persuasion. The genre and composition of the SM – or the “inaugural speech” – is not necessarily the same as the genre and composition of Q.

163 Tholuck, Comm 96: “Spruchgruppen und Einzelsprüche, die Grundbestandteile der Bergpredigt”. 164 E. Peterson, “Bergpredigt”, RGG2 I (1927) 909: “eine Zusammenstellung aus Einzelsprüchen und Redeeinheiten in der Willkür und Zufälligkeit ihrer Komposition”. He repeats W. Bousset’s argument in RGG1 I (1909) 1037ff. 165 Also German scholars like Soiron, Comm 98–127 or J. Kürzinger, “Zur Komposition der Bergpredigt”, Bib 40 (1959) 569–589, had shown the compositional principles in the SM. 166 Particularly in British scholarship in the years 1900–1920 (J. Moulton, C. W. Votaw, B. W. Bacon, etc.) and later e.g. A. M. Perry, “The Framework of the Sermon on the Mount”, JBL 54 (1935) 103–115. 167 So Petersen, Eigenart 359: “Die Bergpredigt erscheint zum großen Teil als eine Sammlung von Mahnworten, die Vorbilder in der alttestamentlichen Weisheitsliteratur […] haben”. 168 Petersen, Eigenart 355ff. 169 First in Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric 126ff, then in idem, New Testament 44–63. 170 J. C. Thom, “Justice” 314–338. 171 Mack, Rhetoric 82ff, also in Talbert, Comm and Zeilinger, Comm.

28

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.2.1 Genre of the Sermon on the Mount G. Bornkamm in his presidential address at SNTS in 1977 urged scholarship to pay more attention to the question of the genre of the SM.172 He had to admit that scholars from his own tradition (form and redaction criticism) had been neglecting this question for a long time. It would be contradictory to argue for a thoroughly literary plan of the SM and not assume a certain genre. G. N. Stanton173 and U. Luz separate the two questions more. Luz finds no analogy “that would permit us to interpret it in terms of its genre”.174 Some scholars like M. Dibelius call the SM “Paraenesis”, a more or less arbitrary collection of sayings composed fifty years after the sermons of Jesus were given. The analogy would be Jewish or Hellenistic collections of wisdom-sayings. The arbitrarily collected sayings might have certain themes or key words in common. Dibelius and others therefore found striking similarities between the SM and the Epistle of James.175 G. Bornkamm could not find any analogy to the SM, but parallels in Qumran (1QS, 1QSa, CD), Mishnah ’Abot and also in the Didache, show that the SM is a step towards a Christian church-order. Similarly, H. D. Betz calls the SM an epitome,176 comparable to Hellenistic epitomai of gnomic sayings.177 The form-critical principles are still lingering in Betz’s approach, and at the end he denies the importance of a thoroughly literary or rhetorical composition. The very notion of epitome presupposes that the rhetorical skills are lacking. In spite of that Betz frequently finds sophisticated rhetorical argumentation in the SM, and he alludes to a general Stoic thought-pattern for the composition.178 Perhaps an analysis of the composition can lead to a better understanding of the genre? 172 G. Bornkamm, “Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt”, NTS 24 (1977/78) 419–432 (= idem, Studien 43–58), here 432. 173 G. N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People 307–325 sees no peculiar genre for the SM and recognizes the Sermon as an integral part of Matthew’s general compositional plan. 174 Luz, Comm (ET 2007) 174. 175 Recently R. Bauckham, “The Wisdom of James and the Wisdom of Jesus”, in J. Schlosser, ed., The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition (BETL 176. Leuven: Peeters 2004) 73–92. 176 H. D. Betz, Studien 1–16; idem, “The Sermon on the Mount”; idem, “In Defence of a Hypothesis”, BR 36 (1991) 74–80; idem, Comm 70–80. 177 Heinrici, Comm I, 78–81 (= Die Bergpredigt [Matth. 5–7, Luk. 6,20–49] quellenkritisch und begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht [Leipzig: Dürr 1900/1905] – the second volume). 178 H. D. Betz, Comm 63–64 uses the threefold scheme in stoicism: physics, logic and ethics.

1.2 Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount

29

1.2.2 The Composition of the Sermon on the Mount J. Smit Sibinga and H. D. Betz and scholars throughout the history of research have found a number of compositional principles.179 Here we concentrate on three types: 1.2.2.1 Composition according to Jewish-Christian Patterns Swedish180 and particularly British scholars in the 1950s and 1960s found a catechetical pattern behind the SM.181 P. Carrington182 and E. Selwyn183 elaborated on the following pattern for the composition of the SM: Invitation/ Blessings (5,3–16); Commandments (5,17–48); Charity (6,1–7,12); Penalty (7,13–23); Reward (7,24–27). W. D. Davies184 and D. Daube185 gave additional arguments for this thesis, and W. D. Davies also assumed that the dictum attributed to Simon the Just in m. ’Abot 1,2 structures the SM: “By three things is the world sustained: by the Law (= Matt 5,17ff), by the Temple-service (= 6,1ff) and by the deeds of loving-kindness” (= 6,19ff). Scholars who see the addressee as the key to the composition of the SM186 think Jewish groups or the Jewish canon structures the composition of the SM.187 179 J. Smit Sibinga, “Exploring the Composition of Matthew 5–7: The Sermon on the Mount and Some of Its ‘Structures’”, Filologia Neotestamentaria 7 (1994) 175–195, here 175–179, and H. D. Betz, Comm 44–50 offer good reviews. 180 E. Beijer, Kristologi och Etik i Jesu Bergspredikan (Stockholm: Diakon Bokförlag 1960) 200ff and Jeremias, Sermon 20–23 support this theory. 181 A. Seeberg, Det Katechismus der Urchristenheit (TB 26. Munich: Chr. Kaiser 1966) 9–44 (11903). 182 P. Carrington, The Primitive Christian Catechism: A Study in the Epistles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1940). 183 E. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Essays (London: Macmillan 1946, 21961), esp. 363ff. 184 W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount 370–380. Allison, Sermon 442ff still conveys this perspective, but in Davies/Allison, Comm the theory has almost disappeared. 185 D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone 1956), particularly in the chapter “A Baptismal Catechism”, 106ff, esp. 113–135. 186 Zahn, Comm 220: Matt 5,21–48 against the rabbis, ch. 6 against the Pharisees; Fitzmyer, Comm (Luke) 628–629 combines the perspective with the theme of justice, which means three types of righteousness, represented by the Scribes, the Pharisees and the disciples. O. Hanssen, “Zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt: Eine missionstheologische Studie zu Mt 5,17–18”, in E. Lohse et al., eds., Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde (FS J. Jeremias. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1970) 94–111, here 105– 106 assumes only two addressees (5,21–6,18 the Jews and 6,19–7,12 the gentiles), and his teacher, Jeremias, Bergpredigt 22 = Sermon 23 is similarly proposing the scheme: to the Scribes (5,21ff), the pious (6,1ff), the disciples (6,19ff). 187 Frankemölle, Comm 255 thinks the three paragraphs refer to different parts of the Tanak: the Law (5,21ff), the Prophets (6,1ff) and the Wisdom-writings (6,19ff).

30

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.2.2.2 Composition according to Themes, Key-Texts and Literary Skills W. Egger correctly found certain “text-constitutions”, and most of them have a theocentric orientation (“God the Father”, “Kingdom of God”, “Righteousness of God”, etc.).188 Egger offers a comprehensive approach whereas most scholars limit the view to certain themes. It is obvious that themes like the love commandment189 or righteousness are crucial in the SM.190 Since Augustine,191 scholars192 have emphasised certain key-texts in the composition, and many think (like Augustine) the Beatitudes are the very key.193 There can be seen hints to the Beatitudes in most of the following paragraphs in the SM.194 Other scholars have seen Matt 5,16 as the theme and key to the whole SM.195 For more scholars Matt 5,17–20196 is the keytext, particularly 5,20.197 Also the Antitheses198 or The Lord’s Prayer (Matt 188 W. Egger, “Faktoren der Textkonstitution in der Bergpredigt”, Laur 19 (1978) 177–198 based on theocentric themes and key words like ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȚ, ʌȠȚİ૙Ȟ, heart, or seeing/eye. Also the authoritative expression (like “truly I say to you”, or “I say to you”) constitutes the text of the SM. 189 Schlatter, Comm 151ff (Matt 5,21ff: “Heiligung der menschlichen Gemeinschaft”, on sanctification of the fellowship; 6,1–18: “Reinigung des Gottesdienstes”, on purification of the devotion); Lambrecht, Comm 27 (5,21ff: antitheses; 6,1ff: “Handeln vor Gott”; 6,19ff: “Unbesorgtheit und Engagement”). 190 Soiron, Comm 120; the key words, Matt 5,20 and 6,33, show that righteousness is crucial. Weder, Comm 90ff, 156ff gives Matt 5,21ff the headline “righteousness and Law” (“Gerechtigkeit und Gesetz”) and 6,1–7,12 is called “Righteousness coram Deo”. Righteousness is the theme also according to W. T. Wilson, “A Third Form of Righteousness: The Theme and Contribution of Matt 6.19–7.12 in the Sermon on the Mount”, NTS 53 (2007) 303–324; R. Deines, Gerechtigkeit 95, 446ff; Talbert, Comm 62–68 (Matt 5,17–7,12 has the theme “higher righteousness”) and Thom, “Justice” 315–316. 191 Augustine, Serm. 1.3.10–1.4.11. 192 Smit Sibinga, “Exploring” 176 mentions Fausto Sozzini (15th c.), Friedrich Grawert and Alphons Schenz. 193 M. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew 250ff sees a correspondence between the Beatitudes and the warnings at the end of the SM. Talbert, Comm 21 clarifies the differences between Augustine and Goulder. Also A. A. Trites, “The Blessings and Warnings of the Kingdom (Matthew 5:3–12; 7;13–27)”, RevExp 89 (1992) 179–196 has underlined the importance of the Beatitudes for the structure of the SM. 194 Trites, “Blessings” 179–192 claims that the Beatitudes and the concluding warnings are corresponding. 195 F. Nägelsbach, Der Schlüssel zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt (BFCT 20/5. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1916) 29: “Dieser Satz ist das klar hervortretende Thema der ganzen Rede”. Also Hanssen, “Verständnis” 111 and C. Burchard, “Bergpredigt” 433 and idem, “Versuch” (409–)432. 196 N. J. McEleney, “The Principles of the Sermon on the Mount”, CBQ 41 (1979) 552–570 (also idem, “The Unity and Theme of Mt 7,1–12”, CBQ 56 [1994] 490–500 – on Matt 7,1–12). 197 H. J. Holtzmann, Synoptiker 13; J. Weiß, Schriften 248; idem, Urchristentum 260; Jeremias, Sermon 22–23. 198 V. Hassler, “Das Herzstück der Bergpredigt”, TZ 15 (1959) 90–106.

1.2 Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount

31

6,9–13) are called the heart of the SM. Candidates for being key-texts are even Matt 6,19–21 199 or the Golden Rule (7,12 as a summary of the SM). Long before redaction-criticism the artistry of the SM was seen as Matthew’s achievement.200 Many find the artistry of Matthew in the conscious use of numbers, and the triads are seemingly a compositional principle.201 G. H. Stassen finds all together fourteen triads in the SM,202 and Th. Soiron thinks both the triads and the number seven are the structure behind the SM.203 1.2.2.3 Symmetric and Chiastic Structure of the Composition Most sophisticated is the suggestion that the composition has a symmetric and chiastic structure. This theory was recently elaborated by D. Patte204 and not least by U. Luz.205 Scholars had previously suggested that the Lord’s Prayer is the heart of the SM. Luz gave new arguments in favour of the theory.206 He starts with the obvious correspondence between the introduction/Beatitudes and the conclusion (Matt 5,3–16 and 7,13–27) and the correspondence between 5,17 and 7,12, both mentioning the “Law and the Prophets”. Luz’s new observation is that the corresponding passages Matt 199

K. Berger, Jesus 321ff. The classicist E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums I: Die Evangelien (Stuttgart/Berlin: J. G. Cotta 1921) 242–243 formulated – in the same year when Bultmann’s GST came out – a position far from Bultmann: The SM is “formell wie inhaltlich von ihm [Matthäus] gestaltet und eine schriftstellerische Leistung ersten Ranges. Mit großem Geschick hat der Verfasser verstanden, in den Faden, den die Hauptquelle bot, verwandte Aussprüche aus den übrigen Quellen einzufügen und meist wirklich in den Zusammenhang hineinzuarbeiten”. 201 Cf. Allen, Comm 37–38 and Allison, Sermon 438: “The most obvious fact about the Sermon on the Mount is that it is built around triads”. J. Dupont, Béatitudes I, 175– 184 (also 125–174) has the outline: introduction 5,3–16, main body 5,17–7,12, conclusion 7,13–27. Similarly, M.-J. Lagrange, Comm 77 has three parts (5,17–6,18 on Christian righteousness, 6,19–7,12, the practical application, and 7,13–27, the warnings). 202 First in RevExp 89 (1992) 229–244, then more extensively in “The Fourteen Triads of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21–7:12)”, JBL 122 (2003) 267–308. 203 Soiron, Comm 120: the three main parts (5,17–48; 6,1–34; 7,1–23) have all seven paragraphs. Bultmann criticised Soiron from a form-critical point of view: TLZ 43 (1918) 246; AR 24 (1926) 118. 204 Patte, Comm 60–65 (summarised, 65, also in his Discipleship according to the Sermon on the Mount 207) and similarly: Combrink, Comm 48. 205 Luz, Comm 253–255. It is a bit strange that Luz who denies a certain genre for the SM at the same time finds such an extremely elaborated composition. 206 Tholuck, Comm (31845) 23ff refers to previous authors (Gottlieb Philipp Christian Kaiser and Rudolf Stier, etc., ET, 33) who see the Lord’s Prayer as the centre “und daß in dieser [sc. der Bergrede] dasselbe Schema wiederkehre, welches der ganzen Rede zu Grunde liege” (23). The approaches of Luz and of Bornkamm were anticipated almost two hundred years earlier. 200

32

Chapter 1: Introduction

5,21–48 and 6,19–7,11 have exactly the same length207 and that Matt 6,10b/c is both statistically and thematically the centre of the SM. 5,1–2 Proem Conclusion Key words Main teaching On piety Sayings on prayer Lord’s Prayer

7,28 –29 5,3– 16 7,13– 27 7,12

5,17– 20 5,21 –48

6,19– 7,11 6,1– 6

6,16– 18 6,14– 15

6,7–8 6,9– 13

Some scholars see the centrality of the Lord’s Prayer more on a thematic level than on a literary one.208 Luz’s theory makes more sense, but is at the end too sophisticated. 1.2.3 The Sermon on the Mount as Rhetorical Composition and as Deliberative Speech The SM and the SP are as sermons very brief. It takes about four minutes to perform the SP, and Matt 5–7 would last about ten to twelve minutes. However, there is a growing awareness that the SP 209 and the SM have a rhetorical character (G. A. Kennedy,210 B. L. Mack,211 F. Zeilinger,212 J. C.

