Radical Philosophy of Life: Studies on the Sermon on the Mount (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) 9783161598685, 9783161598692, 3161598687

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) · Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

454

Ernst Baasland

Radical Philosophy of Life Studies on the Sermon on the Mount

Mohr Siebeck

Ernst Baasland, born 1945; since 1971 lecturer, since 1981 professor at MF Norwegian 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; 1998–2009 bishop in Stavanger; since retirement 2009 guest lecturer in Stellenbosch, SA, and 2010 in Berlin; since 2011 affiliated to MF Norwegian School of Theology and School of Mission and Theology, Stavanger.

ISBN 978-3-16-159868-5 / eISBN 978-3-16-159869-2 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-159869-2 ISSN 0512-1604 / eISSN 2568-7476 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com 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 and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buch­ binderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Preface Radical Philosophy of Life is the title of this book, and it sounds like, and is in fact, a program. The Sermon on the Mount offers exactly that. It leaves nobody untouched, and the interpretation should reinforce and by no means impair its radical message. This sermon is indeed an extremely radical speech. How can such a radical message be fundamental for churches and a guideline for ordinary people? The label ‘radical’ has often been attached to the Sermon on the Mount. Its radical demands have been a program for ascetic and extreme ethical mountain-climbers, but they are not at all attractive for modern bon viveurs. The radicalism can also easily be perceived as irrelevant for people from other religions and philosophies. The title Radical Philosophy of Life gives an indication of what the sermon is all about and why this sermon has become the most influential speech ever. When I started my projects on the Sermon on the Mount I was a bit embarrassed for adding another book to the seemingly endless number of books and articles on this topic. When finishing my voluminous book Parables and Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount (2015), I was surprised that it was still possible to say something new about this speech. As a classical speech it can and must be reinterpreted in every generation, but every generation should hopefully also provide new insights. The reviews were encouraging, and some of them noted that I had announced ‘forthcoming studies’. In 2015 I was careless enough to announce four forthcoming studies (“Pilgrims, Prophets and Sages: Radicalism in the Sermon on the Mount”; “Audience in the Sermon on the Mount”; “On composition and genre of the Sermon on the Mount”; “Auf der Spur einer ‘Grundsatzrede’ [“Inaugural Speech”] vor der Bergpredigt?”). The last one is already published (ZNW 110 [2019], 202–239), but three of them appear here (§§ 3–5). In the kind reviews of my book I was challenged on three other issues: on the rhetoric of the speech, on the relation to the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew versus Luke) and on the interpretation of the sermon as wisdom literature versus an eschatological interpretation. These issues are the themes in §§ 2, 3, 4–8.

VI

Preface

In Parables and Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount (2015), I studied all the parables and texts with a metaphorical character. In this present book I add only one exegetical study, on the wisdom text, Matt 6,34. My interest in this book is to widen the perspective from the exegesis of Matt 5–7 to important issues in the scholarly debates, and I try audaciously in every paragraph to take fresh approaches, offer new perspectives, etc. If we follow the outline in this book, in § 1, “History of Research”, I try to see this history in a much broader perspective and to differentiate more clearly between ‘influence’ and ‘interpretation’. In § 2 – on ‘historical approach’ – I have a methodological agenda: I put general historiography in the forefront, which implies that some methods must be revised, and shed new light on the source problem and on the question of ‘authenticity’. Principles for reconstructions behind the text and the possibility of an analysis of a ‘Matthean community’ will be debated. The quest for the historical Jesus is and must be unavoidable; the problem is seemingly easy to handle because of the generally sympathetic attitude towards the Jesus-speech. But even in this case the methodology must be clear and transparent. §§ 3 and 4 offer ‘literary approaches’, principles for composition analysis and discussion of the prospects for and alternatives to a rhetorical approach. § 4 discusses different approaches to the problem of audience and/or addressee, proposing a kind of reader-response analysis as a tool. In §§ 5–7 ethical and theological questions are at stake. The question of ‘radicalism’ (§ 5) must be crucial in any interpretation of Matt 5–7 and in a book with the title Radical Philosophy of Life, the term ‘philosophy’ (§ 6) is consciously chosen. Not theology or eschatology, but philosophical reflection is the theme, and this yields a fresh approach to the understanding of the teaching of Jesus in a Jewish-Hellenistic context. § 7 analyses the ethical argumentation in Matt 5–7 and James in a new way, and tries to describe the kind of similarity between the two texts. The last two paragraphs go into specific texts. § 8 provides exegetical remarks to one verse, Matt 6,34, and sees this wisdom-text in light of philosophical debates in the first century CE. § 9 deals with Matt 5,23f. I have previously presented a comprehensive interpretation of the parable. The text has been a stumbling-block for exegetes, and it has been almost entirely overlooked in parable-research. Parable-scholars can simply not apply their methods to Matt 5,23f. Some texts are like pebbles in the roads that can topple even big loads. Tto continue speaking figuratively, using another image: only a little stroke can fell the big oak. As a retired scholar one does not have the busiest schedule, but without my two institutions (MF – Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society in Oslo and VID – Specialized University in Stavanger) I could not have finished this book. I am grateful to the libraries in Oslo, Stavanger, and Berlin

VII

Preface

(Humboldt University), but due to Covid 19 public libraries have been closed in the final stage of this book. As a Norwegian working regularly at Humboldt University in Berlin, I need to have corrected many English idioms. I am grateful to Ellen and Piers Crocker for doing this task. I am also grateful to my colleagues Karl Olav Sandnes, Ole Jacob Filtvedt and Jostein Ådna for reading some articles. I want to finally express my gratitude to the editor, Jörg Frey, who from the very beginning of the work encouraged me to publish this book. Stavanger/Oslo, Fall 2020

Ernst Baasland

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

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research ...............................................1 1.1 Preliminary Remarks ....................................................................................1 1.1.1 The History of Research – the Challenges of Overviews ......................2 1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM........................................................8 1.2.1 Its Influence as Sermon Compared to Other Speeches ..........................8 1.2.2 Its Influence on Language, Art and Music...........................................12 1.2.3 The SM and its Unique Relationship to Judaism.................................16 1.2.4 Influence of the SM on Other Religions ..............................................26 1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History..........................31 1.3.1 Influence and Interpretation before Theodosius (d. 395).....................31 1.3.2 Influence and Interpretation after 395, in the Medieval Age ...............37 1.3.3 The SM and the Fight for True Faith (1500–ca. 1750) ........................40 1.3.3.1 The Role of the SM in the Church.................................................41 1.3.3.2 The SM in Theological Debates ....................................................43 1.3.3.3 Huldrych Zwingli and Jean Calvin ................................................44 1.3.3.4 Renewal and Opposition Groups: The SM as ‘Disciple-ethics’ ....46 1.3.4 After the Enlightenment (1750–1830): The Principle of the SM.........48 1.3.5 The SM as Historical Source – and Historicism (1835–1870) ............52 1.3.5.1 Historical Foundation of the SM: The Real Historical Jesus.........52 1.3.5.2 New Methods: Source-criticism as Basis ......................................53 1.3.5.3 Critical-Historical Approaches: Tendenz-criticism; Decline of Rhetoric.........................................53 1.3.5.4 New Perspectives from outside the Universities ...........................55 1.3.6 Liberalism and the SM (1870–1914): Is the SM ‘pure Christianity’? .............................................................58 1.3.6.1 Liberalism in the Modern Age: General Framework for the Influence and Interpretation of the SM ..............................59 1.3.6.2 Specialized Studies on the SM and Source-Criticism....................60 1.3.6.3 Reactions to the Liberal Approach and the Ethics of Attitude ......64 1.3.6.4 Alternatives to the Liberal Understanding.....................................66

X

Table of Contents

1.3.6.5 Correction of the Liberal Interpretation of the SM/ The Historical Jesus.......................................................................69 1.3.7 Struggle for the Meaning of the So-called ‘SM’ (1918–1945) ............72 1.3.7.1 Interpretations of the SM outside the Universities ........................74 1.3.7.2 The New Wave of Eschatological Approaches .............................77 1.3.7.3 Does the Historical Meaning Have Primacy?................................80 1.3.7.4 From a Jewish Perspective to the Jewish Quest ............................83 1.3.7.5 The SM in Times of Fascism and Reactions against NS (1933–1950).........................................85 1.3.8 SM/Scholarship on the SM in Shadowland 1950–1975?.....................89 1.3.8.1 The Influence of the SM outside New Testament Scholarship......89 1.3.8.2 New Premises for the Interpretation of the SM .............................94 1.3.8.3 New Objectivism: Back to Basics through History and Scientific Proofs...................97 1.3.8.4 New Dominating Method: Redaction-criticism...........................100 1.3.9 The SM out of Its Isolation in a Secular Age (after 1980).................101 1.3.9.1 Influence of the SM outside New Testament Scholarship: Debates about its Political Meaning ............................................102 1.3.9.2 The Scholarly Debate in the Age of Post-modernism .................105 1.3.9.3 New Methodological Considerations concerning the SM ...........107 1.3.9.4 The Source-problem: Comprehensive or Competing Solutions ..109 1.3.9.5 The SM and the Third Quest; the Jewish Quest in New Light ....111 1.3.9.6 The SM and Church-oriented Approaches (Evangelicals, New Anabaptists, Catholics)................................114 1.3.9.7 Comprehensive (Religion-)Historically and Hermeneutically Oriented Approaches........................................116 1.3.9.8 Retrospect....................................................................................117 1.3.10 Influence and Interpretation of the Most Influential Speech Ever ....118 1.3.10.1 The Influence..............................................................................119 1.3.10.2 Factors Affecting the Interpretation............................................120 1.3.10.3 Historical Interpretation and Actual Influence ...........................122 1.3.10.4 From History of Research to Nine Crucial Problems and Four Questions.....................................................................124

§ 2 The Historical Quest: Sources, Orality and Authenticity ......127 2.1 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) I: The SM as ‘Source’ or ‘Relic’..................................................................130 2.1.1 The SM as ‘Source’ for the Historical Jesus......................................132 2.1.2 The SM as ‘Relic’ (for the Q-community/‘Matthew’).......................132 2.2 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) II: The SM between Orality and Literacy .....................................................136 2.2.1 Orality as Dominating Perspective ....................................................136

Table of Contents

XI

2.2.2 Literacy as Dominating Perspective ..................................................137 2.2.2.1 The Rise of 2DH and the Role of the SM....................................137 2.2.2.2 Improvements of 2DH: The Struggle for Comprehensive Theories..................................138 2.2.2.3 The Two-document Hypothesis as Foundation and Frame: The SM Based on Literacy, Openness for Orality.......................144 2.2.2.4 The SM and a Modified Two-document Hypothesis...................146 2.3 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) III: The Four Strata in the SM/SP...................................................................149 2.3.1 The ‘Inaugural Speech’......................................................................149 2.3.2 The Double Tradition (Q) – Outside the SM .....................................154 2.3.3 The Triple-tradition in the SM/Matthew and the SP/Luke ................157 2.3.4 Matthew’s ‘Sondergut’ (MattS).........................................................159 2.3.5 Comparison: Luke’s ‘Sondergut’ in the SP .......................................165 2.3.6 Source-critical, Historical and Rhetorical Explanation......................168 2.4 Analysis of Linguistic and Argumentative Features in the SM/SP ..........171 2.4.1 Comparison of Vocabulary etc. in the Two Speeches .......................171 2.4.2 The Forms in the SM/SP – an Overview and the Major Differences ............................................177 2.4.3 General/Conditional Sentences, Questions, Parallelism/Antithetical Statements, etc. ...........................................178 2.4.4 Exhortations and Prohibitions: Use of Imperative .............................184 2.4.5 Reasons for Exhortations and Admonitions ......................................186 2.5 From Sources to Authenticity...................................................................187 2.5.1 The Role of Memory Culture and the Source Problem......................188 2.5.2 Memory Culture and Authenticity .....................................................190 2.6 Authenticity of the SM and Its Setting (Authenticity I) ...........................194 2.6.1 The Authenticity of the Frame: Jesus and an Inaugural Speech ........196 2.6.1.1 The Frames from a Source-critical Point of View ........................197 2.6.2 Did Jesus Deliver One Programmatic Speech in His Early Ministry? .......................................................................202 2.6.3 A Speech in Galilee? And on a Mountain?........................................204 2.7 The SM in the Framework of Historical-Jesus Research (Authenticity II)........................................................................................206 2.7.1 The SM in the Era of the So-called First Quest (1778/1800–1920)...207 2.7.2 In the Era of the So-called ‘No Quest’ (1920–1950) .........................210 2.7.3 In the Framework of the ‘New Quest’ (1950–1980)..........................215 2.7.4 The SM in the Framework of the So-called ʻThird Questʼ (1980–)...218 2.8 The SM and the Criteria of Authenticity (Authenticity III)......................222 2.8.1 The Criteria of Authenticity in Jesus- (and SM-)Research ................222 2.8.2 The Individual Criteria Applied to the SM ........................................226 2.8.3 The Criteria in a Broader Historiographical Perspective ...................233 Appendix to § 2.4............................................................................................237

XII

Table of Contents

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition: Rhetorical Composition of the Sermon on the Mount and Its Alternatives ............................247 3.1 The Impact of Composition on Interpretation ..........................................247 3.1.1 Introductory Remarks ........................................................................247 3.1.2 Short History of Research..................................................................248 3.2 Historical-Genetical Perspective ..............................................................252 3.2.1 Form-critical Arguments against a Compositional Plan ....................253 3.2.2 The Structure of the ‘Inaugural Speech’ as Proof..............................254 3.2.3 Matthew as Compiler (Form-criticism) or Author (Redaction-criticism).........................................................255 3.3 Jewish Roots as Key to the Composition? What about Genre?................257 3.4 Theological Concepts as Key ...................................................................262 3.5 The Search for Key Texts.........................................................................264 3.6 ‘Text-constitutions’ and Other Thematic Proposals .................................267 3.7 Literary Approaches .................................................................................268 3.7.1 Numbers as Key to the Composition .................................................269 3.7.2 Chiasms and a Concentric Structure ..................................................270 3.7.3 Structuralism: Text-linguistics in Matthew, but not in the SM? ........271 3.8 Arguments in Favour of a Rhetorical Structure.........................................273 3.9 The Orality of the SM: The SM as Oral Performance ..............................277 3.10 A Comparison with Luke ........................................................................280 3.10.1 Possible Headlines for Luke 6,20–49 ...............................................280 3.10.2 A Rhetorical Structure of Luke? .......................................................281 3.10.3 Luke’s Composition: Subdivision into Two, Three, Four or Five Parts?............................282 3.10.4 Principles for Finding a Clear Composition and Subdivisions .........284 Appendix: Orality in Luke?.............................................................................288

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount: A New Approach ...291 4.1 The Theological Question ........................................................................293 4.1.1 A Brief History of Research before 1650 ..........................................294 4.1.2 The Debates after 1650......................................................................295 4.2 The Historical Question – Addressees in the SM and Matthew ...............298 4.2.1 Who Was the Real Audience for Matthew?.......................................298 4.2.2 Arguments against this Approach and an Alternative Theory ...........300 4.3 Audience and the Sources and Forms behind Matthew............................302 4.4 The Audience in the Frames (Matt 4,17–5,2; 7,28f; 8,1) .........................303 4.5 The SM in Light of Audience-criticism ...................................................308 4.5.1 Theory and Method............................................................................309 4.5.2 Application of the Method on the SM ...............................................313 4.6 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................323

Table of Contents

XIII

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount: An Ethos for Pilgrims and Prophets/Sages ........................................325 5.1 The Problem of ‘Radicalism’: What Is It?................................................325 5.2 Remarks on the History of Research: Ways to Escape Radicalism..........329 5.2.1 Demands for a Particular Time..........................................................329 5.2.2 Demands ‘Only’ for Particular People...............................................331 5.3 History of Research II: Radical Demands as Illustrations ........................333 5.4 History of Research III: Radical Demands Are Real; They Are Impulses for an Ethos ...............................................................336 5.5 Radicalism – in the Sources of SM/SP? ...................................................341 5.6 The SM and the SP – in Isolation and as Parts of the Synoptics ..............345 5.7 Radicalism and Rhetoric...........................................................................346 5.8 Radical Demands as Ethos for Pilgrims and Sages ..................................349 5.8.1 The Function of the Radical Demands: Ethos for Pilgrims ...............349 5.8.2 Motif-history I: Radical Demands and Analogy with the Prophets ...351 5.8.3 Motif-history II: Radical Demands as Ethos for Sages......................352

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount ...................................................................357 6.1 Preliminary Remarks ................................................................................357 6.2 Comparing Jewish and Hellenistic Parallels.............................................360 6.2.1 Judaism versus Hellenism?................................................................360 6.2.2 Jewish Parallels..................................................................................361 6.2.3 Hellenistic Parallels ...........................................................................362 6.3 The SM within Judaism............................................................................363 6.3.1 Forms of Teaching and Genre Parallels.............................................363 6.3.2 Core Conviction.................................................................................364 6.3.3 Covenant Thinking in the SM............................................................369 6.3.4 Ambivalences: Still within Judaism?.................................................373 6.4 The SM and ‘Christian’ Theology............................................................374 6.4.1 Core Conviction.................................................................................375 6.4.2 Covenantal Thinking or Expanded People of God?...........................382 6.4.3 Eschatology versus Wisdom as Horizon in the SM ............................384 6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life..................................................................388 6.5.1 Preliminary Remarks – the SM in Hellenistic Context......................388 6.5.2 Happiness and Good Life ..................................................................391 6.5.3 Anthropology and Evil Forces...........................................................395 6.5.4 Visible versus Invisible: Outward and Inward...................................400 6.5.4.1 Seeing as a Phenomenon .............................................................400 6.5.4.2 Honour versus Shame: Judgmental Gaze ....................................405

XIV

Table of Contents

6.5.5 How to Overcome Broken Relationships?.........................................407 6.5.5.1 Forgiveness and Reconciliation...................................................408 6.5.5.2 Giving and Receiving: God as Patron .........................................410 6.5.5.3 ‘The Other’ Constitutes an Ethical Relationship .........................413 6.5.5.4 Righteousness and ‘Doing’..........................................................414 6.5.5.5 The SM and Hellenistic Philosophy ............................................419 6.6 Appendix: The SM and Matthew .............................................................420 6.6.1 ‘Matthew’ or ‘Matthean Community’ ...............................................420 6.6.2 Matthew – within Judaism.................................................................421 6.6.3 Matthew – within Christianity ...........................................................424 6.7 The SM as Self-presentation ....................................................................428

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in the Epistle of James .....................................................................429 7.1 Preliminary Questions ..............................................................................429 7.2 The SM and James: Genre and Composition ..........................................432 7.2.1 A Comparison of Genre.....................................................................433 7.2.2 Composition/Rhetoric in the SM and in James..................................438 7.2.2.1 Alternatives to a Rhetorical Composition in James......................439 7.2.2.2 Do Both the SM and James Have a Rhetorical Composition? .....441 7.3 Audience Analysis in James (and the SM) ...............................................445 7.3.1 Implied Speaker in the SM and James...............................................446 7.3.2 Implied Audience/Readers in the SM and James: Speaking to an In-group?...................................................................446 7.3.3 The Use of (Rhetorical) Questions ....................................................450 7.3.4 Rhetorical τίς/τις-Sentences...............................................................451 7.3.5 Peripheral Audience in the SM and James ........................................453 7.4 Ethical Argumentation in James Compared with the SM.........................454 7.4.1 The Character of Wisdom-Sayings....................................................455 7.4.2 Sentences in the SM and in James (Beatitudes, Maxims, etc.) ..........457 7.4.3 Analysis of Imperatives (Admonitions) in the SM and in James.......460 7.5 Reasons and Motivation for Exhortations and Admonitions....................467 7.5.1 Causal and Explanatory.....................................................................468 7.5.2 Consecutive, Consequential ἵνα, ὅπως, µήποτε.................................471 7.5.3 Conditional εἰ- and ἐάν-sentences. Pointing out Consequences........472 7.5.4 Explanation through Images and Reflection .....................................473 7.5.5 Parables and Metaphorical Language – Arguments or Motivation? ................................................................473 7.6. James – within Judaism: Comparison with the SM..................................475 7.6.1 Jewish Identity ...................................................................................475 7.6.2 Quotations and Examples from the Tanach .......................................478

Table of Contents

XV

7.6.3 The Core Conviction: Shema, Yahve Is the Only God (‫ ) ֶאחָד‬............478 7.6.4 Theology and Judgment as the Main Issues in James........................479 7.6.5 The Notion of Kingdom and Christology in James ...........................481 7.6.6 The Use of νόµος: Is the Jewish Torah the Norm? ............................482 7.6.7 Covenantal Thinking .........................................................................485 7.7. James and Hellenistic Philosophy of Life: Comparison with the SM ......487 7.7.1 The Social Setting: Cities and Countryside in the Diaspora ..............487 7.7.2 The Philosophy of Life in James and the Hellenistic Context ...........488 7.8 Summary ..................................................................................................496

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34: An Illuminating Riddle ............................................................................497 8.1 Preliminary Analysis ................................................................................497 8.2 Its Sources ................................................................................................502 8.3 The History of Interpretation....................................................................505 8.4 Parallels: Parallelomania versus Interpretation.........................................513 8.5 Interpretation of µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον (Matt 6,34a) ..........514 8.5.1 Linguistic Remarks: The Admonition and the First Reason ..............514 8.5.2 (a) Reflection on the Uncertainty of Tomorrow – the Basis for Matt 6,34?.....................................................................518 8.5.3 (b) Unnecessary Considerations – Possible Basis for Matt 6,34?......520 8.5.4 (c) The Hedonistic and Epicurean Understanding of ‘Carpe diem’ – and Matt 6,34............................................................521 8.5.5 (d) About the Possibilities of Today – Premise in Matt 6,34? ...........523 8.5.6 (e) Retardant to Reflecting about the Future Due to Determinism – also in Matt 6,34? ..........................................526 8.5.7 (f) About Trust in God – the Message in Matt 6,34? .........................528 8.5.8 Interpretation of the First Reason: The Logic of Tomorrow (Matt 6,34b) ...............................................529 8.6 Interpretation of the Second Reason v. 34c (ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς) ....................................................532 8.6.1 Linguistic Remarks on ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς (v. 34c) ....533 8.6.2 Not Superficial Optimism, not Pessimism and Resignation in v. 34 ...............................................................................................535 8.6.3 Beyond Optimism and Pessimism: Matt 6,34 as Realism and Openness ..................................................536 8.7 Matt 6,34 in Its Literary Context ..............................................................537 8.7.1 Matt 6,34 and the Context with 6,19ff and the Lord’s Prayer (6,11.13)................................................................537 8.7.2 Matt 6,34 and the Tranquility of Mind in Matt 6,25–33....................538

XVI

Table of Contents

8.7.3 Matt 6,34 after the Climax in Matt 6,33: About the Future of the Kingdom......................................................540 8.7.4 Matt 6,34 and the Context with 7,1(–12)...........................................542 8.8 Summary ..................................................................................................543

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research: Pebbles in a Road that Can Topple a Big Load ................................545 9.1 Matt 5,23 and Myths about Research History ..........................................545 9.1.1 Matt 5,23f in Recent Research...........................................................545 9.1.2 Matt 5,23f and Methodology in Parable Research.............................547 9.1.3 Some Myths about the History of Research.......................................548 9.2 The Classification of Parables and the Genre of Matt 5,23f.....................550 9.2.1 The Classification: Two, Three, Four Categories or Just One? .........550 9.2.2 Do We Have Alternatives to ‘Parable’?.............................................553 9.2.3 Towards a Better Classification .........................................................560 9.3 Is an Imagery Neutral? .............................................................................561 9.3.1 How Important are the Social-Historical and Aesthetic Dimensions?................................................................561 9.3.2 The Specific Imagery in Matt 5,23f...................................................563 9.4 Only one ‘Point’ (‘Sache’)?......................................................................566 9.5 The Function of the Parables: Proofs or Illustrations ...............................568

Brief Concluding Remarks .....................................................................575 Basic Challenges .............................................................................................575 The Historical Quest .......................................................................................579 The Philosophical Quest..................................................................................581 Bibliography....................................................................................................583 Index of Sources..............................................................................................627 Index of Authors .............................................................................................645 Table of Subjects.............................................................................................657

List of Abbreviations 2DH AASF.DHL AB ABD AJEC AJT AKG AnBib ANET ANRW II

ASB ASNU AsTJ ASV ATANT ATD AThR ATLA BBB BBR BDAG

BDR

BeO BETL BEvT BFCT BGBE BGLRK BHT Bib BibInt BibS(N)

two-document hypothesis Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae: Dissertationes humanarum litterarum The Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Asia Journal of Theology Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte Analecta biblica Ancient Near Eastern Texts Wolfgang Haase/Hildesgard Temporini (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. II: Principat, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1.1974ff American Standard Bible Acta seminarii neotestamentici upsaliensis Asbury Theological Journal American Standard Version Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Das Alte Testament Deutsch Anglican Theological Review American Theological Library Association Bonner biblische Beiträge Bulletin for Biblical Research Walter Bauer/Frederick W. Danker/William F. Arndt/F. Wilbur Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: Chicago University Press 31999 Friedrich Blass/Albert Debrunner/Friedrich Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 18 2001 Bibbia e Oriente Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der reformierten Kirche Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation Biblische Studien (Neukirchen-Vluyn)

XVIII BiLe Bill.

BIS BK BR BT BTB Bultmann, GST Bultmann, HST BWANT BWV BZ (NF) BZAW BZNW CahRB CBET CBNTS CBQ CBQ.MS CCSL ChW CIJ

CNT ConBNT CRINT CSEL CTM.A CurrBS DSD DTT EBib EKKNT EKL

ET ETL EvK EWNT ExpTim FB

List of Abbreviations Bibel und Leben (Hermann L. Strack/)Paul Billerbeck, Kommmentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 4 vols., München: C.H. Beck 1922– 1961 Biblical Interpretation Series Bibel und Kirche Biblical Research The Bible Translator Biblical Theology Bulletin Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT 27), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1921, 81970 Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Oxford: Blackwell 1963 Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Bach Werkeverzeichnis Biblische Zeitschrift (Neue Folge) 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 Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series The Catholic Biblical Quarterly The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina Christliche Welt Corpus inscriptionum Judaicarum, ed. Jean-Baptiste Frey, 2 vols., Città del Vaticano: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana 1936– 1952 Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum Calwer theologische Monographien, Reihe A: Bibelwissenschaft Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Dead Sea Discoveries Dansk teologisk tidsskrift Études bibliques Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon. Heinz Brunotte/Otto Weber, eds., 3 vols., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1956–1957; 3rd edition: Erwin Fahlbusch et al., eds., 4 vols., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1985–1996 English Translation Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Evangelische Kommentare Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Horst R. Balz/Gerhard Schneider, eds., 3 vols., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 32011 Expository Times Forschung zur Bibel

List of Abbreviations FF FF FRLANT FS GBS GCS GNS GNT Greg. GTB HBS HBT HKNT HSCP HTKAT HTKNT HTR HUTh ICC Int. IQP IS JAAR JAC.E JBL JQR JR JSHJ JSNTSup JTS KBANT KD KEK KJV KNT LEC LNTS LR LTK

LukeS Luther, WA MattS MEKGR

XIX

Foundations & Facets Forschungen und Fortschritte Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Festschrift Guides to Biblical Scholarship Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten (drei) Jahrhunderte Good News Studies Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament Gregorianum Gütersloher Taschenbuch Herders biblische Studien Horizons in Biblical Theology Handkommentar (Hand-Commentar) zum Neuen Testament Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie International Critical Commentary Interpretation International Q-Project Inaugural Speech Journal of the American Academy of Religion Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum: Ergänzungsband Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Kommentare und Beiträge zum Alten und Neuen Testament Kerygma und Dogma Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament King James Version Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Library of Early Christianity Library of New Testament Studies Lutherische Rundschau Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 2nd edition, Josef Höfer/Karl Rahner, eds., 10 vols., Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 1957–1965; 3rd edition, Walter Kasper, ed., 10 vols., Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 1993– 2001 Lucan ‘Sondergut’ Martin Luther, Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (‘Weimarer Ausgabe’), Weimar: Böhlau 1883ff. Matthean ‘Sondergut’ Monatshefte für evangelische Kirchengeschichte des Rheinlandes

XX MGWJ MTZ NAC NEB Neot. NET NIBCNT NICNT NIGTC NIV NKZ NovT NovTSup NPNF1

NRSV NTD NTG27 NTOA NTS NTTS ÖTK PG PHAW PL RAC RB RCT RE3 RevExp RevPhil RGG1–4

List of Abbreviations Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Münchener theologische Zeitschrift New American Commentary Die neue Echter-Bibel Neotestamentica New English Translation New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament The New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary The 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) New Revised Standard Version Das Neue Testament Deutsch Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th edition, Kurt Aland et al., eds., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 1994 Novum Testamentum et Orbis antiquus New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca, 167 vols., Paris: Migne 1857–1866 Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus: Series latina, 217 vols., Paris: Migne 1841–1855 Reallexikon for Antike und Christentum. Theodor Klauser et al., eds., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1950ff. Revue biblique Revista Catalana de Teología Realencyclopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 3rd edition, Albert Hauck, ed., 24 vols., Leipzig: Hinrich 1896–1913 Review and Expositor Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes (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)

List of Abbreviations RHR RNT RTP SAC SANT SBB SBLDS SBLSBS SBLSP SBLSymS SBS SBU SCHNT SE SEÅ SemeiaST SJT SM SNTA SNTSMS SNTU SP SPAW.PH ST STAR STDJ STh StZ SUNT SWV TB TBei TBl TBT TDNT

TEH THKNT ThQ ThTo TKNT TLZ TNTC TP TPQ TQ

XXI

Revue de l’histoire des religions Regensburger Neues Testament Revue de théologie et de philosophie Studies in Antiquity and Christianity Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Svenskt bibliskt uppslagsverk Studia ad corpus hellenisticum Novi Testamenti Studia evangelica Svensk exegetisk årsbok Semeia Studies 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 Sermon on the Plain Sitzungsberichte der preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Studia theologica Studies in Theology and Religion Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Summa theologica Stimmen der Zeit Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Schütz Werkeverzeichnis Theologische Bücherei Theologische Beiträge Theologische Blätter Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel/Gerhard Friedrich, eds., trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 10 vols., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1964–1976 Theologische Existenz heute Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Quartalschrift Theology Today Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Literaturzeitung Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Theologie und Philosophie Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift Theologische Quartalschrift

XXII TRE TRu TS TSAJ TSK TTKi TTZ TWAT

TWNT

TZ UNT UTB VCSup VF VTSup WBC WD WEB WMANT WUNT ZAW ZBK ZdZ ZEE ZKT ZNT ZNW ZPE ZST ZTK

List of Abbreviations Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Gerhard Krause/Gerhard Müller, eds., 36 vols. + Index, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1977–2004 Theologische Rundschau Theological Studies Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum/Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Theologische Studien und Kritiken Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, G. Johannes Botterweck/Helmer Ringgren, eds., 10 vols., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1973–2016 Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Gerhard Kittel/Gerhard Friedrich, eds., 10 vols., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1933– 1979 Theologische Zeitschrift Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Uni-Taschenbücher Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae Verkündigung und Forschung Vetus Testamentum: Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wort und Dienst World English Bible Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zürcher Bibelkommentare Zwischen den Zeiten Zeitschrift für Evangelische Ethik Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie Zeitschrift für Neues Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research The Sermon on the Mount (SM) is like a high enigmatic mountain. Enigmatic mountains fascinate. They invite us to exploration and discoveries. In some parts they are difficult to climb. Classical texts like the SM are never undiscovered and uncharted territory. Few texts have been interpreted more intensively than the SM. It has been studied in every generation for about 2,000 years, in most countries of the world, by nearly all groups of people. Its enigmatic character is still there, and there are still undiscovered places. Discovery of these places can yield a new picture. The purpose of this book is to explore some of the darker spots and provide a better guide through the enigmatic mountain. In spite of – or because of – the importance of the SM through the centuries, a comprehensive history of research about the famous text has not been written so far. A comprehensive history of research would fill at least five volumes, and these five volumes are indeed a desideratum in scholarship. The relatively extensive introductory paragraph in this book cannot fill this gap. It is more a prolegomenon to the fascinating story about the SM. This story is as such important for the understanding of the SM today. Warren S. Kissinger, Friedrich Wilhelm Kantzenbach and Clarence Bauman et al. have covered many aspects of this exciting history.1 This introductory paragraph offers – in short form – a more comprehensive approach, in which the complexity of the problems is illustrated.

1.1 Preliminary Remarks The object we explore is only seemingly clear. Is the SM the map more than the territory? It is to some extent confusing that ‘Sermon on the Mount’ can mean at least six different things: 1) A speech Jesus delivered in his earliest ministry. Jesus apparently gave many speeches in Galilee in his earliest ministry, but one of these was like an 1 Kissinger, Sermon (1975); Kantzenbach, Bergpredigt (1982); Bauman, Sermon (1985) – and Greenman et al. (eds.), Sermon (2007). In addition Berner, Bergpredigt (21983), and a number of profound studies on theologians and exegetes who have contributed substantially to the research of the SM (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.).

2

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

inaugural speech. The differences between them make it clear that one of them or more than one of them conveys an authentic historical account of Jesus’ inaugural speech. 2) The reconstructed speech, more or less the common sayings in Matt 5–7 and Luke 6,20–49. 3) The focus on Matt 5–7 can mean that everything must be seen from the standpoint of Matthew and his community about 80 CE.2 The SM means what Matthew targeted with this relatively comprehensive inaugural speech. 4) The very name sermo in monte points to the first of five speeches in Matthew (Matt 5–7), different from the Sermon on the Plain (SP) in Luke 6,20–49. Only Matthew has a sermon on the Mount(ain). Since Augustine the SM means primarily Matt 5–7, and because of its ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’ most people (and scholars) have the SM and not the SP in mind.3 5) The SM as text, its topics and its central meaning, more or less independent from the historical questions. The SM as text has had, and continues to have, impact on people in societies and religions. 6) Theologians sometimes use the SM as a cipher for the specific, radical ethics in Jesus’ teaching or for the ethical teaching of Jesus in general.4 Some would add: it is the genuine teaching of Jesus, and even the genuine Christian teaching, the essence of Christianity. It is a striking fact that people outside the Church more than theologians, and theologians more than exegetes, see the SM as the essence of Christianity. Many theologians tend to underline the problematic demands, and exegetes tend to underline the obscure historical circumstances. It is confusing if scholars do not have clear definitions and a clear understanding of the object they investigate. Ambiguity is difficult to avoid,5 but it is necessary to strive for clarity. 1.1.1 The History of Research – the Challenges of Overviews In general, we see two main approaches to the history of research, and here a third will be added. The diachronic approach is after all the most objective and can at its best be somewhat comprehensive. E.g. Kissinger and Kantzenbach offered entirely diachronic views. 2

Marxsen, “Streit um die Bergpredigt” (1986), cf. idem, “Streit am falschen Ort” (1982), 508: “Wer nicht den ganzen Text meint, mißbraucht das Wort ‘Bergpredigt’”, and he adds: “Die Bergpredigt ist eine literarische Größe, aber kein Qualitätsbegriff”. 3 Augustine’s De sermone in monte framed the notion of one, early decisive speech. This speech, independent of Augustine and regardless of all kinds of historical criticism, tends to be read as Jesus’ historical speech. 4 According to Goppelt, “Problem der Bergpredigt” (1968), 27: “Das Problem der Bergpredigt treibt gegenwärtig Menschen am Rande der Kirche mehr um als die Theologen.” 5 Syreeni, “Separation and Identity” (1994), differentiates between “textual, concrete, symbolic world” in the SM.

1.1 Preliminary Remarks

3

In the systematic approaches three to eight ‘solutions’ are listed.6 The ‘solutions’ offer mostly a mixture of names, positions, methods and intentions, etc. Many lists have particular interests; they want to prepare for the scholar’s own position. 1) The diachronic view. Such reviews should start with the New Testament and the Church Fathers, and move forward strictly chronologically, with the first major contributions by Augustine and John Chrysostom, then make a major stop with the Reformation and finally end with the many modern positions.7 Modern scholars tend to start with the Reformation or at most with the monastic/scholastic interpretation, which was the starting-point for the Reformation. Georg Strecker8 found the following types of interpretation: 1. Pauline-Lutheran (Law and Gospel), 2. Realistic demands (left wing of Reformation), 3. Ethics of intention, 4. Religious-history school, 5. Dialectical Theology, 6. Peace movement. Leonhard Goppelt operated with seven positions: 1. Left wing of Reformation (“Schwärmerische”), 2. Catholic, 3. Luther, 4. Gesinnungsethik, 5. ‘Consequent Eschatology’, 6. ‘Actual Eschatology’, 7. Goppelt’s own approach.9 William D. Davies/Dale Allison10 also offer a comprehensive view here: 1. The Monastic Approach. The ideal of Matt 5,48 should be lived out. 2. The Absolutist Approach (Leo Tolstoy, Francis of Assisi, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, et al.). 3. The Doctrine of the Two Kingdom Approach, distinguishing between spiritual and civil order; private and public realm. 4. The Impossible Ideal, teaching the necessity of grace for those who have actually decided to obey the commandments, 5. The Ethic of Intention, speaking to individuals about attitudes and internal dispositions (Heinrich Julius Holtzmann and Wilhelm Herrmann). 6. The Christological Approach: the Sermon on the Mount is a self-portrait of Christ (Karl Barth, Eduard Thurneysen). 7. The Historical-Critical Approach, considering the pre-Gospel tradition, its relation to Paul, Jewish parallels – both the eschatological and wisdom-teaching. They end up with eight theses that describe their own position. Hans Dieter Betz in his stimulating diachronic overview focused mostly on the historical problems and the questions of composition and genre.11 Marcel Dumais12 provided extensive coverage for the period 1880 to 1980.

6 Traub, “Problem der Bergpredigt” (1936), lists eight positions (Catholic ethics, Tolstoy, Naumann, eschatological interpretations, rabbinic interpretations, M. Dibelius, Windisch, W. Herrmann). 7 Cf. Kantzenbach, Bergpredigt (1982), 21–76. L. Allen, “The Sermon on the Mount in the History of the Church” (1992). 8 Strecker, Bergpredigt (21985), 13–23. 9 Goppelt, Die Bergpredigt und die Wirklichkeit dieser Welt (1968), 27. 10 Davies/Allison, “Reflections” (1991), the theses, pp. 294ff. 11 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 5–44. 12 M. Dumais, Le Sermon sur la Montagne: État de la recherche, interprétation, bibliographie, Paris: Letouzey et Ané 1995.

4

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

Diachronic approaches are not very efficient if one tries to come to the heart of the matter. The alternative, systematic approaches do, however, focus mainly on the core of the matter. 2) Systematic approaches. These approaches or overviews mostly investigate the ‘meaning’ (German: Sinn) of the SM. Scholars formulate what the SM is all about, focusing on one aspect, what they call the problem of the SM, and this is the problem of radicalism: Can the radical demands be lived out, can they be fulfilled (German: Erfüllbarkeit)?13 The Antitheses in Matt 5,21–48 are therefore the key to the solution of the problem.14 Some scholars focus on the eschatology, but mostly also as the solution to the problem of radicalism. Most contributions to the history of research put this question in the forefront.15 Harvey King McArthur offered a more comprehensive list, and found twelve positions: 1. The Absolutist View. 2. Others have dealt with the issue by Modifying the Text of the sermon. 3. The Hyperbole View, but there is disagreement over exactly which sections should not be taken literally. 4. The General Principles View argues that Jesus was not giving specific instructions, but general guidelines of how one should behave. 5. The Double Standard View divides the teachings of the sermon into general precepts and specific counsels. 6. The Two Realms View, proposed by Martin Luther divided the world into the religious and secular realms and argued that the sermon only applied to the spiritual realm. 7. The Analogy of Scripture View holds that the more rigid precepts in the sermon were moderated by other parts of the New Testament. 8. The notion of Attitudes, not Acts. 9. The Interim Ethics View sees Jesus as being convinced that the world was going to end in the very near future. 10. Martin Dibelius’ Unconditional Divine Will View, which holds that although the ethics behind the sermon is absolute, the fallen state of the world makes it impossible to live up to them. 11. The Repentance View holds that Jesus knew that the precepts in his sermon were unattainable, and that it was meant to stimulate repentance and faith in the gospel. 12. Another Eschatological View is that of modern dispensationalism: Although we are currently living in an age where the teachings of the sermon are impossible to fulfil, in the future millennium they will be fulfilled and their fulfilment is a prerequisite to salvation.

13

Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (1987), 462, and Schnackenburg, “Die Bergpredigt Jesu und der heutige Mensch” (1967), 117 (“… wie schwierig und schwerwiegend die Frage der Erfüllbarkeit ist”). Roloff, Neues Testament (31982), 107–122: He takes into account “die systematische Frage nach Geltungsbereich und Realisierbarkeit der ethischen Forderungen Jesu” (108). Most history of the research deals with this question. Bauman, Sermon (1985), and Lapide, Bergpredigt (1982/61986)/Sermon (1986), ask for the meaning. 14 Jeremias, Bergpredigt ([1959/]1966), 171, sees ‘radicalism’ (“die Erfüllbarkeitsfrage”) as ‘the problem’. He adds: “Das ist eine Frage, die sehr tief greift und nicht nur Unterricht und Verkündigung betrifft, sondern die, wenn wir uns ihr wirklich stellen, an die Wurzeln unserer Existenz fällt”. 15 Besides Jeremias, Roloff, Bauman and Lapide, also Davies/Allison, “Reflections” (1991), 284–293.

1.1 Preliminary Remarks

5

Joachim Jeremias found four solutions of the problem: the perfectionist conception – the theory of the impossible ideal (“Lutheran”) – the theory of interim ethics (A. Schweitzer) – and the SM as an ‘Early Christian Catechism’ (J. Jeremias).16 Jürgen Roloff17 reduced the history of research to four types: 1. Relativising the precepts (some persons, some periods of time, or only a principle). 2. Radicalising (Tolstoy: criticism of culture and society, or Ernst Bloch: a revolutionary program). 3. Privatising. 4. Christological interpretation. Pinchas Lapide18 found similarly eight positions, ten are misinterpretations, that prepare for his own approach: 1. The perfectionist view (Mosissimus Mose/work of righteousness). 2. An ethics that is impossible to keep (Gerhard Kittel, et al.). 3. An interim ethics (‘Ethik der Zwischenzeit’). 4. Utopian ethics. 5. Disciple-ethics. 6. A romantic view, a radical handbook. 7. An ethics of attitude. 8. Pinchas Lapide’s realistic view of eliminating wrongdoing and improving the world.