207

Both have 56 lines in Nestle/Aland’s NT27 edition. Bornkamm, “Aufbau” 419–432 (= idem, Studien 43–58). The similar view of Guelich, Comm 36–39 has the most impact on the exegesis of Matt 6,19ff (pp. 363–381). 209 Wolter, Comm (Luke) 245 (“dem rhetorischen Genus deliberativum […] zuzurechnen”). 210 Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric 126: Matt 5,3–12 (poetic introduction); 5,13–16 (prooemium), 5,17–48 + 6,1–7,20 (statements + injunctions); 7,21–27 (epilogue). He completely revised this outline in idem, New Testament Interpretation 39–63 and is closer to the outline of Thom (see n. 216). 211 Mack, Rhetoric 82–85: “designed to support his depiction of Jesus as the inaugurator of a new ethic of righteousness” (81). He calls the SM a “deliberative speech” (85). 212 Zeilinger, Comm 20–27 (“Matthäus und die Rhetorik”). 208

33

1.2 Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount

Thom213 and hinted to by some others214). It has increasingly been recognised as an alternative to the understanding of the SM as a collection or epitome.215 It is no surprise that scholars disagree about the exact rhetorical composition. The extension of exordium, propositio and peroratio, plus the composition of 6,19–7,12 will always be a matter of discussion. Kennedy sees 5,3–16 as the proem, 5,17–20 as the thesis, 5,21–7,20 as the headings and 7,21–27 as the peroratio/epilogue. Thom suggests a slightly different solution.216 I will argue for the following outline: exordium

propositio

Beatitudes

Key words

5,3–10 + 11–12

5,13–16 5,17–20

Argumentatio I Antitheses on relationship 5,21–48

probatio Argumen- Argumentatio II tatio III Antitheses Parables on priority on piety 6,1–18

6,19–34

peroratio Argumentatio IV Parables on reciprocity

Conclusion

7,1–12

7,13–27

The exordium and peroratio (beginning and concluding parts) give the key words: Kingdom of God, righteousness, will of God, hearing and doing. Likewise does the propositio (5,17–20 plus 5,13–16). The probatio has four steps of argumentation, where rhetorical composition and thematic outline correspond. The four rhetorical steps unfold the love commandment (love of neighbour, 5,21–48, of God, 6,1–18 and 6,19–34, of neighbour, 7,1–12). In the framework of the rhetorical composition, the distribution of parables is significant. Both the SP and the SM consist in the peroratio nearly entirely of parables. The SM uses metaphorical language more frequently than the SP, and in all parts:217 5,3–16 2 parables 2 metaphors metonyms 213

5,21–48 3 parables examples, maxim 2 hyperboles, etc.

6,19–34 5 parables 1 hyperbole 3 maxims

7,1–12 2 parables 2 examples 2 maxims

7,13–27 5 parables 4 elaborated metaphors

Thom, “Justice” 314–338. Fitzmyer, Comm (Luke) 628–629 finds in the SM exordium (5,3–16) and propositio (5,17–20) followed by three treatises: 5,21ff on righteousness of the Scribes, 6,1– 18 on righteousness of the Pharisees, and 6,19ff on the better way to righteousness. 215 It is remarkable that H. D. Betz, who (re-)introduced the rhetorical reading of Paul in his commentary on Galatians, rejects a similar reading of the SM, partly because he argued strongly in favour of the genre epitome, but also because of his – rather complicated – source analysis. 216 Thom, “Justice” 315ff: Matt 5,3–16, exordium; 5,17–20, propositio; 5,21–7,12, probatio; 7,13ff, peroratio. Similarly another Stellenbosch scholar, H. J. B. Combrink, in J. G. van der Watt, ed., Identity, Ethics and Ethos in the New Testament (BZNW 141. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 2006) 33–36. 217 We have two hyperboles in Matt 5,17ff and six hyperboles in Matt 6,1–18. 214

34

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.2.3.1 Rhetoric and the Audience Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian or actual speakers know that the audience of a speech has an immense impact on the message. The inventio, the preparation for the use of arguments, the style, examples, etc.218 had to ask: “To whom is the SM addressed?” The ambivalence in Matt 5,1 (੉įઅȞ į੻ IJȠઃȢ ੕ȤȜȠȣȢ … ʌȡȠıોȜșĮȞ Į੝IJ૶ Ƞੂ ȝĮșȘIJĮ੿ Į੝IJȠ૨) cannot be solved with the theses that the SM is a speech addressed to the disciples.219 Luke avoids this ambivalence by using the rhetorical figure of apostrophe in 6,20 (ȀĮ੿ Į੝IJઁȢ ਥʌ੺ȡĮȢ IJȠઃȢ ੑijșĮȜȝȠઃȢ Į੝IJȠ૨ İੁȢ IJȠઃȢ ȝĮșȘIJ੹Ȣ Į੝IJȠ૨). The woes to the rich (Luke 6,23–26) and the vague introductions in Luke 6,27 and 6,39220 want to prepare for the concluding remark in Luke 7,1: “after the speech to the public”. The agreement between Matt 7,28–29 and Luke 7,1 indicates that the audience for this fundamental Qspeech was a general public. However, Luke is concerned about the audience, and about the situation in which a word was spoken: Matthew (public audience) 5,3–12 5,13 5,14–15 5,17–20 5,21–48 6,1.4.8.18 6,9–14 6,19–21 6,22–23 6,24 6,25–34 7,7–11 7,13–14

Luke 6,20–23 14,34–35 8,16; 11,33 16,17 16,18 (5,31–32); 12,58–59 (5,25) 16,14 11,1–4 12,33–34 11,34–36 16,13ȱ 12,22–31 11,9–13 13,23–24

Audience in Luke disciples public disciples and public Pharisees Pharisees Pharisees disciples disciples public disciples disciples disciples public

As audience-criticism221 has shown there is more constancy than variety in the references to the audiences in the Gospels, but the differences are most striking 218

Aristotle, Rhet. 1.3 (1358bff); 2.12–17 (1388b–1391b); Cicero, esp. in his book De inventione; Quintilian, Inst. 3.3.1–15. Cf. C. Perelman/L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric (Notre Dame et al.: University of Notre Dame Press 1969) 17–40. 219 Lohfink, Jesus von Nazaret: Was er wollte, wer er war (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 2011) 46–50 and comprehensively in idem, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? 18–38. 220 Luke gives three introductory remarks in the SP, in fact three headlines and three addresses: Luke 6,20: Į੝IJઁȢ ਥʌ੺ȡĮȢ IJȠઃȢ ੑijșĮȜȝȠઃȢ Į੝IJȠ૨ İੁȢ IJȠઃȢ ȝĮșȘIJ੹Ȣ Į੝IJȠ૨ ਩ȜİȖİȞ. Luke 6,27: ਝȜȜ੹ ਫ਼ȝ૙Ȟ Ȝ੼ȖȦ IJȠ૙Ȣ ਕțȠ઄ȠȣıȚȞ (more to the public). Luke 6,39: ǼੇʌİȞ į੻ țĮ੿ ʌĮȡĮȕȠȜ੽Ȟ Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣ (definitely to the public). 221 T. W. Manson, Teaching 66–68 (overview) and 18ff started this approach; the audience influences both “matter” and “method” in the teaching of Jesus. P. S. Minear

1.3 Parables and the Sources of the Sermon on the Mount

35

here. The sayings in the SM have a different audience in nine of the Lukan texts, and Luke is normally so concerned about the audience that he would hardly have replaced the audience arbitrarily. Was Matthew so little concerned about the audience that he was free to integrate many logia into the SM?222

1.3 Parables and the Sources of the Sermon on the Mount The majority of scholars accept for good reasons a form of “two-source theory”. The two-document hypothesis was based on four premises:223 – The priority of Mark; Matthew and Luke used the same edition. – The Q-material originates from only one source, and is used in the same edition.224 – The sources were written. It would undermine the basic theory if oral transmission was a dominating factor. – Matthew and Luke used their sources independently. Luke was not influenced by Matthew or vice versa.225 A number of older and more recent approaches claim to be based on the two-document theory, but in fact undermine one or more of these four basic principles. The four-document theory, or the theory that Mark knew Q,226 or the theory that we have many editions of Q neglect at least one of them, and form criticism denied the second and the third premise in order made many contributions in articles, and for a more comprehensive view: J. Baird, Audience Criticism and the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster 1969). 222 This has a huge impact on the understanding of Q. Is Luke or Matthew closer to Q? Was Q like Luke concerned about the audience of a saying? Has Q, like Matthew, a more thematic approach? A peculiar feature in Luke is to give many of the ʌĮȡĮȕȠȜĮ઀ a certain address, and mostly a general address/the people: Luke 4,23; 5,36; 6,39; 8,4; 12,16.41; 13,6; 14,7; 18,1; 19,11; 20,9; 21,29. Few parables have the disciples (8,9ff) or the Pharisees (15,3; 18,9) as addressees. When Luke refers to the audience in the introduction of the parables, an interpretation is indicated. 223 O. Linton, “Das Dilemma der synoptischen Forschung”, TLZ 101 (1976) 881–892, also idem, “The Q-Problem Reconsidered”, in D. E. Aune, ed., Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature (FS A. Wikgren. Leiden: Brill 1972) 43–59; also my discussion in Theologie 216ff. 224 It is not necessary to summarise the history of research and it is rather complicated to do so, due to the lack of consensus. Bergemann, Q 14–47 gave a rather arbitrary analysis of the history of research. He did not mention a lot of important contributions (Heinrici, Bultmann, Dibelius, Larfeld, etc.). C. M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1996) 47–75 and J. M. Robinson et al., Critical Edition of Q 19– 71 offer good remarks. Robinson prepares here openly for his “Critical edition”. 225 Few (e.g. M. Hengel) have supported or worked out the theory of Matthew’s dependence on Luke. 226 So the IQP-group, and many others, e.g. H. Fleddermann, Q 75ff who thinks Q is the oldest source and that Mark knew Q. Matthew and Luke used both Q and Mark.

36

Chapter 1: Introduction

to establish a process-theory. To deny the priority of Mark leads to the collapse of the entire two-document theory. However, one modification must be made: We have a too modern perspective based on our book production and book publishing if we assume that “Mark” was exactly the text we have and Q is the text we reconstruct.227 An independent usage means that Matthew and Luke emphasised, corrected or even tried to replace Q and Mark in different ways. Scholarship has too readily assumed theological interests behind their use of sources. One should rather take literary and rhetorical interests plus publication strategies more into account. The impact of source theories on exegesis is extremely important. Sometimes the way exegetes use them is more important than the “source theories” as such. I will differentiate between two ways of using source theories: a. The paradigm “tradition-redaction”. If we assume that one can exactly reconstruct the source (pre-text, “Vorlage”) the interests of the redactor can be described very accurately. For the literary critics, the pre-text was written sources (according to the actual reconstruction), for the form critics it was the oral traditions, and for the redaction critics it was both written sources and the smaller units the form critics had reconstructed. b. The paradigm “open theory about sources and study of the rhetorical effort”. We can only to a certain extent (sometimes 90%, sometimes less than 30%) reconstruct the pre-text. A rough picture of the pre-text is often possible, but we have to concentrate on the literary/rhetorical achievements in the present text. 1.3.1 An “Inaugural Discourse” as Pre-Text? The close parallels of the SM to Luke’s SP are different from all other parallels, and exegetes assume that the SM and the SP reflect the memory of an early, fundamental speech. The best arguments for the theory are the content and the common outline: Beatitudes Retaliation The Golden Rule Love the enemy Be like God Don’t judge Splitter and log Tree and fruit Lord-saying The House that prevails

Matthew 5,3–12 5,39–42 7,12 5,43–47 5,48 7,1 7,3–5 7,16–20 7,21 7,24–27

Luke 6,20–26 (minus 6,24–26) 6,27–31 6,32 6,33–35 6,36 6,37(–38) 6,41–42 6,43–46 (minus 6,45) 6,46 6,47–49

227 Recent text criticism shows that the copyists followed other rules, and a too strict understanding of “sources” should be avoided. If Q was an epitome, and Mark ਕʌȠȝȞȘȝȠȞİ઄ȝĮIJĮ (Justin’s characterisation) they were not designed for publication.