Clarence Bauman (1928–1995) published the most comprehensive book on the history of research from this point of view. He concentrated entirely on the question of ‘radicalism’, and his systematic history lists 36 different views.19 To give right answers to false questions makes no sense. Questions must be raised in a precise way or they will in reality turn out to be false questions. Exegetes often ask: What is the problem, or the meaning?20 To start with the question of the meaning (German: Sinn) of the SM is not false, but too general and it focuses on one aspect (radicalism/the fulfilment of the radical demands) and on the Antitheses in particular.21 The question of radicalism is only one problem. It is indeed an important one, and we will deal extensively with the problem of radicalism in one paragraph (§ 5) and return to the general problem of ‘meaning’ (or ‘meanings’) of the SM in the concluding paragraph, but not the crucial question in the exegesis of the SM. There is indeed more than one problem and this book deals with the seven to ten crucial questions. These theses of only one meaning leads often to formulations of the type ‘the SM is not …’, ‘the SM is not …’. We see the minimalistic outcome expressed as an ‘only’ or ‘not’: The SM is only for monks, only for the disciples, only for an interim period, only an ‘attitude’, etc. Or: the SM is not 16

Jeremias, Sermon (1961), 7–16. Roloff, Neues Testament (1977), 115–117. 18 Lapide, Bergpredigt (1982)/Sermon (1986). 19 Bauman, Sermon (1985), cf. Davies/Allison, “Reflections” (1991), 284–293; Aukrust, “Bergpredigt II” , TRE 5 (1980), here 624–626. 20 Cf. Windisch, Sinn der Bergpredigt (1928/1937); Fiebig, “Sinn der Bergpredigt” (1929/30); J. Schneider, Sinn der Bergpredigt (1936). 21 Cf. Traub, “Problem der Bergpredigt” (1936); Goppelt, “Problem der Bergpredigt” (1968). Cf. already Rafael Gyllenberg, “Religion und Ethik in der Bergpredigt”, ZST 13 (1936), 682–705, here 683: the problem in the SM is the extreme radical demands (“das Problem der Unerfüllbarkeit der Forderungen Jesu”). 17

6

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

law, not regulation for the state, not general ethical devices, etc. This is in the end a too simplistic solution. 3) History of the key problems, and distinction between influence and interpretation. In order to broaden the perspective, we will use three tools: (a) In this first paragraph we will take basically a diachronic approach, but we will concentrate on the dominating interpretation of the SM, and emphasise new interpretations. The influence of ‘new’ and ‘characteristic’ interpretations of the SM and contributions with great influence and contributions that are still under debate will be in focus. In our history of research, we will look for the following aspects: – the premises for the influence and interpretations (aspects of sociology of knowledge) – the correlation between interpretation and influence – the literal meaning versus historical and theological interpretation – the significance of the historical analysis of the sources and historical setting of the SM – the impact of certain methods on the interpretation and influence – the role of philosophical/theological/existential/political reflections We have, however, to start with the distinction between influence and interpretation, in order to see how influence and interpretations are intertwined. In churches and theology influence and interpretation go more often hand in hand. (b) We will distinguish between influence and interpretation (‘Wirkungsgeschichte’ and ‘Reception-history’): ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’ deals mostly with ‘influence’ and ‘Reception-history’ mostly with ‘interpretation’.22 The history of influence and the history of the interpretation of the SM do not always converge. Scholarly interpretations of the SM have often limited influence. One-sided interpretations often have more impact on persons and societies than profound scholarly interpretations. It is impossible to measure influence: how broad, how deep, among how many? The impact of certain interpretations on the influence must be our focus here. Preaching and teaching in churches: Exegetical expositions of nonprofessionals – what scholars use to call ‘wild exegesis’ – are relevant alongside sermons of professional preachers, theologians, exegetes or lay persons.

22 The German notion of ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’ implies many matters and it is therefore difficult to translate the term into English. The notion ‘history of reception’ can be used in a strict sense, meaning reception of a text as authority. Ecumenical documents that are ‘received’ = accepted as authorities, are used in this sense. ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’ means also ‘influence’ in a broader sense. The influence of e.g. Luther is much broader than the reception of his writings (e.g. his catechisms) in Lutheran churches.

1.1 Preliminary Remarks

7

New eras, new situations always imply new perspectives; the perspective on the SM will change depending on: living in poverty or prosperity, in war or in peace, in a pietistic or non-pietistic environment, in a Christian or multireligious environment, within or outside academia, etc. This influences the criticism of the SM. Few, but some strong voices – from ancient times until today – have criticised this famous speech. The critical voices must be heard also, as part of the ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’. Interpreters constantly come up with new approaches and types of interpretation of this classical text. The following texts have been extremely influential: – the Beatitudes, Matt 5,3–12 – the salt and light of the world, 5,13–16 – on the Torah and the new righteousness, 5,17–20 – the Antitheses, 5,21–48, in particular the commandment to resist retaliation and to love your enemy, 5,38–47, and the saying on perfection, 5,48 – the Lord’s Prayer, 6,9–13 – the admonition against earthly treasures, 6,19–21 – the admonition against having two masters, 6,24 – the admonitions against worrying, 6,25–34 – the Golden Rule, 7,12 (c) The concentration on only one problem leads astray; we will rather focus on about ten crucial problems of the SM, and how scholars treat them. The historical and literary problems: – the source-critical questions (sources behind the SM; Inaugural speech from Q? Anything from Mark?) – Is Matthew the first step in reception-history or the author? – the historical Jesus (how much of the SM is authentic?) – composition, genre and rhetoric – Jewishness or Hellenistic framework of the SM Literary, theological and philosophical problems: – the question of audience – the question of radicalism – the question of identity; philosophical and theological approaches – ethical problems – the questions of meaning in a present situation The individual problems in the SM have to be solved in different ways, and most overviews of the history of research deal largely with the question of radicalism. The ten problems are intertwined, and must at the same time be dealt with separately. Most scholars focus on the radical demands and the possible fulfilment of these demands, or on the ethical and theological problems. This book addresses all these questions. Nearly all of them are dealt with in

8

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

separate paragraphs. The question of Matthew’s role is analysed in a separate publication,23 the questions of Jewishness and actual meaning are included in nearly all paragraphs.

1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM Cultural influence is dependent on two factors: the authority of Jesus, and the cultural, political, economic, religious and philosophical setting. It can be compared to the constitution of a country; in some countries, such as the US, the Constitution has a huge impact. In other countries, people refer to it without taking the paragraphs and their interpretation seriously. The influence of the SM is dependent on the role of the Church in a society and on how the Church emphasises the SM. 1.2.1 Its Influence as Sermon Compared to Other Speeches Is the SM really the most influential speech ever? Simon S. Montefiore, the famous British-Lithuanian-Jewish historian, has written ground-breaking books e.g. on Russian emperors (on the Romanovs and on Stalin) and on Jerusalem. The last one was “the book of the year” in 2011.24 Five years earlier he published Speeches that Changed the World.25 Here he labelled 50 famous and important speeches, with – as the climax – Mandela’s speech in 1994 that gave Apartheid its mortal blow. Montefiore mentions as the first Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Of the many speeches that have changed history, Montefiore sees the SM as the most important.26 The SM is unique, and it is unique in that a specific religious text is so widely used outside its own religion. We see this already in short comparisons with Buddha’s and Muhammad’s speeches. Buddha’s Benares-speech has little influence outside Buddhism, and similarly Muhammad’s Farewell-speech has had little impact outside Islam, largely because they are speeches to their close disciples. Both speeches are much shorter than the SM, more similar to the SP, the shorter version in Luke 6,20–49. 23

Baasland, “Matthew’s Elaborations of the ‘Inaugural Speech’” (2020). S.S. Montefiore, Jerusalem: The Biography, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2011. According to Bill Clinton it was the most important book he has read – ever. 25 S.S. Montefiore, Speeches that changed the World, revised edn., London: Quercus 2010. 26 Cf. Martin Kaufhold (ed.), Die großen Reden der Weltgeschichte, Wiesbaden: Marixverlag 82015. Cf. similarly, Jacob Neusner in Jerusalem Post, 11 June 2007: “it is hard to think of words more deeply etched into our civilisation and its deepest affirmation than the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount”. 24

1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM

9

1) Buddha’s Benares-speech. Buddha’s sermon was delivered to his monks in 528 BCE. Buddha was slightly older than Jesus when he gave his sermon. “… There are two extremes, O bhikkhus [= monks], which the man who has given up the world ought not to follow – the habitual practice, on the one hand, of self-indulgence which is unworthy, vain and fit only for the worldly-minded, and the habitual practice, on the other hand, of self-mortification, which is painful, useless and unprofitable. Neither abstinence from fish and flesh, nor going naked, nor shaving the head, nor wearing matted hair, nor dressing in a rough garment, nor covering oneself with dirt, nor sacrificing to Agni, will cleanse a man who is not free from delusions. Reading the Vedas, making offerings to priests, or sacrifices to the gods, self-mortification by heat or cold and many such penances performed for the sake of immortality, these do not cleanse the man who is not free from delusions. Anger, drunkenness, obstinacy, bigotry, deception, envy, self-praise, disparaging others, superciliousness and evil intentions constitute uncleanness; not verily the eating of flesh. A middle path, O bhikkhus, avoiding the two extremes, has been discovered by the Tathagata ‒ a path which opens the eyes, and bestows understanding, which leads to peace of mind, to the higher wisdom, to full enlightenment, to Nirvana! What is that middle path, O bhikkhus, avoiding these two extremes, discovered by the Tathagata ‒ that path which opens the eyes, and bestows understanding, which leads to peace of mind, to the higher wisdom, to full enlightenment, to Nirvana? Let me teach you, O bhikkhus, the middle path, which keeps aloof from both extremes. By suffering, the emaciated devotee produces confusion and sickly thoughts in his mind. Mortification is not conducive even to worldly knowledge; how much less to a triumph over the senses! … Now this, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning the origin of suffering: Verily, it is that craving which causes the renewal of existence, accompanied by sensual delight, seeking satisfaction now here, now there, the craving for the gratification of the passions, the craving for a future life, and the craving for happiness in this life. This, then, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning the origin of suffering. Now this, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning the destruction of suffering: Verily, it is the destruction, in which no passion remains, of this very thirst; it is the laying aside of, the being free from, the dwelling no longer upon this thirst. This, then, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning the destruction of suffering. Now, this, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning the way which leads to the destruction of sorrow. Verily, it is this noble eightfold path; that is to say: Right views; right aspirations; right speech; right behaviour; right livelihood; right effort; right thoughts; and right contemplation. This, then, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning the destruction of sorrow. By the practice of loving-kindness I have attained liberation of heart, and thus I am assured that I shall never return in renewed births. I have even now attained Nirvana.”27

The speech comes close to an Inaugural speech, and to a deliberative speech also. The addressees are a more limited group than Jesus’ audience. They are addressed directly as disciples (bhikkhus, “monks”) and it is about their way

27 Translation from Paul Carus (ed.), The Gospel of Buddha, Chicago: Open Court 1894, 49. Suzanne McIntire, Speeches in World-History, New York: Facts on File 2009, 13–15, quotes a bit more from the same source.

10

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

to attain Nirvana. Buddha’s Benares-speech is in fact a summary of his message to his followers. 2) Muhammad’s Farewell-speech. Muhammad delivered his Farewellspeech in 632 CE. He was 62 years old, commander-in-chief of successful warriors and a religious leader. After praising, and thanking Allah he said: “O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore, listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and take these words to those who could not be present here today. O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your LORD, and that HE will indeed reckon your deeds. ALLAH has forbidden you to take usury [interest], therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things. O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah’s trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste. O People, listen to me in earnest, worship ALLAH, say your five daily prayers [= Salah], fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to. All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves. Remember, one day you will appear before ALLAH and answer your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone. O People, no prophet or apostle will come after me and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and my example, the Sunnah, and if you follow these you will never go astray.”28

Muhammad’s sermon is a farewell speech and not an inaugural speech. It resembles John 14–17 when it comes to context. The content is totally different. The differences are more striking than the similarities. He addresses repeatedly his audience (“O People”) and the group is his followers, and it is concrete instruction to them who will fight for Allah. 28

This translation is taken from McIntire, ibid., 79f, who quotes a bit more from this short speech.

1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM

11

3) Sermons in Greek-Hellenistic writings. The speeches that changed history belong mostly to the genre of political speeches. In Homer’s Iliad the speeches of Odysseus and Phoenix are beautifully formed.29 Pericles’ last speech before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War influenced history immensely.30 Demosthenes’ speech one hundred years later (351 BCE) was more eloquent, but could not achieve the same.31 The young student of Aristotle’s rhetoric, Alexander the Great, had like Muhammad’s Farewell-speech immediate success with his speech: “I could not have blamed you for being the first to lose heart if I, your commander, had not shared in your exhausting marches and your perilous campaigns; it would have been natural enough if you had done all the work merely for others to reap the reward. But it is not so. You and I, gentlemen, have shared the labour and shared the danger, and the rewards are for us all. The conquered territory belongs to you; from your ranks the governors of it are chosen; already the greater part of its treasure passes into your hands, and when all Asia is overrun, then indeed I will go further than the mere satisfaction of our ambitions: the utmost hopes of riches or power which each one of you cherishes will be far surpassed, and whoever wishes to return home will be allowed to go, either with me or without me. I will make those who stay the envy of those who return.”32

We are here not far from the patterns many political leaders have used. Churchill and Hitler used this kind of rhetoric. Most of the speeches Montefiore lists in his book are in fact political speeches. The SM has elements from the genre of protreptic speech and it has inspired many later protreptic speeches. Two examples: The SM substantially influenced Martin Luther King Jr., not only in his non-violent struggle. His last speech in Washington (“I have a dream”), is inspired directly by Jesus’ SM. The Beatitudes are echoed and not quoted, and are made concrete in his situation. Even Barack Obama’s speeches show both in structure and content (“Change” and “Yes we can!”) parallels to the SM. The refrain in his election speeches came in fact close to the purpose of the SM. 4) Sermons in Jewish synagogues. The SM was relatively unique in the Hellenistic era. Even the earliest synagogue-sermons have a different character. They are often based on certain Old Testament texts. Many midrashim have a sermonic character. They were heard in the synagogue, and sometimes studied, but not outside the Jewish communities. Mark reports repeatedly that Jesus gave sermons in the synagogues. Only Luke 4,16 offers an extremely brief inside report. It is customised in every way, particularly through the use of Isa 61 as pre-text or as starting point for a midrash. 29

Homer, Il. IX,225–306, 434–605. Thucydides I,139–146. 31 Demosthenes, First Philippic 51. 32 Alexander’s speech at Opis in 324 BC, according to Arrian, Anab. VII,9–10. 30

12

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

Leopold Zunz, the founder of the modern ‘science of Judaism’, wrote the history of this important genre. His book (1832) was written in an apologetic setting in Prussia, Germany, and the study should provide documentation for free speech in Judaism and that the sermons in synagogues were precursors for Christian preaching.33 After 1832 the influence was the other way round, but the sermons in the Early Church in fact copied the practice of the Darshanim (“Speakers”) or Maggidim (“Tellers”). Certain scriptural verses were applied on actual religious and ethical questions by using derush (‫דרש‬/‫= מדרש‬ to inquire/search) and the sermon became known as a derashah. Luke 4,16 is apparently a derashah and according to Neh 8 Ezra was the first who practised this kind of derashah. We have few reports of actual sermons, but the tannaitic midrashim provide us with examples of how texts were interpreted in the schools of Rabbi Akiva (about 50–135 CE) and Rabbi Ishmael (90–135 CE). They developed new principles compared to Hillel’s famous hermeneutical rules, which also have many parallels to the Hellenistic rhetorical tradition.34 In an excursus on Luke 4,16ff Paul Billerbeck has reviewed the exposition of Torah and texts of the prophets, plus the more freely used texts, based on a proem.35 The last type is used when certain biblical persons or episodes are interpreted and exposed. This form is well known in the first and second century churches. 1 Clement uses the form with brilliance, and we find it more briefly in James, Barnabas, etc. The SM makes no use of biblical figures, except for the reference to the garments of Solomon in Matt 6,29. The so-called references to the Pentateuch in the Antitheses are rather unprecise and cannot serve as a basis for this kind of exposition. 1.2.2 Its Influence on Language, Art and Music In examining the influence of the SM, we should look into the following areas: public discourse,36 language, art, music, literature, curricula in state schools,37 33 L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt: Ein Beitrag zur Alterthumskunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte, Berlin: Asher 1832 (repr., Hildesheim: Olms 1966). He was a pioneer in this field of studies and opened for Jewish-Christian dialogue not only in Berlin. 34 Adolf Schwarz, “Enthymematische Analogieschlüsse in der Bibel”, in Judaica. FS H. Cohen, Berlin: Cassirer 1912, 185–205. 35 Bill. IV/1, Exkurs 8, pp. 153–188, cf. Exkurs 7 (on Matt 4,23) on “das altjüdische Synagogeninstitut”, pp. 115–152. 36 The only extensive study of its role from 1800–1850 is provided by Meier-Reutti, Die Bergpredigt in der evangelischen und außerkirchlichen Publizistik (2001). 37 A comprehensive analysis of books in this field from 1900–1970 is provided by Bernhard Krautter, Die Bergpredigt im Religionsunterricht: Eine exegetisch-didaktische Erschließung zu Mattäus 5–7, Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag 1973. Cf. Liselotte Corbach, Die Bergpredigt in der Schule, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1956.

1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM

13

etc. We can use language, art and music as examples, and in all these areas the SM has had a huge impact. In some respect the history of Adam and Eve, the history of Moses and Jesus’ birth and passion narratives have had similar impact. But no other religious or literary text – with the possible exception of the Decalogue – can be compared with the influence of the SM. The influence of the SM on fiction can be a fascinating subject. The numerous Jesus films have mostly the SM, particularly the Beatitudes, as their starting point. The same happens in popular novels about Jesus. The beginning of modern drama is in many ways the ‘new, serious genre’ Denis Diderot amd Gotthold Ephraim Lessing launched after 1750. Lessing in his ‘Trauerspiele’ used the SM to demonstrate what morality and vices are all about.38 Henrik Ibsen’s drama Brand is another example: the priest Brand is portrayed high up in the mountains practising an absolute, radical ethos. The strange figure Myschkin in Fjodor Dostoyevsky’s novel The Idiot is called “poor in spirit” (cf. Matt 5,3) and he does not fit into society.

1) The influence of the SM on modern languages. In the historical part (§ 1.3– 1.10) we will offer glimpses of its influence in culture – on art, music, literature, etc. Here we will focus on only one type of influence. Sermons with impressive rhetorical style tend to influence the language. Martin Luther King’s speech at the Lincoln monument more than 50 years ago made “I have dream” to a distinct figure of speech and way of thinking. It was the same for the Obama slogan “Yes, we can”, and the two speakers were obviously inspired by Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. The SM has not only formed slogans and inspired to a way of thinking. Expressions and word figures have had a lasting influence – even in modern languages. The influence of the SM can easily be seen already in the English (German, French, Spanish, etc.) language. The following expressions show this clearly: “poor in spirit” (Matt 5,3), “peacemaker” (5,9), “salt of the earth” (5,13), “city on the mountain” (5,14), “to put the light under the bushel” (5,14), “one tittle” (5,18), “your communication should be Yea, Yea, No, No” (5,37), “to turn the other cheek” (5,39), “to go the extra mile” (5,41), “to make his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and send rain on the just and on the unjust” (5,45), “to sound your own trumpet” (6,2), “to enter your inner chamber” (6,6), “treasures in heaven where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt” (6,19), “to serve two masters” (6,24), “each day has enough trouble of its own” (6,34), “the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, … the beam that is in thine own eye” (7,3), “to cast pearls before swine” (7,6), “wide gate, and broad way” (7,13), “wolf in sheep’s clothing” (7,15, cf. “blind leading the blind”, Luke 6,39), “to gather figs of thistles” (7,16), “house upon rock or sand” (7,24.26).

2) The influence of the SM on art. Before 1500, art, music and literature were based in the Church. The secularisation of art, music and literature has 38 Gisbert Ter-Nedden, Lessings Trauerspiele: Der Ursprung des modernen Dramas aus dem Geist der Kritik, Stuttgart: Metzler 1986, 33, 37–39, 110. Compared to Aristotle’s categories, it was a novelty to give a realistic midpoint between comedy and tragedy.

14

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

increased since then. Some of the best artists still express their interpretation of the SM.39 Its influence on art starts in the Early Church, and we can follow paintings of ‘Jesus on the Mount’ from the 14th century onwards. The painting of Fra Angelico (1395–1455) on the cell walls of the San Marco Convent in Florence is a monastic interpretation of the SM; the audience is the twelve apostles alone. Cosimo Roselli (1437–1507) has a larger audience and he created a similar painting of Moses on the mountain. Pierro de Cosimo (1462–1521) sees in accordance with Matt 5,1–8,4 the preacher on the mountain together with the healing of the leper (Matt 8,1–4). After the Reformation we find paintings of the SM in the whole of Europe. Due to the strong influence of the SM in both Catholic and Reformed circles it is no surprise that we find this motif often among Flemish painters. Jan Brueghel the Elder (1568–1625), son of the Renaissance painter Pieter Brueghel, and a friend of Rubens, and his colleague Frans Francken II (1581– 1642) set the standard. The two painters were the first to place their paintings in a ‘Kunstkammer’ (“art room”/“wonder room”). They have left the monastic interpretation behind. Both paint larger crowds around Jesus and they highlight the role of women. It is ironic that Francken’s painting from 1606 was stolen by the Nazis and rediscovered in a Nazi bunker in 1945. The Jewish preacher, Jesus, prevailed over all Nazi propaganda. The French painter Claude Lorrain (1604–1682) depicted marvellous landscapes, and he placed Jesus in a rural setting in his painting from 1657. Another Baroque painter, Sebastiano Ricci (1659–1734), a contemporary of J.S. Bach, offered sophisticated interpretations of many biblical scenes. He painted Jesus in an esoteric circle using abundant allegories and symbols. The Danish painter Carl Heinrich Bloch (1834–1890), influenced by Rembrandt, in 1877 – in tune with the historic-romantic ideas of his time – made a figurative, ‘historically correct’ painting of Jesus preaching on a mountain. This painting is one of the most often reproduced paintings of the SM. Ten years earlier, in a difficult time for him, he wrote to Hans Christian Andersen: “What God has arched on solid rock will not be swept away!” (Matt 7,24) In his painting Jesus is located on a solid rock, leading the silent listeners to heavenly realities. Another Danish painter, Ole Henrik B. Olrik (1830–1890) is famous for his portraits (of kings and e.g. of Henrik Ibsen) and for using his techniques in the porcelain industry. Like his famous son, Alex Olrik, he had open eyes for folklore motifs and in his painting of the SM he shows a diverse audience: the close disciples are listening carefully, whereas the mixed audience displays other reactions. 39 The fascinating story about the influence of the SM on art and music cannot be told in this historic-exegetical investigation. The history of art and the history of interpretation do not always correspond due to the creativity of the artists.

1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM

15

James Tissot (1836–1902), a contemporary French painter, painted Jesus in white clothing (like many of his fashionably dressed women) proclaiming his message to multitudes that need guidance. Paul Gustave Doré (1832–1883) placed the rock in the woods or is saying that the rock is soil even for trees. The contemporary Italian painter, Domenico Morelli (1823–1901), placed Jesus in a remote place surrounded by women, children and some disciples. This might be a symbol for few original paintings of the SM in the last hundred years. The illustrators took over, what they considered to be interesting. No art is more widely spread than illustrations in books, etc. Expressionists, synthetists, impressionists, cubists, fauvists, futurists, surrealists and non-figurative painters chose motifs other than the SM. There are, however, exceptions. A member of ‘The New English Art Club’, Robin Craig Guthrie (1902– 1971), painted one of his earliest works (1922) more in the style of synthetism (inspired by Paul Gauguin, et al.), and the Argentinian (Mexican), Jorge Cocco Santángelo (b. 1936) painted Jesus as the teacher about the light of the world in the style of cubism. His colourful painting also shows the post-colonial interpretation of the SM in some recent paintings and in a number of illustrations; e.g. by Bryan Ahn, and in the French missionary, François Vidil’s collection of Cameroonian illustrations of ‘Vie de Jésus Mafa’. More recently we observe a diminishing influence on art, whereas in music the influence lasts until today. 3) The influence of the SM on music. The two extremely poetic texts in the SM, the Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer have challenged composers most. From the very beginning the texts have been used in songs and as songs. The extensive use of these two texts in medieval Gregorian music is a long story. The influence did not stop with the Reformation. Luther’s songs often inspired Johann Sebastian Bach, and his “Selig ist der Mann” (BWV 57) reflects the Beatitudes. Johannes Brahms’ “Ein deutsches Requiem” (Op. 45, 1869) does the same. At the same time César Franck (1822–1890) wrote a beautiful oratorio on the Beatitudes (“Les Béatitudes”, 1869–1879). A huge number of composers have recently offered their interpretations: Arthur Bliss’ (1891–1975) “Beatitudes” and Thomas Lloyd’s ‘Beatitudes’, titled “Bonhoeffer”, or Vladimir Ivanovich Martynov (b. 1946), or the Estonian genius, Arvo Pärt, in his “The Beatitudes”/“Beatitudines” (1990/2001). The Russian composer, Sergey Zhukov, in 1996 wrote a masterpiece for choirs, “They are blessed” (Matt 5,5: “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth …”). Martin Luther’s music to the Lord’s Prayer inspired many great composers like Heinrich Schütz, “Vater unser” (in “Zwölf geistliche Gesänge”), SWV 429,2 (1657), Johann Sebastian Bach’s Cantata BWV 101 and his organ music (“Vater unser im Himmelreich”, BWV 636, 682, 683, 737), and Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy in his 6th organ sonata (Op. 65: “Vater unser im Himmelreich”).

16

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

Giuseppe Verdi wrote the beautiful “O Padre nostro che ne' cieli stai” (1873). Igor Stravinsky and Leonard Bernstein used the Lord’s Prayer (“Pater Noster”) in their Masses, and Arvo Pärt with his “Vater unser” (2005) has recently also presented us a masterpiece for this text.40 1.2.3 The SM and its Unique Relationship to Judaism Few Christian texts have had more influence on movements outside the Churches. The Jewish response belongs to a different category from the responses in other religions. Many chapters of the history of the SM in Jewish literature have been written by Gösta Lindeskog, Roland Deines and others.41 It is a story about love, hate and pain. The audience of the SM were Jews, and so how was it received in Galilee about 28 CE? The ethos in the SM from the very beginning was perceived as ‘Jewish’ and was compared to the teaching of the rabbis, the Pharisees and the Scribes; how different was the teaching of Jesus? How did they react to the SM as text – as part of Matthew’s Gospel? The history of Jewish interpretation of the SM starts after 135 CE. After the Jewish War and destruction of the Temple and not least after the Bar Kochba Revolt, Jews and Christians were more clearly separated, and more tension between the two out-groups in Roman society arose. From the very beginning, the centre of the debates between Jews and Christians was the birth and death of Jesus, and the understanding of the Old Testament passages that according to Christians prophesied these events. The SM was peripheral in these debates, but Trypho represented the response from most Jews: a respectful, but critical, attitude towards the radicalism in the SM.42 1) Parting of the ways as process – after 135 CE until about 400 CE. The Gospel and the narratives about Jesus rather than his teaching were the focus of the early Jewish polemics against Christians. The ‘parting of the ways’ between Christians and Jews was a gradual process and among both Jews and Christians there was a variety of views on how far and in what respect a ‘parting of the ways’ had taken place.43 The ‘parting of the ways’ took place in various ways after the crucifixion of Jesus. Paul did not promote a process of ‘parting of the ways’; he protested 40 Cf. cantatas by Leoš Janáček, Thea Musgrave and Peter Maxwell Davies, or in the Nordic countries by Hugo Alfvén, Sven David Sandstrøm and Einojuhanni Rautavaara. 41 Gösta Lindeskog, Die Jesusfrage im neuzeitlichen Judentum: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell 1938 (repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1973), on the period 1890–1950, and Deines, Im Streit um die Bergpredigt (2005). 42 Reed, Jewish-Christianity and the History of Judaism (2018). 43 Schnelle, Die getrennten Wege (2019), has correctly emphasised the Roman perspective more than the inner conflict between Jews and Christians.

1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM

17

against ‘Judaizing’, conforming gentiles to Judaism.44 Marcion, who rejected Judaism on the basis of Christian texts, was regarded as a ‘heretic’. The conception of Christians as “the third race” (Kerygmata Petrou, Frag. 2b; Diogn. 2; Aristides, Apol. 2,2) was not at all an acceptance of Marcion. It was a dialectic approach as a consequence of the fact that the high Christology became an obstacle for Jews. Before 150 CE there were few outsiders who came to know Christian writings, and few copies of the Gospel of Matthew with the SM circulated in Christian communities. But Justin presupposes in his Apologies and even more in his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho that the SM was more widely known. Being sceptics to many beliefs in Christianity, the outsiders highly admired the teaching in the SM. If Christians really keep the commandments and hold the convictions in this speech, they said, Christianity would become a strong movement. Trypho formulated Jewish criticism – according to Justin, Dial. 10,2 – in the following way: “Moreover, 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.”45 At the same time Marcion labelled the argumentation as ‘antitheses’ and used it in his polemics against the Jews. Trypho46 and Marcion overstated the matter. They seem to have seen the SM as an early example of ‘parting of the ways’. Their statements were a reaction to the crisis after the Bar Kochba Revolt, the rise of rabbinic schools and the simultaneous rise of Christian churches and Christian theological 44

Ignatius argued more strongly than Paul: “It is absurd to speak about Christ Jesus and to Judaize” (ἄτοπόν ἐστιν, Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν λαλεῖν καὶ ἰουδαΐζειν, Ign. Magn. 10,3). He warned against those who “preach the Jewish Law unto you”. He said: “listen not to him” and added: “For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised” (ἄµεινον γάρ ἐστιν παρὰ ἀνδρὸς περιτοµὴν ἔχοντος χριστιανισµὸν ἀκούειν, ἢ παρὰ ἀκροβύστου ἰουδαϊσµόν, Ign. Phil. 6,1). 45 He continued: “But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or Sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, that that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties, and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God. If, therefore, you can defend yourself on these points, and make it manifest in what way you hope for anything whatsoever, even though you do not observe the Law, this we would very gladly hear from you, and we shall make other similar investigations” (trans. Philip Schaff, NPNF1), 46 ‘Trypho’ could be a rhetorical construct made up by Justin himself. In any case it reflects an early reaction on the radicalism in the SM.

18

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

efforts. The result was an emerging parting of the ways between Jews and Christians.47 Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho (ca. 160 CE48) could have launched a debate between Jews and Christians. It was, however, never followed up. After Trypho the SM is rarely mentioned in these dialogues.49 The question of Jesus as Messiah and the definition of God’s people dominate the treatises. Augustine’s and John Chrysostom’s impressive exegeses of the SM show how deeply they saw Jewish thought-patterns in the SM. Their exegeses of the seemingly anti-Jewish biases (Matt 5,13f; 5,20.21–48; 6,1[ff]; 7,15) cannot be called ‘anti-Semitic’. John Chrysostom interpreted the SM as a programme for a Christian ‘politeia’. A comparison with Plato50 is asymmetric, but Chrysostom’s observations were basically correct. 2) Rabbinic responses to the SM. The development of a scholarly Christian theology was partly influenced by the teaching and interpretation of the Scriptures in the synagogues and rabbinic schools. They formed Judaism after the destruction of the Temple and the Bar Kochba Revolt and Hadrian’s destruction of Jerusalem. Judaism with the Torah and its practices was abandoned in Galilee and Judea, and became a portable religion centered around the synagogues, but shortly after Hadrian’s death (138 CE) Judean survivors resettled in Galilee (Tiberias, Sepphoris, Caesarea, etc.). The Mishnah and later on the Jerusalem Talmud have their origin here. The latter has fewer references to the SM than the younger, more extensive and better organized Babylonian Talmud. Billerbeck’s collection of ‘rabbinic’ parallels to the SM is by far the most comprehensive (280 pages)51 and is often treated as ‘background’, assuming that the parallels reverberate conceptions and patterns of thought in the first century CE. Some parallels may indeed reflect the situation in the first century CE, but some are substantially younger. Early rabbinic sources refer in a number of texts often polemically to the SM; e.g. Matt 5,14–16 (b.Shab. 1.16a–b); 5,17 (b.Shab. 16.116); 7,3 (Rabbi 47 Katz, “Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 C.E.” (1984); Yaakov Yanki Teppler, Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in Conflict in the Ancient World (TSAJ 120), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007. 48 Following Leslie W. Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2008, 23. 49 The lost Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus (second century) was written in the style of Justin, and after 400 followed: Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus, Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus and Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila. 50 Cf. Mitchell, “John Chrysostom” (2007), esp. 31–41. 51 Bill. I, 189–470 (+ “Nachwort”, 470–474). Billerbeck assumed that there is something typically ‘Jewish’ (e.g. p. 328: “das jüdische Denken”, “allgemein die Neigung im jüdischen Volk”, etc.).

1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM

19

Tarphon, according to b.Arakh. 16b). b.Shab. 1.16a–b ridicules the Christian claim of being the light of the world and is in fact a parody on the SM.52 It is still a riddle that the rabbinic texts almost ignore Christianity. In the centuries 400–600 CE Christianity ruled the Holy Land and all the sites promised to Abraham, and one would expect polemics, debates, and references to Christian teaching. However, Peter Schäfer and Jacob Neusner have shown that there are a number of implicit and sometimes explicit corrections of Christian teachings. 3) The impact of the ‘Constantinian era’. The setting for the debates changed dramatically at the end of the fourth century. Christianity had become the ‘state-religion’ and Jews lived in isolated and scattered communities. The SM did not fit into this state-religion and Christian groups lived out the radicalism of the SM in scattered communities and eventually in monasteries. The Jews did not follow any Christian group, and hostile anti-Semitic attitudes broke out. The sad story about isolation of Jews, of conflict and persecution, of polemic in both directions, cannot be told here. The dominating Catholic church(es) often neglected the Jewish roots and Jewish teaching in the SM. The edict of Thessalonica 380 set the standard: the division between ‘catholic churches’ and heretics was followed up by many edicts on heretics.53 As one group of heretics the Jews were isolated and often a persecuted minority. Expulsions, forced conversions and massacres took place, particularly in the years of the Crusades and as scapegoats after the Black Death epidemic (after 1350). The decision against Jews in Constance 1215 had a lingering anti-Semitic effect. Luther could therefore in his philo-Semitic essay “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew”, in 1523 accuse Catholics of being unfair to Jews and treating them “as if they were dogs”. This unfair treatment was mild compared to Luther’s recommendations at the end of his extreme anti-Semitic book in 1543 (“On the Jews and Their Lies”).54 The anti-Semitic attitude continues also in the age of Enlightenment. Voltaire, Kant, Herder, and a number of other prominent thinkers demonstrate anti-Semitic resentments.

52

Cf. James Carleton Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish-Christians in Antiquity (WUNT 251), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2010; Burton L. Visotzky, Fathers of the World: Essays in Rabbinic and Patristic Literatures (WUNT 80), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1995, 79–83. 53 Cunctos Populos (Cod. Theod. XVI,1,2): “We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians, but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict” (quoted from Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford University Press 21963, 22). 54 Luther, WA 32, 95.

20

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

The oppressed Jewish communities neglected the Jewish roots and Jewish teaching in the SM also. Jewish polemics against the SM occur only in general remarks in The Book of the Generations/Life of Jesus (‫ספר ולדותת ישו‬, Sefer Toledot Jeshu). The traditions are taken from the Talmud and other rabbinic literature, from the canonical Christian Scriptures, from non-canonical Christian writings and from pagan anti-Christian writings.55 4) From the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment. Jewish scholars like Maimonides (1135–1202) took a different stand from Toledot Jeshu.56 He focused more on the attitude to the Law in the SM and argued against sayings in the SM.57 Occasionally conversions took place. Most Jews converted to Christianity, but we have on the other hand the famous conversion of a Christian bishop to Judaism. His Qissat Mayadalat al Usquf and Sefer Nestor Ha-Komer, deal with the SM in particular.58 The expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492 was a bad omen not only for the Sephardic Jews who landed in Thessalonica, Amsterdam and other places, but for the Ashkenazi Jews in Europe/East Europe and Russia as well. The diaspora was seldom a safe haven for Jewish groups living in the main cities of Europe. They often lived in the outskirts or outside the city walls. Discrimination, exclusion and even pogroms took place, and the times of doctrinal conflicts in Europe did not give the best atmosphere for dissidents, particularly Jews. Renaissance and Humanism were inspired to find the roots for culture not only in Christianity, but also in the Graeco-Roman world. This implied for 55 Cf. Samuel Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach jüdischen Quellen, Berlin: Calvary 1902. The dating of material is accordingly extremely difficult, ranging from pre-medieval to late medieval traditions. The translation into Latin (by Ramόn Marti in the late 13th century) opened for Christian polemics against the writing in the following centuries after it had been banned in 1405. 56 Idith Dobbs-Weinstein/Lenn E. Goodman/James Allen Grady, Maimonides and His Heritage, Albany: SUNY Press 2009. 57 Maimonides, De pauperis et peregrini apud Tholuck, Philologisch-theologische Auslegung der Bergpredigt Christi (31845), 359, who also mentions Constit. de precat(ione) 5 § 2 (on prayer), but Maimonides’ Sefer Hamitzvot (on the 613 commandments) shows clearly the differences to the teaching of Jesus. From the large literature on this polemical writing, see esp. Samuel Krauss, Jewish-Christian Controversy from the Earliest Times to 1789, ed. and rev. by William Horbury (TSAJ 56), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1995, here 236–238; Daniel J. Lasker, “The Jewish Critique of Christianity under Islam in the Middle Ages”, PAAJR 57 (1990/91), 121–153. 58 Roland Deines has focused on the SM in particular, “Die Verwendung der Bergpredigt im ältesten erhaltenen Text der jüdischen Adversus-Christianos-Literatur”, in Lutz Doering/Hans-Günther Waubke/Florian Wilk (eds.), Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft: Standorte – Grenzen – Beziehungen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2008, 372–400.

1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM

21

the Jews a search for their roots, and the yeshiva-school in Krakow, established by Moses Isseries (1520–1572), was important for the revival of Jewish traditions. The basis for real dialogue was substantially better after the Enlightenment. Civil rights for Jews did not improve much, but Jews could also profit from the climate of religious tolerance. As a powerful minority Jews became influential through academic achievements in many fields of study. Through the dialogue between Christian and Jewish ethics the SM also became a major issue for Jewish scholars. Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1784) is an important transitional figure. His profound Jewish upbringing in Dessau and his philosophical studies in Berlin were a rare combination. He impressed Lessing and became his close friend. Only the intervention from Friedrich II – Voltaire’s friend – prevented Mendelssohn from membership in the prestigious “Königlich-Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften” in Berlin – together with e.g. Lessing and Kant. Like these philosophers he saw it as a common goal to find the best road to supreme virtues and to supreme felicity.59 On the other hand, he did not follow Lessing – or better Reimarus’ Wolfenbütteler Fragmente (Lessing’s preface to “Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger”) – in his understanding of the historical Jesus. Mendelssohn strongly emphasised that Jesus – according to the SM (Matt 5,17–32) – confirmed the Law of Moses and at least some of its ordinances.60 5) Integration of Jews in Western culture 1800–1945. A growing number of Jews found that Christianity corresponded better with modern thinking and lifestyle. After 1800 a wave of philo-Christianism dominated. At the same time as philo-Semitism was growing, anti-Semitic resentment was a constant threat. In this perspective four periods can be differentiated: (1) a wave of conversions to Christianity (1800 till about 1920) – (2) the period of strong Reform-Judaism (1880–1933) – (3) Philosophical and scholarly Judaism (1910–1945) – (4) after the Holocaust. 59 Moses Samuels, Memoirs of Moses Mendelsohn [sic], the Jewish Philosopher: Including the celebrated correspondence on the Christian religion with J.C. Lavater, minister of Zurich, London: Longman 1825, 85; cf. Moses Mendelssohn, Writings on Judaism, Christianity & the Bible, ed. Michah Gottlieb, Waltham, Mass.: Brandeis University Press 2011, on rational foundation for ethics, pp. 249–252; cf. idem, “Über die Frage: was heißt aufklären?”, Berlinische Monatsschrift 4 (1784), 193–200. 60 “Even if one of us converts to the Christian religion, I fail to see how it is possible for him to believe that he thereby frees his conscience and rids himself of the yoke of the law. Jesus of Nazareth himself observed not only the Law of Moses but also the ordinances of the rabbis” (Mendelssohn, Writings on Judaism, 118); cf. Moses Mendelssohn, Jerusalem, or, On Religious Power and Judaism, trans. Allan Arkush, Waltham, Mass.: Brandeis University Press 1983, 132–137. Mendelssohn saw Jesus as a Jewish hero. It is no surprise that his children had freedom of choice when it came to conversion to Christianity. E.g. the father of Felix Mendelssohn(-Bartholdy) became a Christian.

22

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

The strategy of voluntary/imposed segregation (ghettos) changed during the 17th century to a strategy/openness for integration. Jews became increasingly integrated in West-European culture in the period 1870–1920. Jews were in the forefront in many sciences and their substantial contribution to society was highly appreciated. One sad example: About 17,000 Jews died as German soldiers during the First World War. Integration in Europe means to approach Christianity and Christian values/ thinking. In the period from about 1800 until 1920 many Jews converted to Christianity. Some converts like Karl Marx quickly became critical both of Judaism and Christianity, but some like August Neander (David Mendel, 1789–1850)61 and Carl Paul Caspari (1814–1892) provided fundamental contributions to Christian scholarship. They were teaching at theological schools, and some, like August Wünsche (1839–1912)62 along with other Jews demonstrated that they had better preconditions to understand Jesus’ teaching and the SM was apparently one of the texts that resonated from a Jewish point of view. They therefore made many valuable contributions to the study of the SM.63 Reform-Judaism was partly a reaction against the wave of conversions to Christianity. The program was: modernisation of Judaism and study of the classical Jewish texts in order to illuminate the essence of Judaism and the dialogue with Christians. This ‘liberal’ Reform-Judaism gave the SM an important place in their argumentation. The brilliant scholar Claude G. Montefiore (1858–1938), the founder of Anglo-Liberal Judaism and president of the ‘World Union for Progressive Judaism’, published an exegetical commentary on the SM in 1909.64 61 A. Neander, Das Leben Jesu Christi in seinem geschichtlichen Zusammenhange und seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung, Hamburg: Perthes 1837/Kesinger 2010), 378–406, cf. p. 113 against the misunderstanding “als Gesetze für eine äußerliche Theokratie, als dem Buchstaben nach zu erklärende theokratische Reichsgesetze betrachtet”. He finds in the SM rather “ein Princip der sittlichen Lebensbildung” (ibid., n. 1), also pp. 530f. 62 Wünsche, Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch (1878); cf. his Bibliotheca rabbinica: Eine Sammlung alter Midraschim, 5 vols., Leipzig: Schulze 1880–1885 (repr., Hildesheim: Olms 1993). The Jewish orientalist, Erich Bischoff (1865–1936), argued in Jesus und die Rabbinen: Jesu Bergpredigt und “Himmelreich” in ihrer Unabhängigkeit vom Rabbinismus, Leipzig: Hinrichs 1905, that Jesus in important issues was independent from rabbinic teaching. 63 Abraham Geiger, “Entstehung des Christenthums”, Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben 11 (1875), 8–18. Susannah Heschel has illuminated and criticized the contributions of this impressive thinker (Abraham Geiger on the Origins of Christianity, Lanham: Pennsylvania University Press 1991, and Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1998). Jacob Hippolyte Rodrigues, Les origines du Sermon de la Montagne, Paris: Michel Levy 1868. 64 C.G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels II (1909, 21927). The following year he gave his Oxford lectures Some Elements of the Religious Teaching of Jesus, London: Macmillan 1910, and then: Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings, London: Macmillan 1930.