1.3 Parables and the Sources of the Sermon on the Mount

37

Matthew and Luke have the same beginning and end, and except for the Golden Rule they have exactly the same sequence. When following the pre-text they do have the same order. In the common tradition outside the SM/SP they might be close when it comes to wording, but often very different in order. Of the 30 verses Luke conveys in the SP about 20 are very similar to Matthew’s sayings in the SM. Matthew has nearly every saying of the SP. This implies that a historical analysis of the SM can never be done isolated from Luke/the SP.228 These observations defend the theory that Matthew/ the SM and Luke/the SP use Q and that an “inaugural speech” existed in Q. The SM and the SP are difficult to compare from a rhetorical point of view.229 Both the SM and the SP are deliberative speeches, but Luke has three speeches in one and has therefore no clear propositio – which according to Aristotle is necessary in this kind of speech.230 Matthew extends – according to his normal procedure – the saying Matt 6,12/Luke 6,23 to a real propositio implying clearly a deliberative speech. Luke

Matthew

A. 6,20–26: exordium Beatitudes plus the Woes (B) C. 6,27–38: argumentatio (On reciprocity)

A. 5,3–16: exordium Beatitudes plus salt/light-sayings B. 5,12(13)–20: propositio C. 5,21–7,12: argumentatio 5,21–38: 4 Antitheses 5,39–47: On retaliation/love of enemies 5,48: God’s perfection as model 6,1–18: Piety 6,19–7,12: Loving God & your neighbour 7,1–5: On judging 7,6–12: On reciprocity D. 7,13–27: peroratio (parable-speech)

6,27–35: On retaliation/love of enemies 6,36: Mercy of God as model

6,37(–38): On judging D. 6,39–49: peroratio (parable-speech)

1.3.1.1 Parables and the Content of the Inaugural Speech in Q: Mark and the Gospel of Thomas as Comparison Most scholars assume that Luke is closer to the original version, and that Matthew extended the speech substantially. This is a reasonable assumption, but it leaves many questions open. A comparison with Mark and the Gospel of Thomas (GTh) and their use of parables should prevent us from too quick conclusions. 228 Even scholars who claim Matthew’s priority, or scholars who because of overstated redaction-criticism or narrative approaches, isolate Matthew, have to deal with the parallels in Luke/Q. 229 For a more comprehensive analysis, see my article “Auf der Spur einer ‘Grundsatzrede’ vor der Bergpredigt?” (forthcoming). 230 Aristotle, Rhet. 3.13 (1314a/b).

38

Chapter 1: Introduction

The two-source theory has some weak points, and one of them is the “minor agreements” between Matthew and Luke in the Markan material. Another weakness is the overlaps between Mark and Q. The parablematerial has six or seven of them. lamp hidden measure given more mustard seed salt (on scandals)

Mark 4,21 4,22 4,24 4,25 4,30–32 9,50 9,43ff

Luke 11,33 12,2 6,38 19,26 13,18–19 14,33 17,1–2

Matthew 5,15 10,26 7,2 25,29 13,31–32 5,13 5,29–30

Other GTh 5

GTh 20

Matthew has half of the Markan sayings outside the SM. Mark has three short sayings of the SM (Matt 5,13.15; 7,2) in a different form.231 It should be noticed, however, that Matthew has all these sayings in his five speeches (5–7; 10; 13; 18; 23–25). The GTh has many parables, but we do not find any of the longer parables in the SM/SP.232 The strongest case for the knowledge of the parables in Q is Matt 7,3ff. The parable of the city on a hilltop (Matt 5,14), on left and right (6,3) and on pearls before swine (7,6) have parallels in the GTh, but the differences in wording and tendency are much greater. The other sayings from the SM with parallels in the GTh are also in Luke,233 but always outside the SP. The list is as follows: Matthew (SM) 5,14: the city on a hilltop 5,15: the lamp (5,39ff) 6,3: left and right 6,20: treasures and moth 6,22: light in the eye 6,24: two masters 6,26–30: do not worry 7,3–5: log and beam 7,6: holy/dogs, pearl/pigs

GTh 32 33,2–3; 24,3 (45,3–4; 95,1–2) 62 76,3 24,3 47,2 36; POxy 655 (Agr 124) 26,1–2 93 and Agr 165

Luke 11,33; 8,16/Mark 4,11 (6,34–35) 12,33 11,34ff 16,13 12,24–28 6,41–42

231 Fleddermann, Mark and Q 75, 209ff, esp. 214–215. The closest parallel is Mark 4,21/Matt 5,15. 232 A. Lindemann, “Gleichnisinterpretation” 214–243 gives an analysis of many of the parables. 233 S. Gathercole, “Luke in the Gospel of Thomas”, NTS 57 (2011) 114–144 argues that Luke has influenced the GTh (more extensively in Gathercole’s recent book on the GTh, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences [SNTSMS 151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012]).

1.3 Parables and the Sources of the Sermon on the Mount

39

The question of the relation between the GTh and Q will be analysed in the exegesis of the texts listed here.234 The peculiar interpretation of some of the parables in the GTh is important to investigate apart from any sourcecritical assumption, and we will also take into account the relation between the GTh and Q in general, which has so far not been analysed in the vast literature on the GTh.235 1.3.2 Reconstruction Possible? Many scholars defend the two-document hypothesis and the so-called “moderate view on Q”.236 It is therefore surprising that the more recent comprehensive source-critical investigations of the SM challenge these views. H.-T. Wrege,237 K. Syreeni,238 M. Krämer239 and T. Bergemann240 are critical of Q as common source for Matthew and Luke for different reasons. At the end they have totally different solutions, but all of them disagree with some of the basic principles in the classical two-document position. They have many forerunners, among others C. F. G. Heinrici who in his groundbreaking study in 1899241 anticipated the view of the “formhistory school” and proposed “small units” as the origin of the SM. Bultmann agreed and gave an extensive description of the growth of the tradition.242 Wrege intended to offer an alternative following Jeremias’s suggestions that Q was a flexible oral tradition in analogy to rabbinic sour-

234 A comprehensive discussion on the relationship between the GTh and the Synoptic Gospels is not necessary in this study. I try to avoid the extreme positions: both the theory that the GTh is older or an early independent pre-Gnostic tradition and the theory that the GTh is a young, Gnostic source based on the Synoptic Gospels. Every parallel must be evaluated separately. 235 H. Koester, “The Synoptic Saying Source and the Gospel of Thomas”, in J. S. Kloppenborg, ed., The Shape of Q (Minneapolis: Fortress 1994) 35–50, excerpted from HTR 61 (1968) 203–247 = Robinson/Koester, Trajectories 158–204. 236 Particularly British scholars like Catchpole, Quest 1–7 (59) and Tuckett, Q 1–40 and the contributions in A. Lindemann, ed., The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense XLIX/BETL 158. Leuven: Leuven University Press 2001), esp. 164–185 (Lindemann, “Die Logienquelle Q”). F. Watson, “Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology”, NTS 55 (2009) 397–415 is more cautious. 237 Wrege, Überlieferungsgeschichte 2–5 puts the conclusions first. 238 K. Syreeni, The Making of the Sermon on the Mount (AASF 44. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia 1987) 160ff. 239 Krämer, Überlieferungsgeschichte 220–221. 240 Bergemann, Q 229ff. 241 Heinrici, Comm I, 75–76 (conclusion). 242 Bultmann concludes the analysis of forms (“Synthese”) with reflections on the growth of the tradition.

40

Chapter 1: Introduction

ces.243 Bergemann offers a totally different alternative and argues for an old-fashioned theory of one source (“Grundrede”) as the origin. He works with very strict criteria,244 so less than 20% (only about 20 of the 105 verses) of the so-called Q-material is word for word the same in the SM and the SP, compared with about 80% in the Q-material in total. A third alternative is offered by Syreeni. He gives a “procedural analysis of Matthew’s redactional activity”, a process-theory using insights from form and redaction criticism.245 In current exegesis two theories are more influential, particularly the Qgospel theory behind the international Q-project (IQP) which J. M. Robinson started more than fifty years ago with a theory of the genre of Q.246 The group has produced a critical edition of Q and developed a synopsis based on four assumptions – all with tensions to the classical two-document theory:247 1. Q is the oldest Gospel,248 and they stress the gospel-character of Q. 2. Q reflects two or three stages of development, from a sapiential to an apocalyptic stratum.249 The slogan was “excavation of Q”.250 3. According to IQP we find the best order and material of Q in Luke.251 4. IQP also 243 Wrege, Überlieferungsgeschichte 2(–5). Also Th. Soiron, Die Logia Jesu: Eine literarkritische und literargeschichtliche Untersuchung zum synoptischen Problem (NTA 6/4. Münster: Aschendorff 1916) had similar ideas, and Soiron was also a forerunner of the form-history school. Wrege’s general solution is so vague that it is hardly any solution at all. H. D. Betz, Synoptische Studien 254–255 gives a harsh criticism of Wrege’s position (“out-dated before it appeared”). 244 Bergemann, Q 229–236: 34% when counting common words (145 of 422 are identical, 277 are different). Cf the overview pp. 56–60 245 Syreeni, The Making of the Sermon on the Mount – see the subtitle: A Procedural Analysis of Matthew’s Redactoral Activity. 246 More than 50 years ago (in E. Dinkler, ed., Zeit und Geschichte [FS R. Bultmann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1964] 77–96) J. M. Robinson launched his thesis that the genre of Q is “ȜંȖȠȚ ıȠij૵Ȟ”. W. Schrage, Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen Synoptikerdeutung (BZNW 29. Berlin: de Gruyter 1964) came out in the same year. The rather comprehensive title indicates his evaluation of the Coptic texts. This book has for a long time been an obstacle for further research on Q and the GTh. 247 Robinson/Koester, Trajectories 71–113 (Entwicklungslinien 67–106, an extension of Robinson’s article “ȁȅīȅǿ Ȉȅĭȍȃ” in FS Bultmann, 77–96), here 94, n. 47. 248 Fleddermann, Q 172ff (p. 183 with an illustration). 249 Kloppenborg’s Formation and Syreeni’s The Making of the Sermon on the Mount were published in the same year (1987). Kloppenborg operates with two strata in Q whereas Syreeni found three layers of Q in the SM. 250 Kloppenborg, Formation 37ff and programmatically in Excavating Q sees the reconstruction as a sort of “archaeology”. The question is, however, whether it is archaeology with or without data (to this term, Baasland, Theologie 385–386). 251 Since the beginning of the 1970s the reconstruction of Q seems to have reached such a degree of credibility that a number of Q-synopses came out (A. Polag, S. Schulz, W. Schenk, F. Neirynck, J. S. Kloppenborg, H. Fleddermann, P. Hoffmann/C. Heil, and

1.3 Parables and the Sources of the Sermon on the Mount

41

assumes that the GTh has traditions that are older than the Synoptic sources. The premises for the two-document theory that the common material derives from one source and that Matthew and Luke used the same edition are denied in the most influential commentaries by H. D. Betz252 and U. Luz.253 Both agree that tradition and redaction can be clearly separated and that Q exists in at least two different editions, but Betz has elaborated on the theory of two different editions of Q (Qmatt and Qluke) most. This theory shakes in fact one of the basic pillars of the two-document theory.254 1.3.3 Open Questions and Criteria for the Evaluation Why are the SM and the SP so different? Can the classical “moderate view on Q” still be applied on the SM? Why is only about 30% of Q transmitted in the same way by Matthew and Luke?255 Are editorial tendencies in the SM different from elsewhere in Matthew? Why do Matthew and Luke treat Q with freedom in the first and fundamental speech in Q? Matthew sometimes seems to be very conservative and Luke very radical in their treatment of the same text. Sometimes it is the other way round. The question of criteria for the reconstruction is occasionally raised.256 In this book the following criteria will be used: Sequence (order, outline) is important, material (content, tradition) is decisive. The question of audience will mostly be analysed, and also the form (genre) and style (rhetorical tools). Vocabulary (exact wording) must be considered. In certain cases Aramaic features can illuminate the source-discussion.257 If comprehensively, J. M. Robinson et al., The Critical Edition of Q) and Q-commentaries were written (Schulz, Q; Catchpole, Quest; Fleddermann, Q, etc.). Also F. Neirynck saw Luke as a primary source in his reconstruction of Q. 252 H. D. Betz has more than Luz undermined the two-source theory with his very complex theory on the development of Q from oral tradition to different stages of written sources. H. D. Betz, Synoptische Studien 249–269 (“Sermon on the Mount and Q”) defends his position comprehensively. 253 Similarly to Streeter, Four Gospels 253: “That difficulty disappears, if … Matthew and Luke had each a different version of the same Sermon.” 254 P. Hoffmann, “Betz and Q”, ZNW 88 (1997) 197–210, Deines, Gerechtigkeit 32–39 and Krämer, Überlieferungsgeschichte 246–254 criticise H. D. Betz from different perspectives. 255 This is the result of Bergemann’s disputable word-statistical analysis in Q auf dem Prüfstand. Bergemann’s tool is useful as a sort of Occam’s razor, but it should not be used for more than that. 256 A. Denaux, “Criteria for Identifying Q-Passages”, NovT 37 (1995) 105–129 represents a remarkable exception. 257 J. Wellhausen used this as a criterion in the first edition of his Einleitung. Later he became more hesitant. It is sometimes a matter of preferences (petitio principii) whether one should reconstruct an Aramaic text behind the Greek wording.