1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM

23

For him an intensive dialogue with liberal Christian exegesis was important. He read the SM as a Jewish sermon and his insights have made substantial input to research on the SM. Gerald Friedlander (1871–1923) on the other hand immediately responded critically to this approach. He admitted that many parallel sayings in Jewish literature were comparable to the SM. Much of the teaching in the Beatitudes, the Antitheses, the Lord’s Prayer and in the end nearly four fifths of the SM could also have been said by the Pharisees, and he added: “In our opinion this Pharisaic teaching is infinitely superior to that of the Gospel”.65 Joseph Klausner (1874–1956) distanced Jesus/the SM slightly more from Judaism than Montefiore did, but not so much as Friedlander was inclined to. Klausner’s book on Jesus is a milestone in New Testament scholarship because of his profound historical approach.66 He concluded his book with the statement: “the Book of the Ethics of Jesus will be one of the choicest treasures in the literature of Israel for all time”.67 In the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (1927)68 a separate article was devoted to the SM. This means: the SM was basically seen as a Jewish ethical text – in spite of the fact that the author (Rabbi Jacobs) in the end came closer to Friedlander than to Montefiore – or Klausner. Reform-Judaism often had the SM as a favourite when it comes to Christian writings. Jewish Philosophers included the SM into their thinking. Henri Bergson (1859–1941) saw Jesus in the SM as a new universalistic Jew, and Martin Buber (1878–1965) was inspired by the teaching in his formation of an I-You-Philosophy.69 Leo Baeck (1873–1956), the last Rabbi in Berlin before the Holocaust, had criticised Harnack’s view on Jesus, because of Harnack’s blindness for the Jewishness of Jesus.70 Baeck included Jesus in his Das Wesen des Judentums arguing that Jesus offered his own prophetic interpretation of the Law.71 Like Joseph Klausner in his famous book about Jesus, they all followed the same path as Montefiore. 65

Friedlander, Jewish Sources (1911), 23, 69, 107, 165, 214. Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times & Teaching, London: Allen & Unwin (1925) 31947, part of the paragraph “The Jewishness of Jesus”, pp. 363–368. 67 Ibid., 414. 68 Still in the German edition of Encyclopaedia Judaica (1927), 857–860, written by Rabbi M. Jacobs. 69 “From my youth onwards I have found in Jesus my great big brother. That Christianity has regarded and does regard him as God and Savior has always appeared to me a fact of the highest importance which, for his sake and my own, I must endeavor to understand …” Quoted from Arthur W. Kac, The Messiahship of Jesus: What Jews and Jewish Christians Say, Grand Rapids: Baker 1980, 27. Hasidism was of course the main source for a cultural renewal of Judaism. 70 Leo Baeck, “Harnack’s ‘Vorlesung über das Wesen des Christentums’”, MGWJ 45 (1901), 97–120. 71 Leo Baeck, Das Wesen des Judentums, Frankfurt am Main: Kauffmann 21922, 20f. 66

24

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

6) After the Holocaust. Baeck, Buber and Klausner survived the Holocaust. Klausner and Buber settled in Palestine before the war in 1939, and they saw the state of Israel as a new beginning.72 Klausner revised his book about Jesus after 1945, but not his evaluation of the SM,73 and Buber overstated own his position: “My own fraternally open relationship to him [i.e. Jesus] has grown ever stronger and clearer and today I see him more strongly and clearly than ever before. I am more than ever certain that a great place belongs to him in Israel’s history of faith and that this place cannot be described by any of usual categories.”74

However, the Holocaust changed much also in this respect. It is a sad development that the second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica dropped this article in spite of the huge number of very important Jewish contributions to the exegesis of the SM. More and more a critical attitude developed, particularly from scholars living in Israel. For many Jews the presence of Messianic Jews is a skandalon.75 The influence of the SM can also be seen in the works of Schalom BenChorin (1913–1999), who continued the work of Buber and Klausner and in a time when ‘repatriation’ (German: Heimholung) was important in a European context, Ben-Chorin applied the phrase Heimholung to Jesus’ relation to the Jewish people.76 In his books about Jesus he argued that the SM was not a novelty on Jewish soil. Jesus as rabbi developed his genuine interpretation of the Law in ‘Beth-Midrash Jeshu’.77

72

Daniel F. Moore, Jesus, an Emerging Jewish Mosaic: Jewish Perspectives, PostHolocaust, New York: T&T Clark 2008. 73 Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (above, n. 66), 352f. 74 Martin Buber, Two Types of Faith, New York: Harper 1961, 12–13 (= Zwei Glaubensweisen, Zürich: Manesse 1950, 61, 71f, 97). 75 Marc Brettler’s The Jewish Annotated New Testament, Waltham, Mass.: Brandeis University Press 2011; Michael J. Cook, “How Credible is Jewish Scholarship on Jesus?”, in Zev Garber (ed.), The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation, Purdue: Indiana University Press 2011, 251–270, sees the SM as a product of Matthew and not Jesus. It constitutes “Matthew’s attempt to neutralize Paul’s influence and [could] not have originated with the historical Jesus at all” (ibid., 266). 76 Schalom Ben-Chorin, “Grenzen der Gewaltlosigkeit”, in Andreas Baudis (ed.), Richte unsere Füße auf den Weg des Friedens. FS H. Gollwitzer, München: Kaiser 1978, 319– 328. When it comes to the theme of retaliation he makes clear: “hier ist ein deutlicher Unterschied zwischen Judentum und Christentum festzustellen. Das Judentum hat den Anspruch auf Verteidigung des Lebens niemals aufgegeben. Die Grenze der Gewaltlosigkeit ist mit der menschlichen Existenz selbst gegeben” (ibid., 324f). To be a human being means to be prepared for the use of violence. The principle of non-violence always leads to the opposite. 77 Schalom Ben-Chorin, Bruder Jesus: Der Nazarener in jüdischer Sicht, München: List 1967, 68f, 82; idem, Jesus im Judentum (Schriftenreihe für christlich-jüdische Begegnung

1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM

25

Samuel Sandmel (1911–1979) was, like Montefiore, in closer contact with (Christian) historical-critical exegesis.78 The Austrian/Czech historian, David Flusser (1913–2001), who flew to Israel in 1939, worked together with Christian historians in Israel. He saw Jesus as an authentic Jew, misunderstood by his followers. Hans-Joachim Schoeps (1909–1980), a philosopher in Erlangen/Germany, represented a peculiar position. His pro-German royalistic attitude before the war could not rescue him. He fled in 1938 and returned from Sweden after 1945. The British rabbi Jonathan Magonet assumes that Jews today have no interest in Jesus and few think he has any impact at all.79 This might be true as the general picture, but it overlooks the influence on Jewish literature, e.g. by Amos Oz (1939–2018), born Klausner, grandnephew of Joseph Klausner. In the 1950s he was fascinated by the Jesus-story as we see it in his novel Judas (2014). Like many Jews he felt like a betrayer when engaging in a serious dialogue with this story. Magonet overlooks primarily the brilliant scholarship on the SM by a number of Jewish intellectuals. In no way does it match the comprehensive studies by Geza Vermes (1924–2013), Jacob Neusner (1932–2016), David Flusser (1917–2000) or the studies on the SM specifically by Pinchas Lapide (1922–1997) and others.80 These authors were born before the war, but many post-war authors have continued their efforts, like e.g. Daniel Boyarin (b. 1946) and Amy-Jill Levine (b. 1956).81 4), Wuppertal: Theologischer Verlag Brockhaus 1970. For a different position, Ernest Findlay Scott, “The Originality of Jesus’ Ethical Teaching”, JBL 48 (1929), 105–115. 78 Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament (1956), New York: Ktav 1974; idem, Judaism and Christian Beginnings, New York: Oxford University Press 1976. Gerhard (Gershom) Scholem (1897–1982) focused more on messianism in general: idem, “Die Krise der Tradition im jüdischen Messianismus”, in idem, Judaica III, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 1981, 152–197; idem, “Offenbarung und Tradition als religiöse Kategorien im Judentum”, in idem, Judaica IV, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 1984, 189– 228. 79 Jonathan Magonet, Abraham – Jesus – Mohammed: Interreligiöser Dialog aus jüdischer Perspektive, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 2000, 69. 80 Phillip Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth according to the Gospel of Matthew (1986), Atlanta: SBL 2007. 81 Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ, New York: The New Press 2012; idem, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 2004; Amy-Jill Levine, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus, San Francisco: HarperCollins 2006. Cf. Walter Homolka, Jewish Jesus Research and its Challenge to Christology Today, Leiden: Brill 2017; idem, “Jesus der Jude: Die jüdische Leben-Jesu-Forschung von Abraham Geiger bis Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich”, ZRGG 60 (2008), 63–72. Cf. Isabel Ann Massey, Interpreting the Sermon on the Mount in the Light of Jewish Tradition as Evidenced in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch: Selected Themes (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 25), Lewiston: Edwin Mellen 1991.

26

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

Jesus as the founder of Christianity is presently mostly ignored or disputed in Jewish circles. The only part of Jesus’ teaching that has some resonance is the ethics of Jesus in the SM. In spite of the reactions of contemporary Jews to Jesus, in spite of the dominating Church and in spite of the use of the SM even for anti-Semitic purposes, the SM has had a lasting influence on Jewish thinkers. It has mostly been an elite phenomenon, especially for the period 1800–1930 when the SM was considered as an important Jewish ethical text. 1.2.4 Influence of the SM on Other Religions 1) Pagan reactions. The Jewish responses to the SM must first be compared to pagan reactions towards the SM. The pagan reaction was mixed. Pliny made the following report to the emperor Trajan: Christians “bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate …”.82 This reminds us of the Decalogue, but it is rather a reference to the ethos of the SM. Two generations later Galen (ca. 130–200) referred relatively often to Jews and Christians. He admired the teaching activity of Christians, which functions as establishing a ‘politeia’ – what John Chrysostom much later confirms. In spite of their – according to Galen – stupid teachings, he admires their ethos: “‘In the religious community of the followers of Christ there are most admirable people who frequently act according to perfect virtue; and this is to be seen not only in their men but in their women as well.’ And I see that he admires them for their virtue, and although he is a man whose position is known and whose opposition to Judaism and Christianity is manifest and clear to everybody who has studied his books and knows what he states in them, he nevertheless cannot deny the excellent qualities which the Christians display in their virtuous activities.”83

Even more ambivalent is Celsus one generation later. He states – according to Origen – that Jesus’ teachings “produce a marvellous meekness of spirit and complete change of character, and a humanity, and goodness, and gentleness in those individuals who do not feign themselves to be Christians”, and apparently presents the SM as virtue ethics, in line with other ethical

82

Pliny, Ep. X,96. Galen, Summary of Platonic dialogues (Πλατωνικῶν διαλόγων συνόψεις), VIII, part 3, here from Richard Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians, London: Oxford University Press 1949, 91. (The last part is a commentary of Abu Ali Isa ibn Ishaq ibn Zura.) Galen notices their teaching activity in On the unmoved prime mover (Εἰς τὸ πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον), from Walzer, ibid., 15: “If I had in mind people who taught their pupils in the same way as the followers of Moses and Christ teach theirs – for they order them to accept everything on faith – I should not have given you a definition.” 83

1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM

27

thinkers.84 He criticised Jesus for echoing – and also perverting and misinterpreting ‒ Plato. He quotes the harsh saying of Matt 19,23: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” He argues: “These things are stated much better among the Greeks [than in the Scriptures], and in a manner which is free from all exaggerations and promises on the part of God, or the Son of God.” According to Origen Celsus argued against Jesus who was “not only teaching them to conform to His precepts, but others also, and to conform, moreover, when manifest destruction to life impended over him who ventured to introduce these new opinions into all places and before all audiences, and who could retain as his friend no human being who adhered to the former opinions and usages.” (Cels. I,31) … They produce a marvellous meekness of spirit and complete change of character “for the sake of subsistence or the supply of any mortal wants, but who have honestly accepted the doctrine concerning God and Christ, and the judgment to come”. (Cels. I,67)

Pagan critics from Galen and Celsus to Porphyry of Tyre (ca. 232–ca. 304), who in his Against the Christians (15 vols.) criticised most aspects of Christianity, were relatively mild in their evaluation of Christian ethics. They did not explicitly refer to the SM, only to Jesus’ teaching, which they most likely knew from (excerpts of?) the SM.85 2) Responses from Islam: embracing and correcting the SM. Muhammad was heavily influenced by Jewish and Christian groups. The Quran reflects these influences, but in the Quran other aspects than the teaching of Jesus are of interest. We see the same in the Hadiths and in medieval Muslim writings.86 Jesus ('Isa) plays an important role in the Quran. If we add medieval Islamic writings, several hundred sayings and stories are ascribed to Jesus, but relatively few refer to the SM. Of the 71 Jesus-verses in the Quran, 5,46 is characteristic: “And in their footsteps, we sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein

84

Origen, Cels. I,63. Cf. the recent edition: Porphyrios, ‘Contra Christianos’: Neue Sammlung der Fragmente, Testimonien und Dubia mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen von Matthias Becker (Texte und Kommentare 52), Berlin: De Gruyter 2016, which shows Porphyry’s profound knowledge of the New Testament. Texts other than the SM are the objects of his criticism, but he quotes the SM also (ibid., 526). 86 The Quran refers to Torah, ‘Evangel’, and Psalms, but often to Jesus ('Isa), which is most common in medieval literature. Cf. Johann-Dietrich Thyen, Bibel und Koran: Eine Synopse gemeinsamer Überlieferungen, Köln etc.: Böhlau 2000, 216–223; Martin Bausche, Jesus im Koran, Köln etc.: Böhlau 2001, 34–53; Tarif Khalidi, The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 2001; Joachim Gnilka, Bibel und Koran: Was sie verbindet, was sie trennt, Freiburg etc.: Herder 42004, 117–120. 85

28

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.”87 Many Jesus-sayings are quoted in two major collections of ascetic literature from the early 8th century, Kitab al-Zuhd wa'l-Raqa'iq (“The Book of Asceticism and Tender Mercies”) by Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak (d. 797), and Kitab al-Zuhd (“The Book of Asceticism”) by Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855). Next to ascetic sayings and stories about Jesus as a patron saint of Muslim asceticism, these sayings entail eschatological sayings and quasi-Gospel sayings, and echoes of Jesus-sayings expanded with a distinctly Islamic stamp.88 Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak quotes nearly verbatim Matt 6,16ff and Matt 6,19.21,89 and Matt 6,20f was crucial for Ahmad ibn Hanbal.90 The Beatitudes/Woes are echoed, but more substantially changed,91 and the disciples should be “the light of the children of Adam”.92 The saying about being great in heaven (= Matt 5,19) is used in the Quran,93 and later Matt 7,6 is both quoted and interpreted.94 Matt 6,34 is interestingly combined with the Lord’s Prayer.95 Scholars like Abdallah ibn Qutayba (d. 884) also had a profound knowledge of the SM,96 and Abu Bakr ibn Abi al-Dunya (d. 894) paraphrased Matt 6,25ff (“O Disciples, be ascetics in this world and you will pass through it without anxiety”).97 Even Matt 5,39 and the notion of non-retaliation is re87 Cf. sayings echoing intra-Muslim polemics, like Q 61,6: “And remember Jesus, the son of Mary, who said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.’” 88 Cf. Heikki Räisänen, Das koranische Jesusbild, Helsinki: Missiologian ja Ekumeniikan Seura 1971, and in idem, Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma, London: SCM 1997, 81–117; Oddbjørn Leirvik, Images of Jesus Christ in Islam, Uppsala: Swedish Institute of Missionary Research 1999 (2010). 89 Quoted according to Khalidi, The Muslim Jesus, Saying 4 (cf. p. 56) and 22 (cf. p. 62), etc. Khalidi (p. 49) uses the collections of Miguel Asin y Palacios (1919/1926), James Robson (1920) and Hanna Mansur (1976–1978). 90 Kitab az-zuhd, 95 (Khalidi, The Muslim Jesus, 31, 33), also in Christoph Markschies/ Jens Schröter, Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 1, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2012, 204. 91 Kitab az-zuhd, 97 (Khalidi, The Muslim Jesus, 37), adds “Avoid feeling anger” (= Matt 5,22) = Khalidi, ibid., 39, cf. Kitab az-zuhd, 100 (Khalidi, ibid., 51), 92 Kitab az-zuhd, 144f (Khalidi, ibid., 65). 93 Kitab az-zuhd, 98f (Khalidi, ibid., 46). 94 Kitab az-zuhd, 144 (Khalidi, ibid., 64). The interpretation is: “Do not impart wisdom to one who does not desire it. For wisdom is more precious than a pearl (cf. Matt 13,44) and whoever rejects wisdom is worse than a swine.” 95 Kitab az-zuhd, 146 (Khalidi, ibid., 73). Cf. § 8 in this book. 96 Khalidi, ibid., 96, 98, 102 (“You will not commit adultery as long as you avert your eyes”). 97 Khalidi, ibid., 116.

1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM

29

ferred to: “Do not reward a wrongdoer with wrongdoing, for this will nullify your virtue in God’s sight.”98 Many of the sayings are moulded in an Islamic environment and many sayings are Islamised in various ways. Many sayings also carry a feeling of superiority, because of their setting in conversions that took place after pressure, when Jews and Christians survived as dhimmis under Islamic rule. After World War II and not least after 1970, Islam became a strong power not only in the Middle East and Indonesia, but even in Europe. Both Tariq Ramadan (b. 1962)99 who formulated the program for ‘contextualizing’ Islam in Europe and even more so Ahmad Muhammad al-Tayyeb (b. 1946), Grand Imam and former president of the Al-Azhar university in Cairo, see the strength of the ethos in the SM. The latter recently referred to common verses and principles in the Bible and Quran: “the reason behind agreement of religions upon the principal morals and good characters. Rhythm of Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, and verses which include the same commandments, are in harmony and in one emotional language.”100 In times of Al-Qaida, the question of revenge is treated differently. The Quran demands the exact opposite of non-retaliation: Matt 5,39f

Sura 5,45 (cf. 16,126; 2,175 etc.)

You have heard that it was said, “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth”. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.

And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoes it, it shall be an expiation for him. And whoever judges not by what Allah has revealed, those are the wrongdoers. 16,126: punish with the like of that with which you were afflicted.

You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbour and hate your enemy”. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Karen Armstrong argues that this is a matter of different roles. Jesus was never head of state, whereas Muhammad was heavily involved in politics and war activity. Considering the history of the interpretation of the SM in Christianity, this makes some sense.101 The interpretation in radical Islam has, however, never had any equivalent in Christianity, and a parallel to Matt 5,43–48 cannot be found in the Quran or other texts in Islam. 98

Khalidi, ibid., 143. Tariq Ramadan, Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press 2004. 100 Sermon at Al-Azhar World Peace Conference, 5 August 2017. 101 Karen Armstrong, Fields and Blood: Religion and the History of Violence, New York: Anchor Books 2015 (2014), takes the whole history of Christianity into account and concludes that there is nothing in Islam that is more violent than Christianity. For Armstrong the SM is a parenthesis. 99

30

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

3) Responses to the SM in Asian religions. It is unique that the SM inspired many different religions at the same time. The SM can easily be in dialogue with Buddhism. The issue of not using violence and the virtue of meekness have clear parallels in Buddhism.102 Because Buddhism is half a millennium older than Christianity, Jesus might possibly have been influenced by Buddhism.103 Today, the influence of Jesus/the SM on Buddhist thinkers can easily be seen. Jesus has inspired e.g. the Dalai Lama who also thinks Jesus lived previous lives or that he manifested as the transhistorical Buddha.104 The influence in Confucian circles is more limited, in spite of the genre of wisdom teaching by Confucius (Master Kong/Kongzi, 孔子, or Kong Fuzi, 孔夫子 or simply Master, 子) and the obvious parallel between Matt 7,12 and Analects XV,24 (“What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others”, 己所不欲 勿施於人). The Golden Rule and Confucius both emphasise selfreflection. Behind the rule in Analects we can see a discourse about man’s nature, and it is a matter of pedagogy when the master says to his students, “you have not attained to that”.105 The emphasis on listening by Confucius and in the SM are similar, and we can find many structural similarities: the emphasis on duties and not Laws, on acts more than theories and a philosophical approach to acts, practical ethics. These very similar patterns of thoughts are more important than a number of literary parallels. Hinduism has been more than open to influence from the SM. The influence under British rule made the Christian text available to many intellectuals, like Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1774–1839). He saw Jesus as an Asian – more than a European – teacher, and he placed the SM in the forefront.106 Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) had a similar approach. In his struggle for freedom in India he was inspired by the SM. He argued that the Christians have the best book in the world, but they don’t use it nor practise the principles of the SM. 102 Dhammapada 5; Sutta-Nipatta 394, cf. Johannes Aufhauser, Buddha und Jesus in ihren Paralleltexten, Bonn: Marcus & Weber 1926, 1–30; Burnett H. Streeter, The Buddha and the Christ, New York: Macmillan 1932; Katharina Ceming, Sorge dich nicht um morgen: Die Bergpredigt buddhistisch gelesen, München: Kösel 2009, and esp. Luz/Michaels, Jesus oder Buddha (2002), 62–72, 79ff (“die Radikalität der Ethik Jesu”). 103 Marcus Borg, Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings, Berkeley: Ulysses 2004. 104 Dalai Lama, The Good Heart: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus, Boston: Wisdom Publ. 1996; on enemy-love, pp. 45–52, on the Beatitudes, pp. 53–67, cf. Bokin Kim, “Christ as the Truth, the Light, the Life, but a Way?”, Buddhist-Christian Studies 19 (1999), 76–80. 105 Other Chinese thinkers also: “Regard your neighbour’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss” (Laozi). “If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself” (Mozi). 106 Rammohan Roy, “The Precepts of Jesus: The Guide to Peace and Happiness”, in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, vol. III, New Delhi: Cosmo Publications 1982, 491–543.