42

Chapter 1: Introduction

the Greek text makes sense, there are few reasons for going behind it to an Aramaic pre-text. If the text is enigmatic, if unique words or words with strange meaning occur an Aramaic text can be considered.

1.4 Parables and the Question of Wisdom versus Eschatology The understanding of the SM has a crucial impact on questions like “law and gospel”, Christianity and culture, disciple-ethics or universal ethics, and on norms for Christian ethics, etc. In theological debates on these issues we have to refer to the SM, and the question of wisdom versus eschatology has to be illuminated. Before 1920 there was a consensus that the SM gives wisdom teaching. In the liberal-orientated historical-critical research the SM was seen as a mixture of Jesus’ original teaching and the theology of early Christianity in Palestine.258 After the First World War the eschatological understanding became very influential in the interpretation of the SM.259 Few have supported A. Schweitzer’s understanding of the SM as “interim”-ethics, but Bultmann’s rather surprising turn to Dialectical Theology260 was only one sign of a shift in exegesis and theology. Eschatology became a key word. The notion of “eschatology” had from the very beginning very diverse meanings,261 but the primacy of eschatology became a common feature in NT exegesis through the Bultmann School. Scholars like J. Jeremias and C. H. Dodd contributed to the dominance of the eschatological understanding. Until more recent contributions it has been nearly 258 W. Bousset, “Bergpredigt”, RGG1 I (1909) 1037–1041 saw a consensus in scholarship. On the theological level he stated different positions (from Tolstoy to Naumann), but he was convinced that scholarship could objectively describe the “eternal value” (“Ewigkeitsgehalt”, 1040) of Jesus’ teaching. 259 W. Bousset, ibid. 1040 argued that the SM is a mixture of Jesus’ original teaching and the theology of early Christianity in Palestine. 260 Baasland, Theologie 57ff. Bultmann labelled most of the sayings in the SM as wisdom-sayings in GST (73–113), but in Jesus 23ff most sayings were treated as eschatological. Windisch, Sinn der Bergpredigt 34–36 was more reluctant in spite of the more general shift in the 1920s. Windisch defended rather Bultmann’s previous position. 261 F. Holmstrøm, Das eschatologische Denken der Gegenwart (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1936 = Det eskatologiska motivet i nutida teologi [Lund: Berling 1933]) demonstrated the diversity: In the 1920s P. Althaus had still a more traditional approach (Die letzten Dinge: Entwurf einer christlichen Eschatologie [Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1922, 4 1933]), but in the interpretation of the SM other positions were debated, e.g.: A. Schweitzer’s so-called consequent eschatology, socialism-inspired approaches (L. Ragaz), K. Barth’s eschatology in terms of Dialectical Theology, R. Bultmann’s concept of eschatology inspired by Heidegger’s thinking, M. Dibelius’s statement that the SM is not “ein Ideal, sondern ein eschatologischer Stimulus” (“Die Bergpredigt” 168), etc.

1.4 Parables and the Question of Wisdom versus Eschatology

43

undisputed that the SM shows the eschatological teaching of Jesus. However, H. Windisch challenged this view in the 1920s.262 He saw the SM as basically wisdom-sayings, but he admits that the SM has an eschatological framework and that many texts have an eschatological character (Matt 5,3– 12, 5,19–20 [go-into-the-Kingdom words]), the parables 5,25–26 and 5,29–30, most of the Lord’s Prayer, 6,19ff, perhaps 6,25ff, 7,1–2, and the last two parables: 7,21–23 and 7,24–27263). The rest of the SM is thoroughly dominated by wisdom-sayings.264 More recent exegetical research gives more support to Windisch’s wisdom-approach. Some scholars see the SM from a Hellenistic philosophical perspective. The dialogue with the philosophical traditions dominates in Betz’s impressive commentary on the SM,265 and the eschatological perspective is only in the periphery.266 The same tendency can be seen in G. Theißen’s contributions to the ethics of Jesus.267 Also scholars who are representing the “Jesus Seminar” and the “Third Quest”268 underline the sapiential elements and even cynic influences 269 in the SM. The parallels in Jewish texts, both in the OT and in the rabbinic teachings, demonstrate the same. Recent interest in wisdom-sayings270 and in Jesus as

262

Windisch, Sinn der Bergpredigt (1928), here the second edition (1937) 8–23. Ibid. 18. 264 This gave Bultmann and Windisch a common ground for exegesis, and in Bultmann’s critical review in Deutsche Literaturzeitung 50 (1929) 985–993 = idem, Theologie als Kritik (ed. M. Dreher/K. W. Müller. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2002) 235–241. Windisch’s understanding of the wisdom elements was not the theme. Bultmann criticised rather Windisch’s clear-cut attitude against “theological exegesis” and the discussion turned into a general theological debate: What kind of ethics is developed? Is the SM gospel or law? What kind of ethics represents the radicalism in the SM? 265 H. D. Betz, Comm (1995) and in his Essays (1985). 266 H. D. Betz underlines the non-apocalyptic character (Synoptische Studien 219–229, esp. 224: “the eschatology of SM is non-apocalyptic” and 228: “SP is non-apocalyptic”). 267 G. Theißen, “Urchristliches Ethos – eine Synthese aus biblischer und griechischer Tradition”, in Chr. Strecker, ed., Kontexte der Schrift II: Kultur, Politik, Religion, Sprache – Text (FS W. Stegemann. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2005) 209–222. He emphasises the eschatological concepts also in “Jesus – Prophet einer millenaristischen Bewegung?”, in A. Merz, ed., Jesus als historische Gestalt: Beiträge zur Jesusforschung (FRLANT 202. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2009) 197–228. 268 Funk et al., eds., The Five Gospels. 269 Particularly F. Gerald Downing, Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in First-Century Tradition (JSOT Manuals 4. Sheffield: JSOT Press 1988) 9– 87 starting with the Q-material. 270 Zeller, Mahnsprüche 11–12; also idem, “Jesu weisheitliche Ethik”, in L. Schenke, ed., Jesus von Nazaret 193–215. 263

44

Chapter 1: Introduction

a wisdom-teacher271 has contributed to a revival of basic assumptions in Windisch’s study on the SM. The parables give an interesting test for a wisdom versus an eschatological approach. Can radicalism and extreme demands in the SM fit into a wisdom framework? The radicalism was easier to handle from the eschatological perspective. If we read the SM as wisdom tradition these demands are not expressions of eschatological enthusiasm, but design for life. The SM conveys a challenging understanding of life and of ethics and theology.

271 Zeller, Mahnsprüche; H. von Lips, Weisheitliche Traditionen; M. Ebner, Jesus – ein Weisheitslehrer? and idem, “‘Weisheitslehrer’ – eine Kategorie für Jesus? Eine Spurensuche bei Jesus Sirach”, in J. Beutler, ed., Der neue Mensch in Christus: Hellenistische Anthropologie und Ethik im Neuen Testament (QD 190. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 2001) 99–119, here 116–119.

Chapter 2

Rhetoric and Metaphorical Language in the Exordium We cannot expect parables in the exordium in Matt 5,3–10(12). A proem seldom has parables, but gives the speech its tenor and cannot be isolated from the rest of the speech. Due to the lack of parables we do not give an extensive historical and exegetical analysis. The purpose is to detect the rhetoric in the exordium and the impact of the metaphorical expressions. The Latin term “beatitudes” dominates in English literature on Matt 5,3–10(12). German scholarship uses the Greek name “macarism” (German: “Seligpreisungen”). The text can be called “exordium” (“prologue”) according to the form and function,1 or “The Gospel of the Kingdom”,2 “Promise of salvation in a conflicting world” etc. 3 according to its interpretation.4

2.1 Rhetoric in the Exordium The Beatitudes are unique both in style and content. Texts like Ps 1 start with a single beatitude. A collection of eight (nine) beatitudes is unique.5 Deut 27–28 ends with a number of blessings and curses; to begin a speech with a number of blessings is also unique. A proem like the Beatitudes does not occur in any other speech. It functions really as an exordium; it gives the horizon for the rest of the speech introducing some of the key words in the SM like e.g. ʌȡĮ૥Ȣ, įȚțĮȚȠı઄ȞȘ, ȕĮıȚȜİ઀Į IJȠ૨ șİȠ૨, țĮȡį઀Į, ȣੂȠ੿ șİȠ૨.6 It also indicates the purpose of the SM as such. It shows that the SM is not “law” or an ethical treatise. 1

Zeilinger, Comm 33. Guelich, Comm 62. 3 Frankemölle, Comm 207 (“Die Zusage des Heils in der Ambivalenz der Welt”) and Gundry, Comm 65: “The Encouraging Word of God as Taught by the Greater Moses to his Persecuted Disciples”. 4 H. D. Betz, Comm 50 (in addition to exordium). 5 Only the recently found text from Qumran, 4Q525 (4QBeat) has five beatitudes. Elsewhere we can find at most two or three. 6 A detail in the exordium shows how conscious Matthew is about this rhetorical tool: The word ʌȠȚİ૙Ȟ is used in the Beatitudes in Matthew in the key-phrase İੁȡȘȞȠʌȠȚȠ઀. Luke does not use the word ʌȠȚİ૙Ȟ in an ethical sense, but in the context of evil-doing, persecution of the prophets. 2

46

Chapter 2: Rhetoric and Metaphorical Language in the Exordium

The Beatitudes have some “epideictic elements”,7 celebrating the blessed people, and these blessings are the “entrance-requirements”. H. Windisch coined this apt expression8 and saw correctly that ethical and eschatological “requirements” are intertwined. Like LipiĔski many scholars distinguish between blessing in the cult and the wisdom-beatitudes referring to daily life. H. D. Betz thinks in terms of a Hellenistic and not so much a cultic setting9 and M. Hengel suggests even a magical context.10 A wisdomsetting is more likely as Windisch, LipiĔski and R. Kieffer have shown.11 2.1.1 The Function and Meaning of the ȝĮț‫ޠ‬ȡȚȠȢ-Sentences Nearly all occurrences of ʩ ʸʒ ˇ ʍ ʠʔ in the OT (57 of 63) are translated in the ʍ ʠʔ -formula in a technical sense LXX with ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȢ, and every time the ʩ ʸʒ ˇ occurs ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ is used. The form ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ Ƞੂ … ੖IJȚ Į੝IJȠ઀ …, however, is rare. The sentence can be understood differently: ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȢ is often understood as interjection and the participial construction as more or less a whole sentence; ੖IJȚ then introduces a second sentence, giving the reason for the status of the addressees as blessed. A different position is at least ʓ ʠʏ ˇʩ   ʠʑ ʤʕ ʚʩ   ʸʒ ˇ ʍ ʠʔ ) we could rather read the formula very likely. Like Ps 1,1 (ʸ ˇ as a two-polar nominal sentence. This means that we should read the Beatitudes as more or less one sentence. If the second sentence is not separated, it must be an explanation of the ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ Ƞੂ … The sentence starting with ੖IJȚ does not so much give the reason (like ʑʩ˗, for example in Ps 1,2) as it gives information about the blessed status. The ੖IJȚ, like the ੖IJȚ recitativum, needs not to be translated. 12 Most commentators overlook the question of ੖IJȚ in the Beatitudes. Dictionaries 13 and grammars14 use to give ੖IJȚ a 7

Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation 45 (“they celebrate qualities”). H. Windisch, “Die Sprüche vom Eingehen in das Reich Gottes”, ZNW 27 (1928) 163–192 and in Sinn 150ff. 9 H. D. Betz, “Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt (Matthäus 5,3–12): Beobachtungen zur literarischen Form und theologischen Bedeutung”, in idem, Studien 31–32, and the argumentation pp. 24–31, downplaying the apocalyptic and eschatological understanding 10 M. Hengel, “Zur matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund”, TRu 52 (1986) 327–400 (= idem, Kleine Schriften II: Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana [WUNT 109. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1999] 219–292), here 335. 11 LipiĔski, “Macarismes”. R. Kieffer, “Vishet och välsignelse som grundmotiv i saligprisningarna hos Matteus och Lukas”, SEÅ 34 (1969) 107–121, esp. 114ff. He claims that an apocalyptic setting is excluded. 12 GTh 69,2 uses ’!&, not denoting too strong reasons, cf. R. Nordsieck, Thomasevangelium 268. Turner, Grammar III, 325–326 explains the frequent use of ੖IJȚ recitativum through the Hebrew ʑʩ˗ (Aramaic ʩʣ). 13 Bauer/Aland, Wörterbuch 1193; BAGD 588–589. 14 Turner, Grammar III, 318. BDR 456.1, 2 with an astonishingly vague argumentation: “kommt in Frage … doch ist auch ‘damit’ möglich” (p. 387). BDF 456 (pp. 238–239) 8