1.2 The Extraordinary Influence of the SM

31

He was influenced by Christian interpreters, e.g. the famous missionary and interpreter of the SM, E. Stanley Jones.107 Swami Prabhavananda (1893–1974), philosopher and leader in the Ramakrishna Order, wrote famous books on the Bhagavad Gita and also Sermon on the Mount according to Vedanta (1991). The Indian Jesuit, George M. Soares-Prabhu, has reflected many of the impulses of the SM on Hinduistic thinkers, and inspired by the SM he developed a contextual, liberation theology for India.108

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History ‘Reception-history’ entails – more than ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’ – an element of interpretation and certain passages in the SM have been the focus. 1.3.1 Influence and Interpretation before Theodosius (d. 395) When does reception-history begin, and do we really have interpretation of the SM before Justin? The SM is definitely referred to in the Epistle of James, the Didache and the Gospel of Thomas, and probably in Paul, 1 Peter, 1&2 Clement.109 We have allusions, echoes, quotations, but do we really also have interpretations? If we use the classical description of the three modes of persuasion, logos, pathos and ethos, by Aristotle, the earliest Christian texts deal mostly with ethos (“when the speech was so spoken as to make us think him [i.e. the speaker] credible”),110 the credible voice of Jesus, or with logos, its proofs (“when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question”). They were observant of the emotional side, the pathos, of the text,111 but the SM as Jesus’ genuine teaching, as ethos, was decisive. 107 E.S. Jones, in many of his books: The Christ of the Indian Road, New York: Grosset & Dunlap 1925; The Christ of the Mount (1931); Is the Kingdom of God Realism?, New York: Abingdon 1940; Mahatma Gandhi: An Interpretation, London: Hodder & Stoughton 1948. Stanley Jones was also a friend of the extremely influential Nehru-family. Cf. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Gandhi: Portrayal of a Friend, New Delhi: Jaico 82007. 108 G.M. Soares-Prabhu, A Biblical Theology for India, Pune: Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth 1999; idem, Theology of Liberation: An Indian Biblical Perspective, Pune: Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth 2001. Cf. his festschrift with many of his contributions: Francis X. D’Sa, The Dharma of Jesus, Maryknoll: Orbis 2003. 109 An extensive analysis of the parallels would go beyond the scope of this book, and will be published separately. 110 Aristotle, Rhet. I,2 (1356a.2, 3). 111 The second mode of persuasion, pathos, is more about form; it puts the audience into a certain frame of mind, “when the speech stirs their emotions”. Jesus’ rhetoric, the parables

32

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

1) Interpretation of the SM in the Church’s didache, rituals/liturgy and preaching. The element of interpretation is always strong in Christian texts using the SM, and certain themes or motifs dominate in the interpretations.112 – The Beatitudes and in particular Matt 5,3 (the poor) and 5,8 (the pure who see God) were often interpreted. However, the only extensive exposition before 390 we still have, is by Gregory of Nyssa.113 – Matt 5,17–20 and the place of the Law. A. von Harnack followed the interpretation in the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers and in addition Marcion, Ebionitic, Encratic, and texts of Pseudo-Clement of Rome, Kerygmata Petri, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Didaskalia and Hippolytus.114 – The theses/antitheses as such, and all the ‘commandments’ (on killing/ wrath, on adultery/divorce, on oaths and on retaliation/enemy-love) can be followed through the Apostolic Fathers to the end of the fourth century.115 – The first quotation of the Lord’s Prayer is found in Did. 8,2 (= Matt 6,9– 13), and the exposition of the text can be followed in Alexandria (Clement and Origen116), Carthage (Tertullian and Cyprian117), Rome and Asia Minor (Gregory of Nyssa118). Tertullian was the first who saw the implication of the Pater noster for the interpretation: it is a “summary of the whole gospel” (breviarium totius evangelii).119 – Both Matt 6,21–24 and 6,25–34 were perceived as both provocativeascetic and philosophical statements. – Matt 7,1f in a culture of justice was extremely provocative, and is often quoted. and metaphorical expressions, evoke emotions, and the provocative statements challenge every audience, but has not influenced the earliest Christian teaching to any great extent. 112 Cf. the more popular style collection of Thomas C. Oden (ed.), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, vol. 1: Matthew 1–13, ed. Manlio Simonetti, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 2001, 82–158. 113 Gregory of Nyssa, De beatitudinibus, PG 44, 1193–1302. 114 Harnack, “Geschichte eines programmatischen Worts Jesu (Matth. 5,17) in der ältesten Kirche”; Beyschlag, “Zur Geschichte der Bergpredigt in der Alten Kirche” (1977), 310–315. 115 Walter Bauer, “Das Gebot der Feindesliebe und die alten Christen”, ZTK 27 (1917), 37–54 (= idem, Aufsätze und kleine Schriften, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1967, 235–252); Baasland, “Mission and Love of Enemy” (2018). 116 Origen, Libellus de oratione, PG 11, 413–562. The text of Clement is not found, but was certainly part of the lost book on prayer, Strom. IV,171,2. 117 Cyprian, De Dominica oratione, PL 4, 519–544. 118 Frederic Henry Chase, The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church (1891), Piscataway: Gorgias 2004; Gordon J. Bahr, “The Use of the Lord’s Prayer in the Primitive Church”, JBL 84 (1966), 153–159; Roy Hammerling, The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church: The Pearl of Great Price, New York: Macmillan 2010. 119 Tertullian, Or. 1.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

33

– Matt 7,6 challenged mostly Jews and Jewish Christians. Did. 9,5, Pseudo-Clement of Rome, Tertullian, et al. interpreted the text, and a number of early Christian texts used the motif.120 – Matt 7,7f was often used and interpreted in the Early Church.121 – Matt 7,12, the Golden Rule, is used in Did. 1,2 only in its negative form, and the explicit quotation and exposition of the text do not occur. – Matt 7,13f, the way-motif, played a major role in the Didache, in Barn. 19f, and in other Christian texts.122 The tendency to develop proper catechisms started long before Origen. It can be seen in the ‘Two ways’-teaching in Did. 1–3, Barn. 19f, and in the commentaries on Matthew before 390 CE. Some of these interpretations may have had their ‘Sitz im Leben’ in dialogues, but most of them are developed in the teaching and sermons in the Christian congregations. However, the first extensive treatises on the SM were reactions to the criticism from outsiders. Justin made his response to the Jewish criticism of Jesus’ ethics, and Origen responded in his dialogue with Celsus, but more so in his extensive commentary on the text. Like Celsus he presupposed knowledge of Matthew as written text.123 He referred to the SM at the end of this book: “I am not yet speaking of those whose characters have been formed by the teaching of Jesus, and who have heard the words, ‘Love your enemies, and pray for them which despitefully use you’ …”124 2) Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and other theological approaches. Justin was the first who extensively saw the text as logos, developing certain themes, using the περὶ-δέ-pattern. Justin used primarily the Antitheses, and quoted Jesus in more than ten περί-paragraphs (in 1 Apol. 14–17).125 The SM was hardly known outside Christian circles before Constantine. Justin and others introduced the teaching even to the emperors.126 120

Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 451–454. Beyschlag, “Zur Geschichte der Bergpredigt in der Alten Kirche” (1977). 122 Norbert Brox, Der Glaube als Weg: Nach biblischen und altkirchlichen Texten, München: Pustet 1968; M. Jack Suggs, “The Christian Two Ways Tradition: Its Antiquity, Form, and Function”, in David E. Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature. FS A.P. Wikgren (NovTSup 33), Leiden: Brill 1972, 60–74. 123 In the preface (Cels., praef. 1,1): “When false witnesses testified against our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ … And the words of Matthew are as follows: ‘And the high priest and the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none, although many false witnesses came forward …’ (1,2) He was guilty of none of the charges [alleged], and who might have enumerated the praiseworthy deeds of His own life.” 124 Origen, Cels. VIII,35, also VIII,41: “And we read, ‘Bless them that curse you; bless, and curse not …’” 125 Baasland, “Die περί-Formel” (1988), esp. 82f. 126 Justin, 1 Apol., inscr.: “To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the 121

34

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

Irenaeus (ca. 125–203) was influenced by Polycarp in Smyrna and went to Rome to study with Justin, and ended up in Lyon, acting as bishop for the last 25 years of his life. In his Proof of the Apostolic Preaching and Against Heresies he dealt more with the kerygma,127 but sayings of Jesus were occasionally quoted.128 Tertullian (160–220/225) refers to “what I may call the magisterial edict of Christ”.129 In his treatise on idolatry he comments explicitly on Jesus’ radical teaching in Matt 5,20ff,130 and he treats the Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer as a “summary of the whole gospel” (breviarium totius evangelii).131 According to Tertullian, the SM is Jesus’ official proclamation as the Christ (proprietatem doctrinae suae and not his ordinariae sententiae).132 3) Alexandrians and Anchorites. Clement of Alexandria used the SM quite extensively in Strom. II and IV133 and dealt extensively with the Beatitudes in Strom. IV,6.134 He underlined Jesus’ teaching on perfection,135 and both in natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans.” 127 Irenaeus, Haer. IV–V, and Iain MacKenzie, Irenaeus’ Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching: A Theological Commentary and Translation, Aldershot: Ashgate 2002. St. Irenaeus, On the Apostolic Preaching, trans. John Behr, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press 1998. Cf. John Behr, Irenaeus of Lyon; Identifying Christianity, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013. 128 Matt 6,24 in Irenaeus, Haer. III,8. 129 Tertullian, Marc. IV,14 (see the quote below, n. 132). Tertullian adds: “… begins his discourse with the Creator’s affections, the Creator who always expresses his love for the indigent, the poor, the humble, and the widows and orphans, comforting, protecting, and avenging them – so that you may take this (as it were) private bounty of Christ to be a stream from the Saviour’s fountains?” 130 Tertullian, Idol. 2,3. “At enim, dominus quam extensius ista disponat certi sumus.” (“But how far wider an extent the Lord assigns to those crimes we are sure.”) 131 Tertullian, Marc. IV,14 and Or. 1. 132 Tertullian, Marc. IV,14–17, here 14,1: “I now come to those ordinary precepts of His, by means of which He adapts the peculiarity of His doctrine to what I may call His official proclamation as the Christ” (Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias eius, per quas proprietatem doctrinae suae inducit, ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi). 133 Cf. Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, Oxford: Clarendon 1966, 52; Dietmar Wyrwa, Die christliche Platonaneignung in den Stromateis des Clemens von Alexandria (AKG 53), Berlin: De Gruyter 1983, 223ff – connected to the persecution-theme, cf. Wilhelm Bousset, Jüdisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1915, 249, and Johannes Munck, Untersuchungen über Klemens von Alexandria, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1933, 187. 134 Clement, Strom. V,6, commented in fact on the whole SM, and on Matt 19,21. Already in Strom. II,5 he offered a characteristic interpretation of Matt 5,3: “… as Plato understood when he said, it is not the diminishing of one’s resources, but the augmenting of insatiableness, that is to be considered poverty”. 135 Gérassime Zaphiris, Le texte de l’Évangile selon saint Matthieu d’après les citations de Clément d’Alexandrie comparées aux citations des Pères et des théologiens grecs du IIe

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

35

Stromateis (VI,12; VII,13) and in his writing Quis dives salvetur (“Can the Rich be saved?”) he argued that perfection and prosperity were extremely difficult to combine. The commentary of Origen is unfortunately lost, but the fragments give an impression of its character. It is not arbitrary that Matt 5,48, 6,11, 6,24, 7,7 were key texts,136 and that he commented on the relation between the Old and New Testaments (Frag. 97). One observes Origen’s tendency to allegorical interpretation, but not as much as in other texts. The radical ethos of the SM was exactly what the harsh conditions for Christians required. The correlation between this radicalism and an immediate end-expectation was seldom the theme, more the persecutions and oppressive structures. Even asceticism was an adequate answer in this situation, not only for Anthony the Great (251–356) and the eremites (Anchorites), who practised their radical ethos in the desert of Egypt.137 4) The change 325–390. After Constantine, the small and often persecuted communities came into a more privileged position and eventually into a majority position. Literature from a persecuted minority before Constantine and during the rule of Julian the Apostate (r. 361–363) had limited influence on a public arena. The SM was not meant to compete with the great ethical traditions deriving from Aristotle, the Stoics, or Jewish sources. Constantine made an end to persecutions of Christians and proclaimed Christianity as a legal religion (religio licita). The influence of Christian beliefs and of the SM became suddenly more visible, and after Theodosius the SM became a hot issue. Theodosius (r. 379–395), made Christianity the state religion (in 380 CE). He abolished the Sol-Invictus-worship in 390 (which Constantine still supported) and in 391 launched the outlawing of Rome’s traditional religious rituals. What kind of ethical foundation should replace or interpret the great ethical traditions? Before 390 the situation was totally different. The influence of the SM was limited to Christian circles. But it was used in all provinces of the Church and au XVe siècle, Gembloux: Duculot 1970, and esp. in “Le texte du discours sur la montagne en Mt V,1–VII,29 dans les écrits de Clément d’Alexandrie”, Theologia (Athens) 41 (1970), 425–440, 557–566; 42 (1971), 686–705; 43 (1972), 341–349, 792–806; 44 (1973), 702– 718; 45 (1974), 570–587; 46 (1975), 216–227, 662–671, 901–906. Cf. Michael Mees, Die Zitate aus dem Neuen Testament bei Clemens von Alexandria, Bari: Istituto di Letteratura Christiana Antica 1970; Carl P. Cosaert, The Text of the Gospels in Clement of Alexandria, Atlanta: SBL 2008. 136 Frags. 89, 94, 153 (Erich Klostermann [ed.], Origenes Werke X: Origenes Matthäuserklärung, Fragmente und Indices, vol. I, Berlin: De Gruyter 1938/2015). 137 Even Luther with his criticism of the monasteries, praised Anthony. He knew the Vita Antonii and Apophthegmata Patrum.

36

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

the SM is indeed the most frequently used and quoted text/group of texts in the Early Church. Quotations with explicit reference to the SM show its undoubted influence, and but references in e.g. Biblica Patristica’ indicate the same.138 5) The Cappadocians and Jerome in times of transition. Basil of Caesarea (313–379) experienced the apostasy and persecutions under Julian (r. 361– 363), his fellow student in Athens. Basil was early on attracted to asceticism, and inspired by the Beatitudes his main concern became the poor and their needs.139 He understood the ethos of the SM as the fulfilment of the programme in Matt 5,16: “let your light shine before men, so they see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven”. Gregory of Nyssa in the last of his Homilies on the Lord’s Prayer condemns the manner of conduct outside the divine will.140 Jerome (347–420) was somewhat younger and had the same journey through classical education, conversion and the search for ascetic life as the Cappadocians. In his brief commentary, he demonstrated his linguistical skills, commenting on the Hebrew/Syriac background for ῥακά, µαµωνᾶς, etc. He interpreted the SM as disciple-ethics,141 and in his exegesis of the Beatitudes, and of Matt 6,21–25, 7,1f, etc., we see his emphasis on virtues. This soon became the major paradigm among Christian theologians. 6) Formation of identity and virtue-ethics: Augustine and John Chrysostom. Two brilliant minds, Augustine and John Chrysostom immediately provided what the Christian community needed in their position as the state religion.142 Augustine (shortly before 400) singled out the Sermo Domini in monte as a separate text143 and John Chrysostom (in the 420s) did similarly in 138 Patristic biblical citations: Biblica Patristica, vols. I–VII, esp. vol. I (until Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian), now online (= Biblica Patristica. Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Paris 1975–1995). 139 Graham E. Gould, “Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa on the Beatitudes”, StPatr 23 (1989), 14–22. Basil did not – like Gregory – give a full-scale homily, but Question 205 of his Shorter Rules demonstrates his interpretation. 140 The edition of his Homilies on the Lord’s Prayer (five sermons) and the Beatitudes (eight sermons) in Hilda C. Graef (ed.), Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 18, Westminster: Newman Press 1954. 141 Arguing that ‘mountain’ means a very high mountain (Mt. Tabor), which only the disciples climbed, not the crowd. The SM offers virtue-ethics: Matt 7,1 does not forbid judging, but shows its inner meaning (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press 2008, 73–98, here 93). 142 Jaroslav Pelikan, Divine Rhetoric: The Sermon on the Mount as Message and as Model in Augustine, Chrysostom, and Luther, Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press 2001. 143 Augustine, De sermone Domini in monte = in Almut Mutzenbecher (ed.), Aurelii Augustini Opera, vol. 7,2 (CCSL 35), Turnhout: Brepols 1967 (English in NPNF1, vol. VI, 3–70).

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

37

his comprehensive exegesis of Matt 5–7. That parts of the Scriptures were singled out in this way, shows the importance of the SM, and these first commentaries by Augustine and John Chrysostom had huge influence.144 They understood the SM as virtue-ethics for every Christian and reacted against the ascetical interpretation by Origen and ‘Trypho’. Since then the question of Jesus’ radicalism dominated in the debates on the interpretation of the SM: is the SM addressed to the disciples alone or to a broader audience, to individuals or to the society, to Jews or to a broader Hellenistic audience? Is the SM law or gospel?, etc. The extensive commentaries on the SM by Augustine and John Chrysostom about 400 CE reflected an important transition in the Constantinian era.145 According to Augustine the SM was “the perfect measure of the Christian life”,146 but what about the radical sayings in the SM? Constantine focused on the doctrine, but very soon the rulers were embarrassed by the teaching, on e.g. non-violence, judgment, prosperity, etc. Ethics became a problem for the military rulers in Rome, but the exegeses by Augustine and John Chrysostom gave directions for the future. Chrysostom found in the SM the ideal of a politeia, which was much better and more realistic than the ideas of Plato.147 1.3.2 Influence and Interpretation after 395, in the Medieval Age After 395 Christianity became the official religion and the dominating factor in Europe and northern Africa and parts of Asia – until Islam became dominant in the Middle East, in Africa and Spain. Jewish influence diminished and had to adjust to the new Roman society with its new forms of religion: new creed, new rituals, new ethos. The SM was perfectly designed for an opposition group. After 395 CE the question arose: How can Christians and Roman emperors use the SM as their ethos? 1) The lingering ascetic position: monasticism as a new paradigm. In 529 CE the philosophical school in Athens was closed down and in the same year the monastery at Monte Cassino was founded. Benedict of Nursia (480–547) gave the monks the Regula Benedicti with the SM as the core of their ethos: it is about chastity, purity of the heart (Matt 5,4.8), about poverty and not serving two masters (5,3; 6,24) nor gathering earthly treasures (6,19ff), etc.148 The monks in the monasteries after 529 saw themselves as followers of Jesus, 144 John Chrysostom, Ὑπόµνηµα εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Μαθθαῖον τὸν εὐαγγελίστην, PG 57 (1862), 225–334. 145 The articles of R.L. Wilken on “Augustine” and M.M. Mitchell on “John Chrysostom” in Greenman et al. (eds.), Sermon (2007), 43–58, 19–42. 146 J. Pelikan (ed.), The Preaching of Augustine, Philadelphia: Fortress 1973, 1. 147 Mitchell, “John Chrysostom” (2007), 31–41. Cf. Plato, Resp. II, esp. 369–374. 148 Regula Benedicti, esp. ch. 4.

38

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

practising poverty, charity and high ideals for their communal life. The interpretation and debates on the SM had their centre in the monasteries with reflections on the relation between the ethos inside and outside the monasteries as a main theme. 2) Double ethos in times of Christian dominance and the Crusades. The SM could not be the ethos for the Christian rulers and soldiers during the Crusades. The medieval ‘mirrors of princes’ (specula principum) had their precursors in classical texts (Xenophon, Isocrates, Cicero, Seneca, etc.),149 and in Augustine’s “The true felicity of Christian Emperors”.150 The rules of conduct had more in common with the wisdom literature than with the SM, and the reality – especially in the times of the crusaders – was in fact closer to Il Principe of Machiavelli (1513) than in the simultaneous education of a Christian (Karl I/Charles V) by Erasmus (Institutio principis Christiani, 1516). The SM had apparently little influence; why could it not prevent the Crusades in medieval times, or the Inquisition and witch trials in the 16th century, the wars between confessions and great wars between ‘Christian nations’? Did Christian leaders just neglect and suppress the SM or is the ethics of the SM not sufficiently robust? In the 14th century there was a breakthrough for literature with more distance to the Church. David Lyle Jeffrey has recently analysed the influence of the SM on Dante Alighieri (ca. 1285–1321) in his Divina Comedia (1308–1319) and on Geoffrey Chaucer (ca. 1343–1400) in his Canterbury Tales (1387). He compares the two poetic books with Wycliffe who argued more strongly from the grammar and logic of the Scriptures/the SM.151

The harsh reality aroused protests and reactions from Christian theologians and movements. 3) The wake of Chiliasm. A thousand years after Christ’s birth world-wide mission activity took place. Russia, the Baltics and the Nordic countries became Christian states, sometimes without and sometimes with the sword as tool. ‘Chiliasm’ flourished about 1000 CE. Joachim a Fiore (d. 1202), founder of his own monastic order, San Giovanni in Fiore, was inspired by John’s Revelation in his chiliastic reflections. Richard the Lionheart came to debate this book with Joachim before the Third Crusade (1189–1192). Joachim divided history into three ages: the Age of the Father (Old Testament), the Age of the Son (until 1250) and the Age of ‘the Holy Spirit’. In this new Age the reign of justice will replace ecclesiastical

149

Xenophon, The Education of Cyrus; Isocrates, To Nicocles; Isocrates, To Evagoras; Cicero, De officiis; Seneca, De clementia. 150 Augustine, Civ. V,24. 151 D.L. Jeffrey, “Dante and Chaucer”, in Greenman et al. (eds.), Sermon (2007), 81– 108.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

39

organization.152 It implies a new dispensation of universal love, proceeding from the gospel of Christ, based on the Decalogue and particularly the SM. 4) Cluny and Clairvaux – two types of monastic movements. One reaction to the Crusades was religious awakening. Abbot St. Berno (ca. 850–927) made the impressive Benedictine monastery at Cluny into a model for many monasteries, characterised by impressive buildings, beautiful liturgies and excellent scholarship. The SM was an important part of their foundation and even more so for Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153) and his Cistercian order.153 As a monk in Citaux and abbot in Clairvaux he returned to the literal observance and simplicity of Benedict’s rule, inspired by Jesus’ life and the asceticism of the SM. Francis of Assisi (1182–1226) and the Franciscan order (founded 1208) had the same ethos. This ethos was deeply influenced by the SM, and put its virtue-ethics154 into practice. In his comprehensive analysis of the SM in the theology of Francis, Karlmann Beyschlag underlined that the literal meaning of the SM was not the crucial aspect; rather the virtues, particularly mercy and the neglect of worldly goods.155 5) The SM at the university and in Christian society: double ethics? The universities in Bologna (1088) and Paris (ca. 1160) represented something new, at least after Peter Abaelard (1079–1142) and Thomas Aquinas (1225– 1274) made Paris the centre for new ideas and a new awareness of science, including acceptance of Aristotle and Galen, amongst others. Thomas Aquinas’ sophisticated analysis of the Christian faith – and also of the SM – certainly had some effect; both through his impact on students during his lifetime and even more through his impressive Summa Theologica. Thomas Aquinas was not uncritical to some monastic traditions,156 but in his interpretation of the SM he did not operate with a double standard and a 152 Günter Frank, “Der Mythos vom ‘Dritten Reich’”, in Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann/ Georges Tamer (eds.), Kritische Religionsphilosophie: Eine Gedenkschrift für Friedrich Niewöhner, Berlin: De Gruyter 2010, 393–429; cf. Wilhelm Voßkamp, Utopieforschung: Interdiziplinäre Studien zur neuzeitlichen Utopie, 3 vols., Stuttgart: Metzler 1982. 153 Inspired by the Benedictines in Cluny also: De gradibus humilitatis et superbiae (“On the steps of humility and pride”), ca. 1120. His first treatise, Liber de praecepto et dispensatione (“Book of precepts and dispensations”), ca. 1144, answers questions about which parts of the Rule of Saint Benedict an abbot can, or cannot, dispense; Sermones per annum and Sermones de diversis (“Sermons on different topics”). 154 Cf. his praises of/salutation to the Virtues: “Hail, Queen Wisdom, may the Lord care for you with your holy sister Pure Simplicity – Lady Holy Poverty, may the Lord care for you with your holy sister Humility – Lady Holy Charity, may the Lord look after you with your sister Holy Obedience …” 155 Beyschlag, Die Bergpredigt und Franz von Assisi (1955), 206. 156 Dante in Divina Comedia places Thomas in Paradise, and he criticizes here Dominicans (XI,124–139) and Joachim of Fiore and his interpretation of the Scripture also – in spite of Fiore’s influence in some circles near the pope and in one wing of the Franciscans.

40

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

strict distinction between praecepta (instructions for all Christians) and consilia (optional counsels for clergy, monks and others who pursue perfection).157 This would rather be like Averroes (1126–1189), who distinguished philosophical-scientific truths and religious truths, and argued that one has to choose between them. Thomas Aquinas insisted that it was not at all a matter of choice. Philosophical and religious truths, praeceptae and consilia must be seen within one pattern of thought, and universalities, nature, and general revelation have to come first. The specific revelation is intertwined with, but surpasses, the general revelation. He analysed the Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer most extensively.158 Happiness is the last end of human life and can be reached by everybody.159 There is likewise an intertwined relation between praecepta, basically the Decalogue, and consilia, commandments of chastity, poverty and obedience. The double ethics have nothing to do with a qualitative difference: “Perfection for man consists in the love of God and of neighbour (perfectio hominis consistit in dilectione Dei et proximi). Now, the three Commandments which were written on the first tablet pertain to the love of God; for the love of neighbour there were the seven Commandments on the second tablet.”160

He argued that the Beatitudes are virtues and gifts and at the same time different from virtues and gifts. Consequently, the Beatitudes differ from virtues and gifts, not as habit (habitus), but as act from habit.161 Some of the gifts such as wisdom and understanding belong to the contemplative life: yet no beatitude is assigned to the act of contemplation, for all are assigned to matters connected with the active life. 6) Retrospect. The SM could not prevent internal and external wars, crusades, misuse of power, and misconduct, which too often are labelled as the ‘dark medieval period’. On the other hand, the SM was crucial in a number of revival movements. Monasteries and monastic piety influenced people, and the monastic and scholastic interpretations represented a luminescent period for the interpretation of the SM. The Renaissance and Reformation are normally seen as the watershed, but the intellectual revolution in Monte Cassino, Paris, Cordoba gave signals of a new era. 1.3.3 The SM and the Fight for True Faith (1500–ca. 1750) The new era about 1500 was an explosion of creativity and brilliant minds. Erasmus, Luther, Copernicus, Machiavelli, Ignatius of Loyola and Calvin are 157

STh I.IIIae, 62–63, 90–108. STh I.1, q. 69, and STh II,2.83 = IIae IIa, q. 83, a 9. 159 STh I–II, 2,7; 3,1. 160 Collationes in decem praeceptis, introduction to the fourth commandment (a. 6). 161 STh I.1, 69 a. 1 and I.1, 69, q. 1, a. 1, cf. I.1, 69, q. 3. 158

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

41

just some of them. Their common efforts changed society and churches dramatically. Humanism, the Renaissance and the Reformation launched the ad fontes-programme: the original text, Scripture before tradition, the criticism of fake theories about history and nature (astronomy, etc.) set a new standard for research – also on the SM. Mutual discussions occurred occasionally. The debate between Luther and Erasmus on free will, based on arguments from the SM,162 was a highlight. Luther’s Reformation initiated new reflection – including about the SM.163 This triggered significant divisions also. Zwingli, Calvin and the Anabaptists are some of the offspring of Reformation. The SM was a major issue and a subject of division in the discussions between the groups. The understanding of Paul, James and the SM became crucial in the fight for true Christianity. 1.3.3.1 The Role of the SM in the Church 1) Luther and the SM – a complex matter. For many of his opponents, Luther represented a one-sided Pauline position. The focus was the Christ-event, Jesus’ death and resurrection more than the historical Jesus, righteousness coram deo more than righteous acts coram hominibus, and the understanding of the creed and the sacraments more than Jesus’ teaching. On the other hand, Luther also emphasised the ethical texts in the New Testament, and argued for ‘democratisation’ of the monastic ethos. This can best be seen in his sermons after his return to Wittenberg from the Wartburg in 1522. (Andreas Rudolph Bodenstein von) Karlstadt had introduced new liturgies in Wittenberg, celebrated a reformed communion service, wearing peasant clothing, and removed imageries and relics from the church. In his Invocavit-sermons in 1522 and in the weekly sermons 1530–1532 Luther used the SM as text for directing the life of the individual and the Church. 164 Luther and Melanchthon provided practical interpretation more than profound exegesis of the SM.165 162

Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 537. Georg Wünsch, Die Bergpredigt bei Luther: Eine Studie zum Verhältnis von Christentum und Welt, Tübingen: Mohr 1920; Harald Diem, Luthers Lehre von den zwei Reichen, untersucht von seinem Verständnis der Bergpredigt aus, München: Kaiser 1938; Heinrich Bornkamm, Luthers Lehre von den zwei Reichen im Zusammenhang seiner Theologie, Gütersloh: Mohn 1958; Paul Althaus/Erwin Mülhaupt, D. Martin Luther’s Auslegung der Bergpredigt, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1961; Per Frostin, Luther’s Two Kingdoms Doctrine: A Critical Study, Lund: Lund University Press 1994; Asger C. Højlund, “Luthers tolkning af Bjergprædikeren”, in Jeppe Bach Nikolajsen (ed.), National kristendom til debat, Fredericia: Kolon 2015, 235–252. 164 WA 10,III, 242–256 (on Matt 5,20, 27 July 1522); WA 12, 620–628 (12 July 1523); and WA 32, 75–85 and 299–544 (“Wochenpredigten” 1530/1532). 165 Melanchthon, Annotationes in Evangelium Matthaei = Melanchthon, Werke in Auswahl, ed. Peter F. Barton, vol. 4, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1963, 133–208. 163

42

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

2) What kind of double ethos? Luther opposed theories of a double ethos, but was the result of his thinking in practice a new form of double ethos? Luther inspired the churches of the Reformation to live out the ethos of the SM, and his sermons had more impact on the Lutheran communities than some of his polemical writings. His interpretation of Matt 5,13 about Christians as salt and light in the world make the critical and constructive task of Christians and churches very clear.166 Luther constantly ran into polemics and these writings have often overshadowed his exegesis in these sermons. As an Augustinian he was trained not to separate the two Kingdoms, and even though evil forces have power in the ‘kingdom of the world’, Christians live in relation to others, and this includes the ethical obligation to live the Christian life in all situations.167 The ‘autonomy’ (German: ‘Eigengesetzlichkeit’) of the ‘kingdom of the world’, or in daily life, the power of a secular ruler, represents another kind of ethical obligation. The SM does not prescribe conduct for rulers, which easily results in a double standard/ethos. 3) The SM in the periphery of the catechetical tradition. One of Luther’s major achievements was his two ‘Catechisms’. He did not, however, use the SM as a model for Christian ethics. He breaks with the monastic setting and dominance, and partly with the monastic interpretation. In a secular setting he used the Decalogue as a model. In the first part of the catechism – on the will of God for the Christian life – the Decalogue is the authoritative text. The SM is at most a commentary on the Decalogue, giving the right interpretation of the Decalogue in general and of some of the commands in particular. However, in the third part of the catechism Luther offered an excellent interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer and its seven petitions.168 The very fact that the Decalogue so to speak replaces the SM influenced people’s way of thinking and had politically serious consequences when it was combined with a concept of the ‘Two Kingdoms’ that emphasised autonomy. The protestant church was reluctant to criticize the rulers and turned a blind eye to ‘religious wars’, witch trials, etc.

166

WA 32, 343–354. This dynamic understanding is still disputed, but since Johannes Heckel, Im Irrgarten der Zwei-Reiche-Lehre (TEH 55), München: Kaiser 1957, and Ulrich Duchrow, Christenheit und Weltverantwortung, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta 1983, this understanding has dominated. 168 Herder wrote in 1798 Luther’s Catechism, with a catechetical instruction for the use of schools. Cf. Christian Weiß, Das dritte und fünfte Hauptstück des kleinen Katechismus von D. M. Luther, Halle: Schwetschke 1844. 167

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

43

1.3.3.2 The SM in Theological Debates 1) The SM and anthropology: Luther and Erasmus. Luther’s famous De servo arbitrio (1525) was a letter to Erasmus of Rotterdam. In 1524 (in his De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio) Erasmus had criticised concepts he found in Lutheran circles. Erasmus and Luther were both trained as Augustinian monks and in his commentary on the SM Augustine stated: “For the tree is certainly the soul itself, e.g. the man himself, but the fruits are the works of a man; an evil man, therefore, cannot perform good works, nor a good man evil works.”169 This formulation comes close to the Stoic way of thinking: a good man, vir bonus, brings forth virtue. It is fundamental in Stoic thinking that virtue (ἀρετή) comes from within. Matt 7,16–20 became thus a crucial point in the debate between the two scholars. Their starting point and at least two exegetical premises were similar: that the words ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν αὐτῶν (“of their fruits”) must be understood as “our works” and that fruits give reward. They both agreed on the premise Erasmus formulated: neque natura neque necessitas habet meritum (“neither the nature nor the necessity get reward”).170 Nature, e.g. trees, is created to yield fruit. The fruits are necessities, not reward. A man with good works will be rewarded. They read Matt 5,12 on reward together with Matt 7,16–20 and they both underline the reward. Luther placed more emphasis on reward as gifts from God, and the work of the Holy Spirit as the source for the fruits/the reward.171 By underlining the relation to God as the creator who sustains, Luther made it into a discussion more about theology and less about anthropology.172 The (Stoic) premise of vir bonus lingers more in Erasmus’ concept. 2) The SM and Antinomism. In his disputes with Luther Johann Eck insisted that Luther was the one who denounced the principle of sola scriptura, because Luther’s teaching on righteousness contradicts e.g. the Epistle of James. This forced Luther to his radical criticism of the canon concerning the ‘epistle of straw’. Luther could not, however, argue against the SM or the Pauline paraenesis, which was the foundation for Melanchthon in his argument for usus elenchticus legis. Luther picked up the same theme in his later disputations about antinomism.173 Here he came close to the position of Melanchthon, and he had to 169

Augustin, Serm. II,24,79. Erasmus, Diss. Iib, starts with this thesis and exegesis of Matt 5,12. Then he moves to Matt 7,16ff and argues like Philo that young people must be cultivated like plants “until on their full-grown stems they bear the fruit of noble living” (Philo, Spec. leg. IV,75: καρπὸν τὸν καλοκἀγαθίας ἐνέγκωσι). 171 Luther, WA 18, 696, cf. 666, 669, 672, 686f. Tholuck, Auslegung der Bergpredigt (1833) = Commentary (1869), 512, follows the dogmatic discussion from Luther until the 1850s. 172 An Arabic proverb says: “God judges by the fruit of a tree, not by the roots.” 173 Luther, Disputatio de homine I–III; Contra Antinomos I–II; De fide iustificante I–II. 170

44

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

argue against his close friend, Johannes Agricola (1494–1556), royal chaplain and bishop (General Superintendent of Brandenburg), who denied that the Law had any role in Christian context. Luther read the SM in light of Paul: Matt 5,17 says that fulfilment is the point, not that he lives the commandments, or that he interprets them.174 3) The SM as usus elenchticus legis? According to many interpreters the ‘Lutheran understanding of the SM’ is that the SM does not set demands but is a mirror held up to sin (German: ‘Sündenspiegel’). This so-called ‘Lutheran understanding’ is in fact a misunderstanding that came up during the debate between Luther and Melanchthon on tertius usus legis.175 Luther did not argue against ‘the third use of the Law’ or criticise ‘good works’. He did the opposite in his sermons on the SM.176 The Pauline understanding of grace made the usus elenchticus, the pedagogical use of the Law, more crucial. Therefore, many Lutherans have emphasised this aspect from the very beginning until the last century.177 It can, however, merely be an aspect, and never the interpretation of the SM. The radical demands of the SM normally have this effect, but this is not the purpose of the demands. 1.3.3.3 Huldrych Zwingli and Jean Calvin Zwingli and Calvin ruled in Zurich (after 1525) and Geneva (after 1541) and had to face the same dilemmas as Thomas Müntzer. Müntzer’s theocracy ended in revolution and the ‘Peasant War’. The theocracies of Zwingli and Calvin were more peaceful, but had catastrophic consequences. Zwingli could not prevent the violent consequences of his own reign. Felix Manz became the first Anabaptist martyr when he was executed on 5 January 1527, and in the fight against Catholic troops Zwingli was killed – as military chaplain – in 1531. Calvin’s theocracy was so unpopular that he was expelled from Geneva in 1538, and after his return (1541 until 1564) violent episodes occurred. Geneva was not ruled according to the ethos of the SM. Zwingli’s continuously preached sermons on the SM in Zurich, and his exegesis was based on Erasmus’ translation. He observed the radicalism in the SM, which should be fulfilled: the goal must be to approach the radical demands as closely as possible. Like Melanchthon Zwingli operated with a 174

WA 50, 454. Cf. Christian Schulken, Lex efficax: Studien zur Sprachwerdung des Gesetzes bei Luther im Anschluß an die Disputationen gegen die Antinomer (HUTh 48), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2006. 175 Wilfred Joest, Gesetz und Freiheit: Das Problem des Tertius usus legis bei Luther und die neutestamentliche Paränese, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1961. 176 Luther says: “opera … nec bona nec mala, sed media seu naturalia” (WA 39/1, 85,9f). 177 Cf. Stange, “Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt” (1925), 64: “sie vollzieht den Übergang vom Imperativ zum Gesetz, von dem Ideal zur Buße”.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

45

third form of usus legis, and the SM is the Law for every Christian.178 It should be lived out by the individual and society. Zwingli’s differentiation between externus and internus homo, thus prepared for an ethics of attitude. He considered his interpretation to be the third way between Luther and the Anabaptists. Against the Anabaptists he differentiated between evangelical consilia and civil laws, but rejected tendencies to develop a double ethos. Those under civil laws will not escape divine judgment. In his catechism Calvin did not devote much space to the SM.179 As with Luther it is the Decalogue and not the SM which provides the principles for Christian life. The SM is important as an interpretation of the Decalogue. It deepens the meaning of the Ten Commandments.180 Calvin followed the outline of Luther’s successful catechism. The only change is that Calvin put ‘Faith’ (Credo) before the Law (Decalogue). Calvin’s sermons on, and exegesis of, the SM demonstrate that he was ‒ compared to Luther – rhetorically much better trained. Melanchthon had more profound knowledge in the field of rhetoric, but Calvin’s brilliant exegesis showed that he was a master of reading legal and other texts. His commentary on the Synoptics has had a much broader influence than Luther’s expositions of the SM.181 Calvin’s exegesis, more than his more dubious practice as politician in Geneva, has formed generations of reformed Christians. Calvin saw Jesus as a lawgiver and not a “mere giver of counsel”.182 The problem for Calvin was the radicalism of the SM. Is this really the new Law? Calvin strongly criticised the radicalism of the Anabaptists and he interpreted Matt 5,38–42 as imagery.183 His exegesis was very influential, primarily in 178 Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, vol. 2, no. 21: Von göttlicher und menschlicher Gerechtigkeit, 30. Juli 1523 (Corpus Reformatorum 89), Leipzig: Heinsius 1908; Huldrici Zwingli Annotationes in Evangelium Matthaei, in Melchior. Schuler/Johann Georg Schulthess (eds.), Zwinglii opera, vol. VI,1, Zürich: Schulthess 1836, 203–483. 179 Quoted in Questions 117 (Matt 7,18), 256 (Matt 6,9), 261 (Matt 7,1). 180 Esp. Inst. II,8,7–59, cf. I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism, Westminster: John Knox Press 1997, 79–84. 181 Jean Calvin, Harmonia ex Evangelistis tribus composita, Matthaeo, Marco, et Luca: Adiuncto seorsum Iohanne, Geneva: Stephanus 1555 (ET: Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, 3 vols., Grand Rapids: Baker 1993, vol. I, 257–371). Cf. idem, In Evangelium secundum Johannem commentarius, Geneva: Stephanus 1553, 1– 458. Cf. Hermann Schlingensiepen, Die Auslegung der Bergpredigt bei Calvin, Berlin: Ebering 1927. 182 Calvin, Inst. I,419. 183 Calvin, Commentary I, 299–301 (“none but a fool will stand upon the words”). Hiltrud Stadtland-Neumann, Evangelische Radikalismen der Bergpredigt und der Aussendungsrede (Matth. 10) (BGLRK 24), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1966, and Dieter Schellong, Das evangelische Gesetz in der Auslegung Calvins (TEH 152), München: Kaiser 1968, disagreed on the burning question: how crucial is the radicalism in Jesus’ teaching and how far should the radicalism be lived out in the present?

46

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

reformed circles. As an interpreter of the SM he was clearer than Luther and has influenced later generations much more.184 1.3.3.4 Renewal and Opposition Groups: The SM as ‘Disciple-ethics’ Luther and Calvin had a certain restraint in using the SM in Church and society. Groups who were in opposition to the established churches showed no reluctance. The Anabaptists saw themselves as reformers and protesters against an overwhelmingly oppressive society. The pietistic circles recognized themselves as leaven in societies in need of revival and Christian paideia. The many wars in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries prepared the ground for awakening movements such as Arminianism,185 Puritanism, the Quakers, Wesley’s Methodism and Lutheran Pietism. 1) Anabaptists, the so-called ‘left wing of reformation’. According to the Anabaptists sola scriptura means that only the Bible should regulate Christian societies, and they accused Luther of being inconsistent. As an oppressed minority they identified themselves with Jesus’ teaching about persecution and with the entire ethos of the SM. Justification was seen as a progression in holiness and the ethic of the SM was the guide towards this goal. They considered the commandments in the SM as the new Law; their rejection of oaths and of resistance, etc., provoked the rulers.186 This position divided the group of Anabaptists. Thomas Müntzer saw violent resistance as the only alternative in the actual situation. Michael Sattler (1490–1527) chose a different path. The Schleitheimer Confession formulated his program, preaching non-violence and refusing oaths, etc. The condemnation of the Anabaptists in Confessio Augustana XVI deals with their interpretation of the SM. “They condemn also those that place the perfection of the Gospel, not in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, inasmuch as the Gospel teacheth an everlasting righteousness of the heart.”187 This condemnation was unjust and had devastating effects.188

184

Moisés Mayordomo, “Die Bergpredigt und Calvin: Ein wirkungsgeschichtlicher Versuch”, in Martin Sallmann/idem/Hans Rudolf Lavater (eds.), Johannes Calvin 1509– 2009: Würdigung aus Berner Perspektive, Zürich: TVZ 2012, 183–204. 185 Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), student of Calvin’s successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza. 186 Clarence Bauman, Gewaltlosigkeit im Täufertum: Eine Untersuchung zur theologischen Ethik des oberdeutschen Täufertums der Reformationszeit (Studies in the History of Christian Thought 3), Leiden: Brill 1968, has interpreted their pamphlets and Lawprotocols etc. also. 187 Confessio Augustana XVI, compare also V, IX, XVII. 188 Recently e.g. Jürgen Moltmann has asked Lutherans to withdraw these articles, based on his understanding of the SM, cf. Moltmann (ed.), Nachfolge und Bergpredigt (1981), 6f.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

47

2) Pietistic movements. Philipp Jakob Spener (1635–1705) founded through his work Pia desideria the Collegia pietatis, the pietistic conventicles. For him, the ideas of blessedness (µακάριος, German: gottselig), righteousness and perfection (τέλειος) in the SM were crucial.189 Rebirth and grace enable Christians to follow the radical commandments of Jesus. The Pietism of August Hermann Francke (1663–1727) in Halle had the peaceful and non-violent piety in the SM as its model.190 His cooperation with the state made it convenient to focus on individuals. Based on the ethos of the SM they blamed the morals of Lutheran Christians.191 Even more influential was Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700–1780). He made an interesting translation of the SM,192 the Beatitudes inspired one of his psalms (“Kron und Lohn beherzter Ringer, der Seligkeit Herwiederbringer, Herr Jesu …”) and his reflections on ethics193 later inspired Lessing and Schleiermacher. Halle and ‘Herrnhut’ became models for Christian conduct, based on the SM. 3) The Quakers. The influence of George Fox (1624–1690) and the first Quakers was immense, and not only in the 17th century. Even Oliver Cromwell is part of this story, and William Penn took the ‘Society of Friends’ to the US/Pennsylvania. The interpretation of the SM by the Scot Robert Barclay (1648–1690), became internationally influential.194 The ‘Friends’ refused to swear oaths (Matt 5,34ff) and their ‘peace testimony’/ʻtestimony against war’ is based on Matt 5,38–48. They were therefore persecuted, which was exactly according to Jesus’ prophecy (Matt 5,11f). The concept of ‘inner life’ is inspired by Matt 6,23f (and the concept of light in John), and the SM gave impulses to their social work. Their spiritual strength impressed and still impresses many people outside the group of ‘Friends’ also. 4) John Wesley and the Methodists. It was John Wesley (1703–1791) who provided the most extensive exegesis of the SM. For Wesley the SM was a significant text. He opposed Luther’s ‘two Kingdom-concept’ and the notion 189 Ph.J. Spener, Pia desideria, oder Herzliches Verlangen nach gottgefälliger Besserung der wahren evangelischen Kirche (1676), Leipzig: Köhler 21687, on being perfect, p. 54. The revival of the Church is the focus in Spener’s Natur und Gnade, Frankfurt am Main: Zunner 1687 (repr. Hildesheim etc.: Olms 1984), 142f, 154. 190 Erik Peterson, “Das Problem der Bibelauslegung im Pietismus des 18. Jahrhunderts”, ZST 1 (1923), 468–481. 191 A.H. Francke, “Von den Mißbräuchen des Beichtstuhls” (1697), in idem, Werke in Auswahl, Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 1969, 92–107. 192 N.L. von Zinzendorf, Die sogenannte Berg-Predigt des Herrn Jesu: Matth V, VI, VII, in idem, Freywillige Nachlese: Kleine Schriften, I. Sammlung, Frankfurt am Main 1740, repr., Hildesheim: Olms 1972, 20 January 1735. 193 H. Raillard, “Die Stellung der Moral im Leben des Christen nach Zinzendorf”, ZTK 14/41 (1933), 236–256. 194 Robert Barclay, An Apology for the True Christian Divinity, Amsterdam: Jacob Claus 1676; idem, Treatise on Universal Love (1677).