2.1 Rhetoric in the Exordium

47

causal meaning here in spite of the fact that the normal use of ੖IJȚ is not causal. 15 Why should the unusual usage be imposed eight times in such a significant text? ੖IJȚ is rather substitute for the epexegetical infinitive in accordance with the usage in the SM and in Matthew as a whole. The epexegetical usage, the ੖IJȚ recitativum16 and the explicative – and not the causal meaning – dominate here. 17

The Beatitudes mostly lack a copula. This might be Hebrew and Aramaic style, giving a “soft” explanation and not a causal or consecutive one. This means that the apodosis does not give second information. The paradoxical description is the real meaning:18 The poor are not blessed because of their poverty but because they – even as poor – will be given the Kingdom of Heaven. In the same way with the mourners, the meek, the hungry and thirsty, etc. – they receive good news about what they are given: the Kingdom, comfort, the inheritance of the world, etc. The verbs have fut. form except for the pres. form in Matt 5,3.10 (Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ਥıIJȚȞ) that frame the Beatitudes. The exordium has a sophisticated rhetoric and emphasises metaphorical language. Only two of Matthew’s beatitudes lack metaphorical language entirely (5,4: ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ Ƞੂ ʌİȞșȠ૨ȞIJİȢ, ੖IJȚ Į੝IJȠ੿ ʌĮȡĮțȜȘș੾ıȠȞIJĮȚ and 5,7: ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ Ƞੂ ਥȜİ੾ȝȠȞİȢ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJȠ੿ ਥȜİȘș੾ıȠȞIJĮȚ) – both in the protasis and in the apodosis. A broader source-critical discussion19 – or a discussion on authenticity20 – is not necessary. It is sufficient to comment briefly on the common material and on the parallels in the GTh. 21 avoids the argumentation, which means that the grammar has no impact on this very important issue. 15 Bauer/Aland, Wörterbuch think Matt 2,18; 5,4ff; 13,16 have causal meaning (also Mark 1,34; 5,9; Luke 2,46; 6,20ff; 8,30; 10,13). Bauer/Aland do not mention Luke 7,47, which they should. In his notes on ੖IJȚ, in An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 21960) 147, C. F. D. Moule saw the problem, but did not deal with the Beatitudes. The difference between ੖IJȚ and the causal use of įȚંIJȚ in Rom 1,19.21; 3,20; 8,7; Jas 4,3 must not be overlooked. 16 Matt 5,17.20; 6,26; 7,23, and in the theses/antitheses in 5,21ff. 17 Matt 5,34.35.36.36.45; 6,5.7; 7,13.14. The closest parallel to Matt 5,3ff is the beatitude in Matt 13,16 (ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ į੻ ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ Ƞੂ ੑijșĮȜȝȠ੿ ੖IJȚ ȕȜ੼ʌȠȣıȚȞ …). ੖IJȚ here also is closer to the Hebrew ʸʹʠ than to ʩʫ. 18 This is observed by many exegetes in the interpretation, but too little as a linguistic and stylistic observation. 19 Esp. Dupont, Béatitudes I, 209–298; I. Broer, Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt: Studien zu ihrer Überlieferung und Interpretation (BBB 61. Königstein/Ts. et al.: Hanstein 1986) 15–19, 53–63; Luz, Comm 270–271. They discuss the origin and content of the three beatitudes Matthew and Luke have in common; is Luke more original and is the original text a Jesuanic saying? 20 Scholars often identify the “reconstructed Q” with the minimum of common traditions between Luke and Matthew, and assume that this minimum is authentic. 21 Cf. U.-K. Plisch, Thomasevangelium 54–55, 179–180; Nordsieck, Thomasevangelium 216–218, 266–269.

48

Chapter 2: Rhetoric and Metaphorical Language in the Exordium

The differences are at first glance more visible than the similarities even in the three beatitudes that seem to be conveyed from Q. 22 1.

2. 4.

Matt 5,3.4.6 ȂĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ Ƞੂ ʌIJȦȤȠ੿ IJ૶ ʌȞİ઄ȝĮIJȚ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ਥıIJȚȞ ਲ ȕĮıȚȜİ઀Į IJ૵Ȟ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞ૵Ȟ. ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ Ƞੂ ʌİȞșȠ૨ȞIJİȢ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJȠ੿ ʌĮȡĮțȜȘș੾ıȠȞIJĮȚ. ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ Ƞੂ ʌİȚȞ૵ȞIJİȢ țĮ੿ įȚȥ૵ȞIJİȢ IJ੽Ȟ įȚțĮȚȠı઄ȞȘȞ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJȠ੿ ȤȠȡIJĮıș੾ıȠȞIJĮȚ.

1.

3. 2.

Luke 6,20–21 ȂĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ Ƞੂ ʌIJȦȤȠ઀, ੖IJȚ ਫ਼ȝİIJ੼ȡĮ ਥıIJ੿Ȟ ਲ ȕĮıȚȜİ઀Į IJȠ૨ șİȠ૨. ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ Ƞੂ țȜĮ઀ȠȞIJİȢ Ȟ૨Ȟ ੖IJȚ ȖİȜ੺ıİIJİ. ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ Ƞੂ ʌİȚȞ૵ȞIJİȢ Ȟ૨Ȟ ੖IJȚ ȤȠȡIJĮıș੾ıİıșİ.

GTh 54

69

The form ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ Ƞੂ … ੖IJȚ is the same in Matthew and Luke, and it is relatively easy to explain the differences and the additions in Matthew.23 Matthew uses Į੝IJȠ઀/Į੝IJ૵Ȟ. The Lukan ਫ਼ȝİIJ੼ȡĮ is due to the disciple-audience. The description in the protasis is extended in Matthew with IJ૶ ʌȞİ઄ȝĮIJȚ and įȚȥ૵ȞIJİȢ IJ੽Ȟ įȚțĮȚȠı઄ȞȘȞ. Luke adds twice Ȟ૨Ȟ. The promises in the apodosis are more similar. From a rhetorical point of view Matthew shows more literary skill through rhythm and alliterations. There are two striking parallels between the Beatitudes and GTh: Matt 5,3/Luke 6,20 Blessed are the poor Matt 5,6/Luke 6,21 Blessed are the hungry, so the stomach …

GTh 54 0{%#*!'+&&0 # GTh 69,2 0z%#*!'+&,0#!, ’!&-&,+!'{0 z(,'-/’

The first beatitude is very similar, and the addition “for to you belongs Heaven’s Kingdom” (w,/,{,,%{ ,*'&z( -‫ )ތ‬is very close to the SM. The second about the “stomach that might be filled” is far from the synoptic tradition. The two beatitudes in the GTh are scattered which indicates that the GTh doesn’t know the inaugural discourse in Q. A retranslation of the text both in Luke and Matthew into Hebrew and Aramaic is relatively easy. 24 Matthew used the Hebrew Psalm-texts in most of his additions, so the question is: Do the additions that don’t derive from the Psalms have a Hebrew or Aramaic flavour? The actual phrases are IJ૶ ʌȞİ઄ȝĮIJȚ (Matt 5,3), Ƞੂ İੁȡȘȞȠʌȠȚȠ઀ (5,9) and Ƞੂ įİįȚȦȖȝ੼ȞȠȚ ਪȞİțİȞ įȚțĮȚȠı઄ȞȘȢ (5,10). We will see that they have a bit more Aramaic flavour than other parts of the Beatitudes.

22 Dupont, Béatitudes I, 251ff, 272ff gives an extensive analysis of these three beatitudes and their possible relation to Q. 23 The question here is the metaphorical character, and not the source-critical questions about the origin of the Beatitudes, cf. Dupont, Béatitudes I, 254–257, 343ff; Broer, Seligpreisungen, esp. 57–63; H. D. Betz, Comm 105ff. Luz, Comm 271ff argues on the basis of source-, tradition- and redaction-criticism. 24 Dalman, Worte Jesu 140; C. F. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford: Clarendon 1925) 166–167 and somehow different G. Schwarz, “Und Jesus sprach”: Untersuchungen zur aramäischen Urgestalt der Worte Jesu (BWANT 118. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1987) 161–162.

49

2.2 Rhetoric in Matthew’s Additions

2.2 Rhetoric in Matthew’s Additions The additions in the protasis and the apodosis peculiar to Matthew are the following: Ƞੂ ʌȡĮİ૙Ȣ Ƞੂ ਥȜİ੾ȝȠȞİȢ Ƞੂ țĮșĮȡȠ੿ IJૌ țĮȡį઀઺ Ƞੂ İੁȡȘȞȠʌȠȚȠ઀ Ƞੂ įİįȚȦȖȝ੼ȞȠȚ ਪȞİțİȞ įȚțĮȚȠı઄ȞȘȢ

Į੝IJȠ੿ țȜȘȡȠȞȠȝ੾ıȠȣıȚȞ IJ੽Ȟ ȖોȞ Į੝IJȠ੿ ਥȜİȘș੾ıȠȞIJĮȚ Į੝IJȠ੿ IJઁȞ șİઁȞ ੕ȥȠȞIJĮȚ Į੝IJȠ੿ ȣੂȠ੿ șİȠ૨ țȜȘș੾ıȠȞIJĮȚ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ਥıIJȚȞ ਲ ȕĮıȚȜİ઀Į IJ૵Ȟ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞ૵Ȟ

These additions fit into a larger pattern. Matthew prefers a certain kind of additions: ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ

Ƞੂ ʌIJȦȤȠ੿

ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ

Ƞੂ ʌİȞșȠ૨ȞIJİȢ Ƞੂ ʌȡĮİ૙Ȣ Ƞੂ ʌİȚȞ૵ȞIJİȢ țĮ੿ įȚȥ૵ȞIJİȢ Ƞੂ ਥȜİ੾ȝȠȞİȢ Ƞੂ țĮșĮȡȠ੿ Ƞੂ İੁȡȘȞȠʌȠȚȠ઀ Ƞੂ įİįȚȦȖȝ੼ȞȠȚ

ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠȚ

Additions IJ૶ ʌȞİ઄ȝĮIJȚ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ

IJ੽Ȟ įȚțĮȚȠı઄ȞȘȞ IJૌ țĮȡį઀઺

੖IJȚ Į੝IJȠ੿ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJȠ੿ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJȠ੿

ਥıIJȚȞ ਲ ȕĮıȚȜİ઀Į ʌĮȡĮțȜȘș੾ıȠȞIJĮȚ țȜȘȡȠȞȠȝ੾ıȠȣıȚȞ ȤȠȡIJĮıș੾ıȠȞIJĮȚ

੖IJȚ Į੝IJȠ੿ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJȠ੿ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJȠ੿

ਥȜİȘș੾ıȠȞIJĮȚ ੕ȥȠȞIJĮȚ țȜȘș੾ıȠȞIJĮȚ

ਪȞİțİȞ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ įȚțĮȚȠı઄ȞȘȢ

ਥıIJȚȞ ਲ ȕĮıȚȜİ઀Į

Additions IJ૵Ȟ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞ૵Ȟ IJ੽Ȟ ȖોȞ

IJઁȞ șİંȞ ȣੂȠ੿ șİȠ૨ IJ૵Ȟ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞ૵Ȟ

A first observation is Matthew’s typical additions (in columns 3 and 7) with more metaphorical language than Luke has in the Beatitudes. Secondly, the construction of the additions is very conscious. Matthew achieves a sophisticated pattern through these additions: the two groups, 5,3–6 and 5,7–10 contain 36 words each (20+16 and 16+20).25 The alliterations with ʌ in the first group26 are supplemented with the į- and the ț-alliterations. Thirdly, the two dative and one accusative constructions in Matt 5,3.6.8 are rather unusual (the construction with the preposition ਪȞİțİȞ is somehow different). A fourth observation is the theologically heavy additions in the apodosis: “Kingdom of Heaven”, earth, God and sons of God.

25 Proposed by A. A. Di Lella, “The Structure and Composition of the Matthean Beatitudes”, in M. P. Horgan/P. J. Kobielski, eds., To Touch the Text (FS J. A. Fitzmyer. New York: Crossroad 1989) 237–242, slightly reworked by É. Puech, “4Q425 et la péricope des Béatitudes en Ben Sira et Matthieu”, RB 98 (1991) 80–116. H. Benedict Green, Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes (JSNTSup 203. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 2000) 40 partly accepts this suggestion, but gives a different grouping of the Beatitudes. 26 C. Michaelis, “Die ʌ-Alliteration der Subjektsworte der ersten 4 Seligpreisungen bei Mt., Lk. und Q”, NovT 10 (1968) 148–161.