48

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

of simul iustus et peccator. Wesley emphasised the real change in the life of a sinner. Christian believers are thus able to resist sin through grace. Wesley’s own perception of sanctification on personal and social levels led him boldly to advocate social reforms.195 After his ‘heart-warming’ experience in the Moravian (Herrnhuter) chapel,196 he preached eight times on Matt 5,48 and Christian perfection between 1740 and 1785.197 For Methodists the SM provides the best path to perfection and is therefore a text one should confront daily. 5) Retrospect. The SM was a living document for all Christians at the time of the Reformation. It is therefore surprising that the Decalogue rather than the SM was part of catechisms and curricula in schools. In the Early Church the SM was an integral part of and basic to the catechisms; now it was more important in sermons and in theological reflection. Other dogmatic issues were in the forefront, and theological arguments were based more on Paul. In the interpretation of the SM there was basically no division between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. Their application of the SM was, however, totally different. The problem with the reception has been the several and repeated myths about ‘Luther’s’, ‘Zwingli’s’, ‘Calvin’s’ understandings of the SM. The variety of perspectives and the common conviction about the importance of the SM should be more emphasised. The reception among theologians is one thing, but the influence of the SM was conveyed to ordinary people more through sermons and devotional books. 1.3.4 After the Enlightenment (1750–1830): The Principle of the SM 1) The Enlightenment and philosophical meaning. The Enlightenment can be seen as the peak of the development launched by humanism or as the beginning of a new era. The Scottish Enlightenment with David Hume (1711– 1776) and his book A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–1740) inspired many, as did also Voltaire (1694–1778), as we see in his “Lettres philosophiques sur les Anglais” (1734). The French Encyclopedia (1751–1780), Voltaire’s Traité sur la tolérance (1763) and his Dictionnaire philosophique (1764) propagated liberalism, individualism and science/reason, and opposed traditional truths 195

Meistad, Martin Luther and John Wesley on the Sermon on the Mount (1999); Mark Noll, “John Wesley”, in Greenman et al. (eds.), Sermon (2007), 153–180. 196 Located in London, Aldersgate Street. The Aldersgate-day, 24 May 1738, is still celebrated. During the reading of Luther’s “Preface to Romans” Wesley felt his heart strangely warmed: “I felt I did trust in Christ; Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death” (The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, vol. 1, London: John Jones 1809, 280). 197 The Works of John Wesley in ten volumes, New York: Harper 1826, here vol. V: Discourses 2–13, 227–362. Next to Eph 2,8, Phil 3,12 and Heb 6,1 Matt 5,48 was the core of perfection texts in the New Testament.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

49

and authorities, Church, rulers/kings, etc.198 Many traditional Christian doctrines were challenged even by Christian (von) Wolff (1679–1754) in pietistic dominated Halle.199 The SM in general escaped the criticism of Christianity. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) argued, however, that the SM was too weak to prevent oppression. After a Calvinist upbringing he became a Catholic and later took a deist position and considered civil religion and analogies from nature as better.200 The Reformation and the Enlightenment movement focused once more on the problems of doctrine more than on ethos. The SM was nevertheless an important text in churches and theology. Gerhard Meier-Reutti has documented the important role of the SM in protestant and secular public debates through the different crises in the years 1800–1850.201 Konrad Hammann has also shown how much the SM was used in university preaching in the era of Enlightenment. The SM was the “Grundtext der christlichen Frömmigkeit”, and “die beste Anleitung zu einer vernünftigen Sittlichkeit”.202 Friedrich Arndt, a prominent preacher in Berlin, offered an extraordinary idealization of the significance of the SM and requested more preaching on the SM.203 2) Lessing and Herder – the SM as true Christianity. Both Lessing and Herder were inspired by some of the ideas from the Enlightenment, but they worked scholarly with the Gospels and wrote profound interpretations of the SM. 198 The French Enlightenment has many faces. Through the violence in Paris after 1789 the Enlightenment as a movement was scandalized and – because of Napoleon – it had catastrophical consequences for the whole of Europe, Russia and the Middle East. 199 Working in the university he was accused of being an atheist, and his Vernünftige Gedanken von dem gesellschaftlichen Leben der Menschen (1721), challenged the pietistic ethos. 200 Rousseau developed his views in Du contrat social (1762) and in Légation divine de Moïse (1737–1741). He underlined in the beginning much more “les différences entre la morale de Moïse et la sienne” (Œuvres complètes de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Deux-Ponts: Sanson 1780– 1789, vol. IV, 626). 201 Meier-Reutti, Die Bergpredigt in der evangelischen und außerkirchlichen Publizistik (2001). 202 Konrad Hammann, Universitätsgottesdienst und Aufklärungspredigt (BHT 116), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000, 300, 305, etc., quoting from Johann B. Koppe (1750–1791). 203 The preacher in the reformed ‘Parochialkirche’ in Berlin wrote in his Die Bergpredigt Jesu Christi: Siebzehn Betrachtungen in der Trinitatiszeit 1837 gehalten, Magdeburg: Heinrichshofen 1838, V: The SM is “etwas so Erhabenes und Vollendetes, ein solches Meisterstück der gediegensten Redekunst, eine solche Harmonie von Gesetz und Evangelium, eine solche Verwahrung vor Pharisäismus, Heidenthum und christlicher Unnatur, eine solche Lebensnorm, nicht nur für den einzelnen Christen, als solchen, sondern auch für seine häuslichen, bürgerlichen und kirchlichen Verhältnisse, wie sich so umfassend und inhaltreich, so ideal und real, so wortkurz und so gedankenreich, so andeutend und doch so erschöpfend, fast nirgends wiederfindet im n.T.”

50

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781) moved to Berlin in 1748 and met Moses Mendelssohn204 there, who conveyed to him a new understanding of the Jewishness of Jesus. The encounter inspired him to write his most challenging play, Nathan the Wise (1779). It propagated the equality of three great religions in regard to their ethical basis, and followed up Lessing’s edition of Reimarus’ critical book on Jesus, “Fragments of an Unknown” (Fragmente eines Ungenannten, 1774–1777).205 In his book Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts (1780), he celebrated man’s true religion – love, action without prejudice and devotion to the service of humankind. The SM was the inspiration for preaching universal brotherhood and moral freedom, that transcends all dogmatic doctrines. Lessing expressed this most intriguingly already in his marvellous play Miss Sara Sampson, written in Potsdam 1755. Here and in “Correspondence about Tragedy” (1756–1757) he contrasted Medea and Jesus.206 The Jesus of the SM symbolises the perfect universal ethos. In contrast to Lessing, Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803) was also a minister. As a theologian he offered a condensed view of the SM in his “Explanation of the New Testament”.207 Herder admired the simple and profound wisdom coming from seemingly ordinary people, and he saw the SM in this framework. For him the SM was the Christian Magna Carta, the Magna Carta of the Kingdom of God: “Diese erste und Eine Rede ist Schatz und Muster unerreichbaren Inhaltes”.208 He understood the Beatitudes in terms of duties and acts. They must be fulfilled in order to convey blessing.209 For this romantic view Jesus’ relation to Judaism was a problem.210 204 He edited Berlinerische Privilegierte Zeitung (later: Vossische Zeitung), Critische Nachrichten aus dem Reiche der Gelehrsamkeit and together with Friedrich Nicolai and Moses Mendelssohn he published Briefe, die neueste Literatur betreffend. 205 According to Reimarus the SM played no significant role: “es sind lauter moralische Lehren und Lebens-Pflichten, die den Menschen innerlich und von ganzem Herzen bessern sollen”, in Lessing’s edition, “Fragments by an Anonymous Writer” in his Zur Geschichte und Literatur in 1774–1778, Braunschweig: Fürstl. Waysenhaus-Buchhandlung 1778, 13. 206 Jochen Schulte-Sasse (ed.), Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Moses Mendelssohn, Friedrich Nicolai: Briefwechsel über das Trauerspiel (1756/57), München: Winkler 1972. 207 J.G. von Herder, Erläuterungen zum neuen Testamente: Aus einer neu eröffneten morgenländischen Quelle, Wien/Prag: Haas’sche Buchhandlung 1819, 110–114: “Anmerkungen. 1. Zur Bergpredigt Jesu”. Herder’s Outline of a Philosophical History of Humanity (1776) does not include Judaism – or other religions ‒ in the same way as does Lessing in his Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts (1780). “Wir würden unserem Volke dasselbe Evangelium des Geistes, und nicht der Werkheiligkeit, so einfältig, vollkommen und mächtig predigen, als Jesus zu seiner Zeit seinem Volke” (Erläuterungen, 113f). The SM reached the highest level of humanity. 208 Ibid., 113f. 209 J.G. von Herder, “Über die Seligpreisungen Jesu, Matth. 5,1–12” (1776), in idem, Homilien über das Leben Jesu, here in Johann Gottlieb von Herders Sämmtliche Werke, vol. IX, Stuttgart/Tübingen: J.G. Cotta 1928, 189–201, esp. 189–194. 210 Gerdmar, Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism (2009), starts with Herder.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

51

4) Immanuel Kant. The SM played a significant role in Kant’s ethical philosophy. In three of his most famous works he commented on the SM.211 The reception of his interpretation was remarkable.212 In the long run the understanding of the SM as ethics of attitude became Kant’s largest contribution to the exegesis of the SM. Many of his sophisticated discussions and differentiations were seldom debated and received. One of them – “Between morality and justice” (German: Moral versus Recht) – became politically important. Other differentiations, like virtue and blessedness (German: Tugend versus Glückseligkeit) or morality versus cosmology, or ‘the categorical imperative’ versus ‘the Golden Rule’, or the incompatibility of Stoicism and Epicureanism, were partly overlooked.213 Kant reflected deeply on the problem of a divine law in an evil society, a reflection that is extremely important for the interpretation of the SM. 5) Hegel, Schleiermacher and the SM: more than Romanticism. Schleiermacher and Hegel in the end were seen as antagonists. They still had the same admiration for Kant and they both advocated Romanticism (inspired by Schelling and Schlegel). Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) was a preacher at the Charité in Berlin when he published his “Reden” Über die Religion (1799). As Professor and Dean at the newly-founded Berlin University in 1810, he was the most influential preacher, teacher and theologian of his time. In his “Glaubenslehre” (21830) the SM is referred to in some important paragraphs (e.g. § 104),214 but he used the SM in a great many sermons.215 He saw in the SM an ethics of virtues and an extraordinary philosophy of life. No sophisticated hermeneutics are needed.

211

I. Kant, Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (1788); idem, Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft (1793), 130–200; idem, Zum ewigen Frieden (1795); cf. Friedrich Delekat, Immanuel Kant: Historisch-kritische Interpretation der Hauptschriften, Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer 1966, 301–312. 212 Cf. Berner, Bergpredigt (21983), 17, 122, nn. 68, 71. 213 Cf. Bernhard Milz, Der gesuchte Widerstreit: Die Antinomie in Kants Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (Kantstudien 139), Berlin: De Gruyter 2002. 214 F.D.E. Schleiermacher, Der christliche Glaube, ed. Rolf Schäfer, vol. 2 (Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abt. 1: Schriften und Entwürfe, vol. 13/2), Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 2003, 149.20f; idem, Christliche Sittenlehre: Einleitung (Wintersemester 1826/27), ed. Hermann Peiter, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1983, 24, 263, 304f. Cf. Hermann Peiter/Terrence N. Tice, Christian Ethics according to Schleiermacher: Collected Essays and Reviews (Princeton Theological Monograph Series 134), Eugene: Pickwick 2010. 215 F.D.E. Schleiermacher, Predigten 1809–1815, ed. Patrick Weiland (Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abt. 3: Predigten, vol. 4), Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 2011. He made use of nearly every verse in the SM, and for some of the texts he has two or three sermons.

52

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) had the same attitude towards the SM, at least in his earliest writings.216 He found in the SM the power behind every abstraction, every formulation of cult or justice, which is love. The “höhere Genius der Versöhnlichkeit” is a modification of love.217 1.3.5 The SM as Historical Source – and Historicism (1835–1870) The Enlightenment, Herder and later Schleiermacher and Hegel inspired the generation after 1830 to seek in a non-dogmatic way the roots for different cultures. They inspired scholars to search for historical events and traditions behind the biblical text. 1.3.5.1 Historical Foundation of the SM: The Real Historical Jesus The Napoleonic wars changed Europe dramatically. Many countries celebrated their independence/freedom by establishing universities.218 The new universities evoked scholarly optimism, and the sciences became a tool for industrial and economic development. Theology lost more and more its position as the leading discipline and competing disciplines like history, philosophy and the social sciences challenged theological scholarship. With Leopold von Ranke as a prominent figure, a new wave in historiography was launched and influenced research on the SM enormously. Ranke established a historical methodology, developed tools for source-criticism, claimed objectivity as an absolute premise and emphasised the role of prominent individuals – against Hegel, who disparaged the role of human agency in history.219 The search for the historical Jesus had a high priority within this framework. This is the pioneer period of the ‘Life of Jesus research’, and in this period the dogmatic or philosophical approach to the SM was labelled as unhistorical. Only the struggle for the ethical meaning of the SM continued. 216 Cf. Wilhelm Dilthey, Die Jugendgeschichte Hegels und andere Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des Deutschen Idealismus = Gesammelte Schriften IV, Stuttgart: Teubner 6 1990, 16–20: “Drei Schriften über Religion, 1: Das Leben Jesu”, and 80–86: “Die theologisch-historischen Fragmente”, esp. “3: Lehrreden und Bergpredigt”. Heinz Röttges, Das Problem der Wissenschaftlichkeit der Philosophie, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 1999, 400f, underlines this. 217 G.W.F. Hegel, Der Geist des Christentums und sein Schicksal, ed. Gerhard Ruhbach (Texte zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte 12), Gütersloh: Mohn 1970, 29–36. 218 E.g. Berlin 1810, Oslo 1811, Warsaw 1818, Liège, Gent, Leuven State University 1816–1817, Bonn 1818, Munich 1826, Durham 1832, Bern 1832, Madrid 1836, Athens 1837, Belfast 1835. 219 Georg G. Iggers, The German Conception of History: The National Tradition of Historical Thought from Herder to the Present, Middletown: Wesleyan University Press 2012 (first published in German in 1968); Frederick C. Beiser, The German Historicist Tradition, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

53

1.3.5.2 New Methods: Source-criticism as Basis Source-criticism was at the top of the agenda in the science of history, and experienced a breakthrough precisely in this field of research. When searching the oldest and most reliable source behind the Gospels, the brilliant philologist and critic Karl K.F.W. Lachmann (1793–1851)220 found in 1835 good arguments for the priority of Mark. Christian Gottlob Wilke (1788– 1854) and Christian Hermann Weisse (1801–1866) discovered independently in 1838 that a saying-source (‘Q’) had to be the other main source. The key to this argument was the SM/SP, the only extensive speech which is entirely missing in Mark. This theory has never been undisputed, but became the most influential working hypothesis. The SM/SP is a premise for this theory, and the discovery of Q had an enormous impact on the interpretation of the SM. 1.3.5.3 Critical-Historical Approaches: Tendenz-criticism; Decline of Rhetoric At about the same time as Lachmann/Wilke/Weisse, David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874) wrote his famous book, Das Leben Jesu (“Life of Jesus”). His interest was not the interpretation of the SM, rather the miracles and other texts that he labelled as myths. However, only a few parts of the SM were washed away by the critical stream. Strauss observed clearly Matthew’s and also Luke’s redactional features in the SM/SP, but the differences rather strengthened its historical value.221 Strauss studied in Tübingen and this remote city now became a centre for historical studies of Early Christianity. Historicism and the most prominent representative for the Tübingen school, Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792– 1860), challenged biblical narratives from a different perspective. They argued that the place of the sources in history and the dynamics/conflicts in history are the fundamental questions. Already in 1825 Baur had formulated the slogan: “Without philosophy history is always for me dead and dumb.”222 He dated the Gospels very late, but simultaneously he underlined that the SM is the essence of Early Christianity.223 He saw the morality of Jesus, Jesus as 220

K. Lachmann, “De ordine narrationum in evangeliis synopticis”, TSK 8 (1835), 570–

590. 221

D.F. Strauss, Leben Jesu (1835/36), 569–587 (ET: The Life of Jesus: Critically Examined, London: SCM 1973 [repr., 2010], vol. I, 334–342). 222 German: “Ohne Philosophie bleibt mir die Geschichte ewig tot und stumm”, in F.C. Baur, Symbolik und Mythologie oder die Naturreligion des Alterthums, Stuttgart: Metzler 1824–1825, vol. 1, xi. 223 F.C. Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhältniß zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung, Tübingen: Osiander 1847 (repr., Hildesheim: Olms 1999), 585, also 73–76, 316; cf. Martin Bauspieß, “The Essence of Early Christianity: On Ferdinand Christian Baur’s View of the Synoptic Gospels”, in idem/Christof Landmesser/David Lincicum (eds.), Ferdinand Christian Baur and the History of Early

54

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

teacher of virtue for all human beings, in short: the moral character of Christianity as its essence.224 Both Strauss and Baur in fact had great reverence for the SM. The conflict between the ‘Tübingen school’ and the source-critical approach was a hot issue, even though the debates on Paul, Jewish Christianity, Gnosticism, and the Hegelian view of the development of Christianity became weighty. All this overshadowed the possible debates on the source problem and on the historical setting of the SM. The task was now to find the historical and not the literary meaning of the SM. ‘Facts’ and not rhetoric – that was the slogan after 1835. Christian Gottlob Wilke and others had written extensively on hermeneutics.225 This discipline together with rhetoric suddenly seemed to be outdated. Kant had downgraded rhetoric as a method for finding weaknesses in the argumentation of others.226 It was now about rhetoric versus science, and prominent scholars like Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette227 and August Tholuck228 who succeeded de Wette in Berlin, still had a sense for rhetoric. But the change could already be seen in de Wette’s work. His rhetorical approach was more superficial and his main interest was to make a thorough analysis of the sources.229 Tholuck’s scholarly commentary was at that time the book on the SM both in Germany and in English-speaking countries. His extreme philological competence (using more than ten classical languages) made it hard to argue against the commentary. His conservative agenda was sharply criticized by ‘liberals’ (e.g. Schleiermacher, de Wette, Strauss). They opposed his emphasis on rhetoric and also his positive attitude towards ‘Judaism’.230

Christianity, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2017, ch. 8, nn. 150–156 (German original: “Das Wesen des Urchristentums: Zu Ferdinand Christian Baurs Sicht der synoptischen Evangelien”, in Martin Bauspieß/Christof Landmesser/David Lincicum (eds.), Ferdinand Christian Baur und die Geschichte des frühen Christentums [WUNT 333], Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2014, 195–225). 224 F.C. Baur, Das Christentum und die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, Tübingen: Fues 1853, 21860; ET: The Church History of the First Three Centuries, London/Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate 1878–1879, vol. I, 32f. 225 Christian Gottlob Wilke, Die Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments systematisch dargestellt, Leipzig: Vogel 1843. 226 Kant, Kritik der Urteilskraft (1790), Akademie-Ausgabe V, 165–487, here 327: “die Rednerkunst als eine Methode …, sich der Schwächen des Gegners zu bedienen …” 227 De Wette, Lehrbuch (1817, 31829); idem, Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi (1836, 21838). 228 Tholuck, Auslegung der Bergpredigt (1833/31845, ET 1869). 229 Cf. H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 22–24. 230 Gerdmar, Roots (2008), 195–201 (on Tholuck), 61–94 (on Schleiermacher and de Wette), 121–131 (on Strauss).

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

55

1.3.5.4 New Perspectives from outside the Universities 1) Resonses from converted Jews: The SM and the Law. Felix MendelssohnBartholdy, grandson of Moses Mendelssohn, and Karl Marx, who was baptized in 1824, can be seen as symbols for the wave of conversions of Jews in the first part of the 19th century. In the scholarship of the SM, August W. Neander (David Mendel) played an important role. After his conversion he became Schleiermacher’s student, and in 1813 he was appointed professor of Church History in Berlin. Neander’s Jewish heritage guided him in his reading of the SM: Jesus corrected – according to Neander – a misunderstanding of the Law (as Theocratic Law, as letter), and Neander found in the SM rather “ein Prinzip der sittlichen Lebensbildung”.231 The continuity and not the discontinuity with the Tanach is the point. 2) Influence and interpretation of the SM by Ernest Renan. The German books on the life of Jesus at this time (by K.A. von Hase, H.E.G. Paulus, F.D.E. Schleiermacher, G.H.A. Ewald, et al.)232 had limited influence on SM research. A French book influenced both ordinary people and scholars all over Europe. The book on the Life of Jesus (1863) by the historian, J. Ernest Renan (1823–1891), came out in eight editions within three months. Renan depicted the Galilean ministry of Jesus, his Rousseau-like closeness to nature, and his preaching of the Kingdom – and not of the Church. Renan claimed that “Jesus will ever be the creator of the pure spirit of religion; the Sermon on the Mount will never be surpassed”.233 This illustrates the influence of the SM at that time.234 3) The inspiration from the SM to diaconal work. The preaching and teaching of Pietists, Baptists and Methodists resulted in a new wave of ‘awakening’ and missionary activity. Missionary organisations (William Carey, 1761– 1834, and the ‘Inner Mission’, organisation for diaconal work) came up. The very strong revival movements based their ethos on the SM, and the ethos was even institutionalised through the diaconal institutions. Next to Luke 10,30–37 and Matt 25,31–46, the SM was the basic ethical text.

231 August Neander, Das Leben Jesu Christi in seinem geschichtlichen Zusammenhange und seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung, Hamburg: Friedrich Perthes 1837, 113 (“als Gesetze für eine äußerliche Theokratie, als dem Buchstaben nach zu erklärende theokratische Reichsgesetze betrachtet”), also 530f. 232 Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (21913/1951/1984), 49–68, 98– 123. 233 Renan, Vie de Jésus (1863), ch. 19 (ET: The Life of Jesus, New York: Prometheus 1991, here 221). He extended his results, pp. 299–380; cf. idem, La réforme intellectuelle et morale, Paris: Lévy 1871. 234 Cf. Alfred Loisy, Les évangiles synoptiques, vol. I, Paris: Loisy 1907, 534–643. The scholarly works by Loisy had less influence, but this was an important contribution to the exegesis of