50

Chapter 2: Rhetoric and Metaphorical Language in the Exordium

2.2.1 The Three (Four) Additions in the Protasis In the first three additions to the Beatitudes Matthew turns a concrete situation into metaphorical language. Two additions have the dative and one the accusative, but the use of dative versus accusative makes little difference: Ƞੂ ʌIJȦȤȠ੿ Ƞੂ ʌİȚȞ૵ȞIJİȢ țĮ੿ įȚȥ૵ȞIJİȢ Ƞੂ țĮșĮȡȠ੿

IJ૶ ʌȞİ઄ȝĮIJȚ IJ੽Ȟ įȚțĮȚȠı઄ȞȘȞ IJૌ țĮȡį઀઺

Matthew “spiritualises” in all cases. The additions express an “ethics of conviction” (“Gesinnungsethik”), and Luke seems to have conveyed “the inaugural speech” here more correctly. Many scholars think “spiritualising” is typical of Matthew (or of his community) and tend to give a sociological explanation: Matthew changes the original political message into apolitical religious language, changing the focus from a concrete social level/from social needs into something “inward”: religious, psychological or ethical matters. However, some features in the text point in a different direction. We choose here to start with the third addition. 2.2.1.1 Matt 5,8: “Clean in Heart” (Ƞ‫ ݨ‬țĮșĮȡȠ‫ ޥ‬IJ߲ țĮȡįަߠ) It is a basic conviction in the OT and other Jewish texts that only the pure can see God. Purity and purifying procedures and purity-rules have an important impact, and the holiness-code (Lev 19,2)27 underlines that the ʭʩ ˇ ʑ ௴ʣʷʍ should follow all the purity-rules. The same understanding is presupposed in Jesus’ speech against the Pharisees (Matt 23,26) and for instance in the preparation of the burial of Jesus (Matt 27,54). The new understanding of purity in a metaphorical sense is a theological development, particularly in some Psalms and prophetic texts. Matt 5,8 has an obvious allusion to Ps 24,4, one of the “entrance-psalms”: țĮșĮȡઁȢ IJૌ țĮȡį઀઺ = ʡʡʬ ʸʡ. The same expression is also found in Ps 73,1 and similar heart-expressions occur in Pss 119,2.9; 15,2; 40,9. This heart-conception is basically rooted in the Shema, and sometimes the reference to Deut 6,5 is obvious. It is significant that the addition derives from the “entrancepsalm” Ps 24, and that the “Psalm-piety” has influenced the Beatitudes. Both words, “pure” and “heart”, are used metaphorically. Purity is transformed from bodily purity to an inward attitude, and heart is transformed to something like “holy”, related to God. The same transformation can be observed even in the GTh. The expression 0*v¡ 0z ('-0 , in GTh 69,1

The phrase ʭʫʩʤʬʠ ʤʥʤʩ ʩʰʠ ʹʥʣʷ ʩʫ ʥʩʤʺ ʭʩʹʣʷ in Lev 19,2 has the same structure as Matt 5,48. 27

2.2 Rhetoric in Matthew’s Additions

51

(“persecuted in their heart”) comes very close to the expression in Matt 5,8.28 “In heart” is linguistically a dative of respect29 that intensifies the meaning. Jesus did not preach purity and observance of purity rules as premise for seeing God. Jesus had the opposite of a defensive strategy: to defend from unclean persons and objects by putting up fences. Jesus’ offensive strategy is unique,30 and Matthew emphasises this concept of a clean heart. “Spiritualising”, “ethical bias” and “inward perspective” were commonplace in many Jewish texts. Matthew’s additions in Matt 5,3–10 give both a concrete and a metaphorical meaning. Matthew intensifies the concrete meaning. 2.2.1.2 Matt 5,6: “Hungry and Thirsty for Righteousness” The same transformation takes place in this expression: The hunger and thirst are transformed into anger against injustice, and the accusative “righteousness/justice” means more than distribution of food and water. The meaning is intensified also here. The metaphorical use of “eat and drink” is well known from many religious texts and also the OT, e.g. in Ps 37,18–19 (after days of sorrow days will come when they do not have any hunger) and Pss 106; 107 follow up the Deuteronomistic theology in Deut 8,3 (“He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, … to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord”). Even Amos with his social pathos makes a similar statement: “not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8,11), and e.g. Prov 9,5 says similarly: “Come, eat my food and drink the wine I have mixed.” In Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah the phrases are connected to righteousness and in Isa 49,9 also to promise of salvation, and that God will “restore the land and reassign its desolate inheritances”. The promise to the servants in Isa 55,1 and particularly in 65,13–14 indicates a reversal;31 joy will replace 28

Plisch, Thomasevangelium 180. BDR 197; Turner, Grammar III, 238–239. Sometimes also called a dativus limitationis, but BDR and Turner (ibid.) avoid the term. The popularity of this dative in koine can be explained in many ways, but in a Jewish context the influence from both ʬ and ʡ contributed to its popularity. BDR 196 and 197 deal with the equivalent use of ਥȞ in this context. 30 K. Berger’s important observation in the article “Jesus als Pharisäer und frühe Christen als Pharisäer”, NovT 30 (1988) 231–262. 31 Isa 65,13–14 (similar to the four woes in Luke 6,24–26): “My servants will eat, but you will go hungry; my servants will drink, but you will go thirsty; my servants will rejoice, but you will be put to shame. My servants will sing out of the joy of their hearts, 29

52

Chapter 2: Rhetoric and Metaphorical Language in the Exordium

“brokenness of spirit” (ʧʥʸ ʸʡʹ) and “anguish of heart” (ʡʬʡʠʫ). The last expression might be reflected in Matt 5,6. In many parts of the OT hunger and thirst are an important issue, and still the hunger and thirst for the word of God and for righteousness are most important. The intensifying addition IJ੽Ȟ įȚțĮȚȠı઄ȞȘȞ (classical acc. of respect 32) reflects the influence from the “Psalm-piety” and also from the theology of Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah on the Beatitudes. Matthew has not invented this concept, but here also he emphasises an important idea. 2.2.1.3 Matt 5,3: “Poor in the Spirit” (Ƞ‫ ݨ‬ʌIJȦȤȠ‫ ޥ‬IJࠜ ʌȞİުȝĮIJȚ) Matt 5,3 is mostly seen as Matthew’s gloss:33 Luke does not have this addition (nor in the parallel “woe”). The qualification disrupts the otherwise perfect parallelism in Q. Two contrary positions have dominated the discussion. A third one is also possible: 2.2.1.3.1 Matthew Has Corrupted the Original Meaning Scholars from different positions still argue that Matthew changed the original social understanding of the text. The original text had an exclusively social meaning. The historical Jesus preached a social gospel, and Luke conveys this original meaning from Q. The social meaning of “poor” is underlined in K. Kautsky’s interpretation (inspired by K. Marx), L. Ragaz’s theological argumentation,34 the sociological approach of L. Schottroff and W. Stegemann,35 and various kinds of liberation and political theologies. Some, like Ragaz, think that Matthew also represents the social meaning, whereas for example U. Luz argues that Matthew consciously moved from a social to a parenetic and more spiritual understanding.36 2.2.1.3.2 Matthew Gives the Right Interpretation The opposite argument is that the religious meaning is original, that Jesus and also Luke and Q had this meaning in mind. The spiritual meaning but you will cry out from anguish of heart and wail in brokenness of spirit.” The needs and the joy belong together, and the Beatitudes are most likely influenced by this text. 32 The use of acc. (and not dat. relationis) is the normal Greek way of expressing references. 33 Davies/Allison, Comm 442 and Luz, Comm 279–280; Broer, Seligpreisungen 69ff. 34 L. Ragaz, Die Bergpredigt Jesu (Bern: Lang 1945 = Gütersloher Taschenbücher Siebenstern 451. Gütersloh: Mohn 31983). 35 L. Schottroff/W. Stegemann, Jesus von Nazareth – Hoffnung der Armen (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1981) 30–32 (32: “volle Wiedergutmachung, voller Ausgleich des Mangels”). 36 Luz, Comm 271, 279 reconstructs the development from Jesus to the “vormatthäische Zufügungen” and to Matthew’s interpretation in order to make the tendency clear (“Die soziale Armut tritt zurück”).

2.2 Rhetoric in Matthew’s Additions

53

makes the apodosis more logical: the poor are not promised prosperity, but the Kingdom of Heaven/God. This might be the general teaching of Jesus or even Luke: He addresses this particular saying to the disciples, 37 and this implies a larger scale of “spiritualising” than in Matthew. The woe in Luke 6,24 does not say that the rich will be poor, but that they have already got their consolation. In the first century C.E. this was an important philosophical theme,38 and Matthew also reflects on it. These two conflicting interpretations might open for a third position: 2.2.1.3.3 Matthew Makes the Meaning More Metaphorically Open The metaphorical understanding of the text is not a compromise. Both words have simultaneously metaphorical and literal value, because of the same transformation as we saw in the previous cases: the spirit qualifies the poverty, and the poverty characterises the spirit. The actual need is the basic experience, and since the human condition has a spiritual side, the addition shows the other side of the same coin. The expression sounds strange in Greek, and Greek-speaking people would have been puzzled by the formulation. The meanings of the words “poor” and “spirit” are in themselves complex, and the unusual way of putting them together is strange, because it combines a relatively positive notion (spirit) with a negative one (poor). More common are two positive notions, like “pure in heart” in Matt 5,8 or “all wise in heart” (Job 37,24: ʡʬʩʮʫʧʬʫ). Perhaps “poor” is not as negative as we tend to think? The exact meaning is dependent on the meaning of “poor”, “spirit” as dative and the background for the tradition in the OT. 2.2.1.3.4 The Meaning of “Poor” What the word “poor” means in Greek is beyond doubt. It cannot mean anything else than needy, poor in the economic and social sense. It reflects the terrible social experience of lacking nearly everything, being suppressed, belonging to the lower class, being excluded, miserable, weak, being dependent upon others or to suffer from diseases, to be freezing. All this happens universally, and in Roman times it was more than previously linked to money. The ʌIJȦȤંȢ was in an even worse state than a ʌ੼ȞȘȢ – in Greek the most common word for poor. A ʌ੼ȞȘȢ was a worker who owned 37 It is obvious through the frame (Luke 6,20), the 2nd pers., and explicitly through the ਫ਼ȝİIJ੼ȡĮ ਥıIJ઀Ȟ in the apodosis. 38 The masterwork, Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes, sums up the theses in the last part (V). In 1.9–15; 2.14ff he argues against the Epicurean view of pain as something evil. In part II he gives a treatise on sorrow (aegritudo, Ȝ઄ʌȘ) and in 4.10–32 he conveys the Stoic teaching of ʌİȡ੿ ʌĮș૵Ȟ. Heinrici, Comm II, 21 and particularly H. D. Betz, Comm 121ff correctly see the connection to other consolatio-texts.

54

Chapter 2: Rhetoric and Metaphorical Language in the Exordium

very little, a poor person, whereas ʌIJȦȤંȢ was mostly a beggar. This special meaning was perhaps one reason for using ʌIJȦȤંȢ in the Beatitudes. The other obvious reason for using ʌIJȦȤંȢ and not ʌ੼ȞȘȢ was the use of ʌIJȦȤંȢ in the LXX. Like the extensive use of ȞંȝȠȢ in the LXX (translating many different words for law, commandments, etc.) ʌIJȦȤંȢ was also used frequently (about 100 times), and most often translated three Hebrew words (39 times ʩʰʠ, 32 times ʬʣ and 11 times ʥʰʠ). At least ʥʰʠ but also ʩʰʠ are used in a religious sense.39 Poor is in this case a positive word and denotes one who is dependent on God’s aid (Pss 9,18; 10,2.8.9–10.14; 18,27; 35,10; 74,19; Zeph 3,12). These and other similar words serve as the designation of people close to God.40 One of the texts that contributed most to the positive meaning is Ps 113,7–8. The first Hallel-Psalm, used by the pilgrims every Passover, says: “He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes.” The link to this “poverty-ideology” in the Psalms and the Prophets has often led to the assumption that the Beatitudes have a group of people in mind, either the pious people in Israel or a peculiar group or party. This allegorical reading is unnecessary, because the Beatitudes refer obviously to the people coming to Jesus. The context (Matt 4,18ff; 8–9 – and 11,5–6) makes this clear. 2.2.1.3.5 The Meaning of Spirit and the Use of the Dative One should be open for different interpretations of “spirit”: divine Spirit, spirit as some sort of religious understanding, or spirit simply referring to the human mind. If we read Matthew as a redactional composition the spirit must mean the divine spirit. Nearly every occurrence of ʌȞİ૨ȝĮ has to do with the divine spirit, from the beginning (Matt 1,20; 3,11.16; 4,1) to the end in Matt 28,19. The only two exceptions can be found in the passion narrative:41 In Matt 27,50 (“he gave up his spirit”) the Hebrew ʹʴʰ (as “breath”, God’s life-giving spirit) is obviously behind the text. The only occurrence 39

Dupont, Béatitudes II, 19–34 (51). H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen I (BKAT 15/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 61989 = ET, Psalms 1–59. Minneapolis: Augsburg 1984) 92–95. The basic assumption is that God cares for the poor (Isa 25,4; Jer 20,13 and also Amos 2,6–8; 4,1–2; Jer 25,28–29), and that is why the Psalms see God as refuge for the needy (Pss 9,13.19; 12,6; 69,34; 76,10; 107,41; 109,31; 113,7; 140,13; 146,41) and as a matter of thanksgiving (e.g. Ps 18,28). The peculiar problem of ʭʩʥʰʠ, which is translated with four different words in the LXX (ʌIJȦȤંȢ, ʌ੼ȞȘȢ, IJĮʌİȚȞંȢ, ʌȡĮ૥Ȣ) is analysed by H. Birkeland, Ɩnî und ƖnƗw in den Psalmen (Skrifter Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo: Historisk-Filosofisk Klasse 1932/4. Oslo: Dybwad 1933) and Hans Kvalbein, Jesus og de fattige (Oslo: Luther 1981) 52–60. 41 The Gethsemane text has the term ʌȞİ૨ȝĮ. Some occurrences deal with the evil spirit contrasting the divine spirit. 40

2.2 Rhetoric in Matthew’s Additions

55

of ʌȞİ૨ȝĮ as referring to the human mind42 is the enigmatic saying Matt 26,41 (“the spirit is willing, the body is weak”). The human spirit is a strong force, but hardly “divine”. If we interpret “spirit” more independently from Matthew’s usage and rather in a Hellenistic context, the notion “human mind” (as in Matt 26,41) has to be considered. H. D. Betz gives the phrase a very sophisticated interpretation: it points to an intellectual insight into the human condition.43 It is a possible interpretation, but less likely because a poor human spirit is obviously not a very attractive status. Most exegetes interpret ʌȞİ૨ȝĮ in a religious sense: meaning “inward person, heart” (like Mark 2,8; 8,12 – or Matt 26,41), or denoting reason (like ȞȠ૨Ȣ, in 1 Cor 2,11.16; Eph 4,23). It is, however, a problem that ʌȞİ૨ȝĮ in this case indicates falling short, meaning lack of wholeness, but can – at best – indicate an attitude of faith or humility, a pious attitude to God. Many prefer this understanding because of the corresponding expression in the OT and the Qumran texts.44 It is indeed strange that IJ૶ ʌȞİ઄ȝĮIJȚ both in Greek and in Hebrew/the OT is an odd phrase, but linguistically the Aramaic ʧʥʸ functions similarly. The Greek word “peace-doer” is also a construction that has an obvious parallel in the Aramaic expression ʭʥʬʹ ʩʹʥʲ. Also the phrase Ƞੂ įİįȚȦȖȝ੼ȞȠȚ ਪȞİțİȞ įȚțĮȚȠı઄ȞȘȢ is not elegant Greek, but can be seen as a translation of e.g. ʤʹʲ ʤʥʤʩ ʺʷʣʶ (Deut 33,21) or as in the very parallel beatitude in Ps 106,3 (ʺʲʬʫʡʤʷʣʶʤʹʲ«ʩʸʹʠ). The meaning of the expression much depends on the meaning of the dative. The similar dative in Matt 5,8 indicates that we – as most scholars suggest – do have a dative of respect. The problem in Matt 5,3, however, is that we here have a negative expression (poor) and not a positive one (pure) as in 5,8. This has led to a number of alternative interpretations of the dative. The dative can have a causal meaning (dativus causae), but this usage is extraordinary,45 and would have given a too sophisticated meaning (“poor due to spirit”), something like voluntarily poor.46 A similar meaning is

42

Zahn, Comm 181ff; Schlatter, Comm 133; Dupont, Béatitudes I, 214ff; II, 19–51. H. D Betz, Comm 115. 44 H. Lichtenberger, “Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt (Mt 5,3–12)”, in idem, ed., Was ist orthodox? Was ist evangelisch? (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2011) 61–79 (70 on the Qumran parallels). 45 BDR 196 and Moulton, Grammar II, 242 give the arguments. 46 C. F. von Weizsäcker translates “Bettelmönche”, in P. Lapide/von Weizsäcker, Die Seligpreisungen: Ein Glaubensgespräch (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag 1980) 8. 43

56

Chapter 2: Rhetoric and Metaphorical Language in the Exordium

given by the dativus instrumentalis47 and even a dativus commodi (poor in favour of the spirit).48 More probable is a dativus sociativus that is used in Jas 2,5 (੒ șİઁȢ ਥȟİȜ੼ȟĮIJȠ IJȠઃȢ ʌIJȦȤȠઃȢ IJ૶ țંıȝ૳),49 a close parallel to Matt 5,3. However, in Jas 2,5 does the dative express “means by which”, 50 and is it really a saying about shortage of spirit? Also a dative of respect can be interpreted as something like “lacking spirit”,51 if we stress the meaning of a dativus limitationis.52 A dative of respect must mean “poor when it comes to spirit”. The spirit is the place where poverty exists.53 Scholars who try to avoid the socio-economic understanding of Matt 5,3 prefer this understanding. It is risky to stress only one understanding of a dative; every choice has its difficulties. A dative of reference cannot subtract the socio-economic meaning. The blessed are really lacking economic power, but the additional focus on an aspect of poverty has to be taken into account; the spiritual poverty is intertwined with the social aspect. The expression is in any case strange in the eyes of a Graeco-Roman or modern reader. Both the use of dative54 and the whole expression are easier to understand against the background of the usage in Hebrew. 2.2.1.3.6 Traditions behind the Expression The Jewish background for the expression is obvious, and some of the closest parallels are 1QS 11,1 (ʧʥʸ ʩʮʸ, “spiritually proud”), 1QM 14,7 (ʧʥʸ), 1QH 5,18 (ʯʥʩʡʠ ʹʴʰ, “the soul of the poor”) and in the fragmented text 1QH 14,3 (ʧʥʸ). Also the negative expressions like Ps 34,19 (ʩʸʡʹʰʬ ʡʬ, “the broken heart”, or ʧʥʸ ʩʠʫʣ, “crushed in spirit”) are expressing a deep relation to God and are as such positive expressions. Isa 61,1 has the same phrase as Ps 34,19, and is a key-text for the understanding of the Beatitudes. “The Spirit (ʧʥʸ) of the Sovereign Lord is on me, 47

BDR 195. BDR 193, 198; Turner, Grammar III, 238. An ethical dat. and a dat. of possession (Turner, Grammar III, 239–240) would also mean about the same. 49 Jas 2,5 continues: ʌȜȠȣı઀ȠȣȢ ਥȞ ʌ઀ıIJİȚ țĮ੿ țȜȘȡȠȞંȝȠȣȢ IJોȢ ȕĮıȚȜİ઀ĮȢ. The language is the same as in 1 Cor 1,26ff, but all expressions have here the genitive (IJ੹ ਕıșİȞો IJȠ૨ țંıȝȠȣ etc.). Is the addition similar to 1 Cor 2,9 (ਘ ਲIJȠ઀ȝĮıİȞ ੒ șİઁȢ IJȠ૙Ȣ ਕȖĮʌ૵ıȚȞ Į੝IJંȞ)? The focus in 1 Cor 1,26 is on wisdom. Prosperous and influential people (Ƞ੝ ʌȠȜȜȠ੿ įȣȞĮIJȠ઀, Ƞ੝ ʌȠȜȜȠ੿ İ੝ȖİȞİ૙Ȣ) are mentioned as a contrast. 50 Moulton, Grammar II, 240–241 and BDR 193. 51 Turner, Grammar III, 239–240 (dativus relationis more than instrumental dative). 52 BDR 197,2; also Rom 2,14; Gal 2,14; 4,8; Eph 2,3; Jas 3,7 (IJૌ ij઄ıİȚ) or Acts 4,36 (IJ૶ Ȗ੼ȞİȚ) and Luke 1,5 (ੑȞંȝĮIJȚ). 53 Weder, Comm 52. 54 An influence of the Hebrew ʬ and ʡ is possible. 48

2.2 Rhetoric in Matthew’s Additions

57

because the Lord has anointed me to preach good news to the poor (ʭʩʥʰʠ). He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted (ʡʬ ʩʸʡʹʰ).” Hengel’s arguments55 in favour of an influence from Isa 61 are persuasive: In the first two beatitudes Matthew follows explicitly the sequence in Isa 61 as we see from the whole range of terms. To minimise the influence or reduce the importance of Isa 61 just to Matt 5,4 is arbitrary.56 The fact that “poor”, “spirit” and the combination of the two are used in a surprisingly positive sense must never be overlooked, and demonstrates the close link to the Beatitudes. To conclude: The three metaphorical expressions are metonymical; something substantial (poverty, hunger/thirst, purity) is turned into something more abstract. The whole notion is transformed through the emphasis on one element. The notion poor, hungry/thirsty and pure is still predominant. The sayings do not lose their sociological character, but the emphasis is put on “spirit”, “justice” and “heart”. 2.2.2 The Three (Five) Additions in the Apodosis The metaphorical language dominates here. The expression “Kingdom of Heaven” forms an inclusio and gives the tenor. “Earth”, “seeing God”, and “sons of God” are closely linked to the expression “(Kingdom of) Heaven”. The main reward (ਲ ȕĮıȚȜİ઀Į IJ૵Ȟ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞ૵Ȟ) in Matt 5,3.10 is profoundly metaphorical language.57 This key term and the three other metaphorical expressions are so loaded that the following remarks must be restricted to some comments on the character of the metaphorical language.58 The term “Kingdom of Heaven” probably also has a metonymical force that gives

55 Hengel, “Zur matthäischen Bergpredigt” 351ff argues strongly against Broer’s denial in Seligpreisungen 64ff. Heinrici, Comm II, 20–21 and recently Lichtenberger, “Seligpreisungen” 69, 76 correctly see the links to Isa 61. 56 Broer, Seligpreisungen 64–67. 57 The expression is too often treated as discursive language, but particularly N. Perrin elaborated on its metaphorical aspects (Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom 2ff, 197ff, 202–203). Perrin’s previous contributions focused more on the temporal issues (present/ future) than on the question of content and metaphorical value. Recently, J. Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, made the most comprehensive contribution on the basis of a better understanding of metaphors. 58 A broader semantic approach is still needed, see my article on Jesus’ teaching of the Kingdom (“Jesu Verkündigung vom Reich Gottes” 15–35). Space is definitely more important than time. The otherness is the power, represented by God as the king (J. Schlosser, Le règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus [EBib 2. Paris: Gabalda 1980]). For Matthew heaven, or ʠ ˎ ௷ ʤʔ ʭ  ʬˣʲ ௷ , is the model for the other world, cf. Dalman, Worte Jesu 75–149, esp. 120ff.

58

Chapter 2: Rhetoric and Metaphorical Language in the Exordium

the reign of a king (God/Heaven) as a predominant notion.59 The poor (5,3) and persecuted (5,10) belong to this Kingdom. The other metaphors in the apodosis need a few comments: Į੝IJȠ੿ țȜȘȡȠȞȠȝ੾ıȠȣıȚȞ Į੝IJȠ੿ ੕ȥȠȞIJĮȚ Į੝IJȠ੿ țȜȘș੾ıȠȞIJĮȚ

IJ੽Ȟ ȖોȞ IJઁȞ șİંȞ ȣੂȠ੿ șİȠ૨

The promises are theologically extremely loaded. From an OT-perspective it is the highest reward to “see God”, to be called “sons of God” and to “inherit the earth”. How physical and how metaphorical are these expressions? 2.2.2.1 Matt 5,5: “The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth” (țȜȘȡȠȞȠȝ‫ޤ‬ıȠȣıȚȞ IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ Ȗ߱Ȟ) The notion “inherit” is the key. The ʌȡĮİ૙Ȣ (“poor, meek, vulnerable”) themselves and nobody else can expect an inheritance. At least nobody would think that a meek person (ʌȡĮ૥Ȣ) will inherit “the earth”. The “Land of Israel” has been fundamental in Jewish belief since the promise to Abraham (Gen 15,6ff). It was the fundamental promise in the Pentateuch, and as long as enemies occupied Israel the promise remained crucial. The Psalms repeat this fundamental promise and give it to “those who fear the Lord”, Ps 25,11 (“He will spend his days in prosperity, and his descendants will inherit the land”). The promise to the meek, Ps 37,11, is even closer to Matt 5,5: To “inherit the land (ʵʸʠ) and enjoy great peace (ʭʥʬʹ ʡʸ)” is seen together. In the same language Isa 60,21 says: “Those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land (ʵʸʠʥʹʸʩʩ).” Many Christian interpreters will give the promise a more universal flavour:60 the earth (Ȗો) means something like țંıȝȠȢ. Christian exegetes often spiritualise even more (allowing meanings like “everything”, “the highest value”, etc.). The contrast to “heaven” is indeed everything on earth, and one should not overlook its metaphorical character. “Land” is basically what inherit59

On the background for the Kingdom-of-God sayings, cf. B. D. Chilton, Pure Kingdom: Jesus’ Vision of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1997); idem, “The Kingdom of God in Recent Discussion”, in idem/C. A. Evans, eds., Studying the Historical Jesus 255– 280; M. Hengel/A. M. Schwemer, eds., Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt (WUNT 55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1991). 60 Luz, Comm 283: “die traditionelle Landverheißung ist längst ins Kosmische transponiert” and “Ausweitung der Landverheißung ins Kosmische” (ibid., n. 94), also H. D. Betz, Comm 128 and even Davies/Allison, Comm 450 (in spite of W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine [Berkeley: University of California Press 1974 = Sheffield: JSOT Press 1994] 361–362).

2.2 Rhetoric in Matthew’s Additions

59

ance is all about. Money, goods and customs are not important, but the space that a son inherits from a father. It is a physical, not a spiritual matter. The meaning of Matt 5,5 is that the land will not be given arbitrarily to anybody. Tyrants, wicked, exploiters, will not inherit the land, but the meek, as the Psalm (37,11) literally says. Matt 5,5 basically reaffirms this saying from the Psalms: Not the warriors, but vulnerable people will inherit the earth. This corresponds with the beatitude in Matt 5,9. 2.2.2.2 Matt 5,9: “The Peacemakers Shall Be Called Sons of God” (ȣ‫ݨ‬Ƞ‫ ޥ‬șİȠࠎ țȜȘș‫ޤ‬ıȠȞIJĮȚ) The term “sons of God” is so remarkable that one could easily overlook the verb țĮȜ੼Ȧ, meaning more than “calling”, “inviting”. The notion “giving a name” or “elect” has great impact, because of the fut. pass. form: God is the acting person. He is electing a certain group of people: those who actively work for peace (Ƞੂ İੁȡȘȞȠʌȠȚȠ઀). The notion ȣੂંȢ (șİȠ૨), Hebrew ʯʡ/Aramaic ʸʡ, has primarily a biological meaning, but much less than IJ੼țȞĮ șİȠ૨.61 Jews mostly avoided giving the community of God the title “sons of God”, but it occurs in Sirach (e.g. 24,1–4) and in the self-description “sons of Light” of the Qumran community. The closest parallels to Matt 5,9 here are texts from the Psalms (29,1; 82,1–8) and particularly the classical text Ps 89,6–9. The notion “sons of God” refers here (like in Luke 20,36) to a heavenly reality. People in the heavenly gathering of faithful sons (according to Ps 89,6ff) are called “Sons of God”. This future reality62 is visible here and now in glimpses, as Matt 5,45 (Luke 6,35) says: to fulfil the commandment of loving your enemy is to “show yourself as children of God” (੖ʌȦȢ Ȗ੼ȞȘıșİ ȣੂȠ੿ IJȠ૨ ʌĮIJȡઁȢ ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ IJȠ૨ ਥȞ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞȠ૙Ȣ). Perhaps Matt 5,45 is the first step towards a metaphorical understanding. The addition in Matt 5,9 opens up for this metaphorical meaning. 2.2.2.3 Matt 5,8: “The Pure in Heart Shall See God” (IJާȞ șİާȞ ‫ݻ‬ȥȠȞIJĮȚ) This beatitude is in many ways unique. In a Jewish context “hearing” is emphasised. To focus on vision (seeing) here is remarkable. The basic doctrine in Israel is that “no one can see God and live” (Exod 33,20; Isa 6,5).63 The whole sentence seems to be loaded with metaphors: the protasis

61 Both words are used metaphorically in the NT, but more often ȣੂંȢ. IJ੼țȞȠȞ denotes more the biological relation to parents. 62 The aor. med. conj. in Matt 5,46 does not mean “develop as” or “proved to be in the future”, but rather “proved to be what you are as image of God”. 63 Repeated in John 1,18.

60

Chapter 2: Rhetoric and Metaphorical Language in the Exordium

uses metaphorical language (“pure in heart”) and also the apodosis (“see God”) has metaphorical language. Vision of God presupposes purity. The quotation from Ps 24 shows that purity is a premise for meeting the “King of Glory”. The prophets had visions in the Temple (Isa 6; Ezek 1). Like Isa 33,17, Ps 24 belongs to the context of “entrance-requirements” to the Temple (“Your eyes will see the king in his beauty and view a land that stretches afar”). Frequently the Psalms refer to the “Shekina”-conception: the dwelling of God in the Temple,64 and the Psalms link righteousness and vision together.65 Job 19,26 seems to reflect the same conviction (“after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God”). Christian exegesis tends to spiritualise these sayings, and both the seeing and the Temple are given a more metaphorical meaning. “To see God” is often interpreted as having faith, a more mystical seeing or a cognitive understanding. Its eschatological flavour became stronger. The metaphorical meaning is indeed possible, but it is an extension of the physical seeing. 2.2.3 Concluding Remarks The additions in the protasis have the tendency to “spiritualise” physical description. The additions in the apodosis have an opposite tendency: more abstract verbs (inherit, seeing, naming) are made more concrete through the additions. The metaphors “inherit“, “seeing” and “be named/elected” have great theological impact. The additions “land”, “God” and “sons of God” make these metaphors more precise, and all additions have a metonymical character. The SM later refers to all three additions in the apodosis: “land/earth” in 5,13, “sons of God” in 5,45, and the notion “God” dominates the whole SM. The theocentric structure in the apodosis indicates that this is perhaps the main issue in the SM.

2.3 Rhetoric of Matt 5,11–12: Application or Part of the Propositio? Matt 5,11–12, the transition between the Beatitudes and the proclamation in Matt 5,13–16, is important from a rhetorical (and theological) point of 64 On the development into a “Shekina-conception”, B. Janowski, “‘Ich will in eurer Mitte wohnen’: Struktur und Genese der exilischen Schekina-Theologie”, Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 2 (1987) 165–193. 65 Ps 11,7: “For the Lord is righteous, he loves justice; upright men will see his face” and Ps 17,15: “In righteousness I will see your face.”

2.3 Rhetoric of Matt 5,11–12: Application or Part of the Propositio?

61

view. A new aspect occurs in Matt 5,12: The verbs in Matt 5,3–11 use the indicative before imperatives suddenly appear in Matt 5,12. The two imperatives (ȤĮ઀ȡİIJİ țĮ੿ ਕȖĮȜȜȚ઼ıșİ) indicate a new beginning in the SM.66 The application of the Beatitudes is the climax both in Matthew and Luke. In Luke, the three first beatitudes entail only 22 words, the fourth 25 words and the real application in Luke 6,23 has 26 words. The first eight beatitudes in Matthew have 72 words, the ninth has 15 words, and the real application in Matt 5,12 has 19 words. Both sayings in Matthew and Luke have an identical form: first comes a beatitude and the second saying is an exhortation starting with a 2nd pers. pl. impv. The two logia might have had different origins, but the fact that Luke even has the logion on joy before the woes, means that they are firmly bound together. Matt 5,11 has hardly any metaphorical elements and is primarily a bridge to the propositio. Perhaps Matt 5,12 is already part of the propositio? From a form-critical point of view Matt 5,11 and 5,12 represent in style and genre two different sayings: Matt 5,11 is as beatitude entirely descriptive with an indicative form. Matt 5,12 is an exhortation starting with a double imperative and gives two different reasons (੖IJȚ- and Ȗ੺ȡsentences). Style and content in Matt 5,11 are primarily connected to 5,3– 10, whereas 5,12 belongs to Matt 5,13–16. The text of Matt 5,11–12 par. has in general always been a solid argument for the existence of Q: the two sayings are closely linked in the SM/SP and the GTh, and there is no parallel to the two sayings in Mark. Every argument is the same in the SP/SM. The first application in Matt 5,11 (the ninth beatitude = the fourth beatitude in Luke 6,22) is more different than the second application (Matt 5,12/Luke 6,23). Matthew 5,11 ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠ઀ ਥıIJİ ੖IJĮȞ ੑȞİȚį઀ıȦıȚȞ ਫ਼ȝ઼Ȣ țĮ੿ įȚઆȟȦıȚȞ țĮ੿ İ੅ʌȦıȚȞ ʌ઼Ȟ ʌȠȞȘȡઁȞ țĮșૅ ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ [ȥİȣįંȝİȞȠȚ] ਪȞİțİȞ ਥȝȠ૨.

Luke 6,22 ȝĮț੺ȡȚȠ઀ ਥıIJİ ੖IJĮȞ ȝȚı੾ıȦıȚȞ ਫ਼ȝ઼Ȣ Ƞੂ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȚ țĮ੿ ੖IJĮȞ ਕijȠȡ઀ıȦıȚȞ ਫ਼ȝ઼Ȣ țĮ੿ ੑȞİȚį઀ıȦıȚȞ țĮ੿ ਥțȕ੺ȜȦıȚȞ IJઁ ੕ȞȠȝĮ ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ ੪Ȣ ʌȠȞȘȡઁȞ ਪȞİțĮ IJȠ૨ ȣੂȠ૨ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡઆʌȠȣ 6,26 Ƞ੝Į੿ ੖IJĮȞ ਫ਼ȝ઼Ȣ țĮȜ૵Ȣ İ੅ʌȦıȚȞ ʌ੺ȞIJİȢ Ƞੂ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȚ· țĮIJ੹ IJ੹ Į੝IJ੹ Ȗ੹ȡ ਥʌȠ઀ȠȣȞ IJȠ૙Ȣ ȥİȣįȠʌȡȠij੾IJĮȚȢ Ƞੂ ʌĮIJ੼ȡİȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ.

GTh 68; 69,1; etc. {,/,{ 0z%#*!'+0',& -’&%+, , -,{{+!/# z%/,{

Matthew has ਕȖĮȜȜȚ઼ıșİ (Luke ıțȚȡIJ੾ıĮIJİ) and this is most likely an allusion to Ps 132,16 (LXX 131,16: ਕȖĮȜȜȚ੺ıİȚ ਕȖĮȜȜȚ੺ıȠȞIJĮȚ). It is a bridge to the entrance-requirements and also to other terms in Matt 5,3 like İ੝ȜȠȖ૵Ȟ İ੝ȜȠȖ੾ıȦ … IJȠઃȢ ʌIJȦȤȠઃȢ Į੝IJોȢ ȤȠȡIJ੺ıȦ ਙȡIJȦȞ. Ps 132(131),17 (Ȝ઄ȤȞȠȞ IJ૶ ȤȡȚıIJ૶ ȝȠȣ) reminds of Matt 5,15. 66

62

Chapter 2: Rhetoric and Metaphorical Language in the Exordium

Only about one third of Matthew occurs in Luke, and only one fifth of Luke in Matthew. The application of the woe-sayings shows that Luke interprets the tradition more than Matthew.67 It is nearly impossible to decide whether Matthew’s ਪȞİțİȞ ਥȝȠ૨ or Luke’s ਪȞİțĮ IJȠ૨ ȣੂȠ૨ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡઆʌȠȣ is the oldest text. Matthew underlines the notion of persecution, 68 and the threefold usage in the GTh (!/#) proves either an influence or that the tradition has persecution as a dominant issue. The differences are interesting, but contain the same meaning. The GTh echoes the threefold persecution (!/#) with the threefold z%#*!'+congratulations: “Blessed are you when you are hated and persecuted” (0z%#*!'+ 0',& -’&%+, , -,{ {+!/# z%/,{). “Blessed are those who have been persecuted in their hearts: they are the ones who have truly come to know the Father” (0z%#*!'+&&!{,-!/#z%''-0*v¡ 0z('-0 ,‫ތ‬69 &,z%-‫&&ތ‬,0+'-/& (!/,‫ތ‬0{'-%). “Blessed are those who go hungry, so the stomach of the one in want may be filled” (0z%#*!'+&,0#!,‫&!’ތ‬-&,+!'{0 z(,'-/’). This saying would be a problematic one for the GTh, and he replaced it with a favourite saying. The new features are: “But they will find no place there where they have persecuted you”, the strange expression “persecuted in their heart” and “they are the ones who have truly come to know the Father”. This key logion in the history of GThresearch70 seems to reflect a real persecution. The “punch lines” with references to Jesus and to the prophets are missing. Also the form is different: GTh 68–69 have two blessings and seem to be more a double beatitude than beatitude plus an imperative.

The second application in Matt 5,12 has nearly the same form in Luke: Matt 5,12 ȤĮަȡİIJİ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ਕȖĮȜȜȚ઼ıșİ, ੖IJȚ ‫ ݸ‬ȝȚıșާȢ ‫ބ‬ȝࠛȞ ʌȠȜީȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJȠ߿Ȣ Ƞ‫ރ‬ȡĮȞȠ߿Ȣ· Ƞ੢IJȦȢ Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ ਥį઀ȦȟĮȞ IJȠީȢ ʌȡȠij‫ޤ‬IJĮȢ IJȠઃȢ ʌȡઁ ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ.

Luke 6,23 Ȥ‫ޠ‬ȡȘIJİ ਥȞ ਥțİ઀Ȟૉ IJૌ ਲȝ੼ȡ઺ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ıțȚȡIJ੾ıĮIJİ, ੁįȠઃ Ȗ੹ȡ ‫ ݸ‬ȝȚıșާȢ ‫ބ‬ȝࠛȞ ʌȠȜީȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJࠜ Ƞ‫ރ‬ȡĮȞࠜ· țĮIJ੹ IJ੹ Į੝IJ੹ Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ ਥʌȠ઀ȠȣȞ IJȠ߿Ȣ ʌȡȠij‫ޤ‬IJĮȚȢ Ƞੂ ʌĮIJ੼ȡİȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ.

GTh 69,1; etc. 0z%#*!'+& &!{,-!/# z%''- 1 Pet 3,14; 4,13–14; Jas 1,2

Even the wording is close; about two thirds of Matthew is found in Luke, and nearly 50% of the Lukan text is identical in Matthew. The difference between IJȠઃȢ ʌȡȠij੾IJĮȢ IJȠઃȢ ʌȡઁ ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ versus IJȠ૙Ȣ ʌȡȠij੾IJĮȚȢ Ƞੂ ʌĮIJ੼ȡİȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ reflects typical features in the two Gospels. The two logia are so closely linked that they must have had the same order in Q and were part of the inaugural speech, and the saying in Matt 5,12 was probably the very propositio in this speech. 71 The GTh does not seem to be aware of an inaugural speech. The GTh concentrates on the theme of per67 The parallel Ƞੂ-ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȚ sayings in Luke 6,22.26 and the false-prophecy saying in 6,26 as mirror of the true-prophecy saying in 6,23 are clear examples. 68 Matthew has the key word įȚઆțİȚȞ twice. 69 Possible conjecture: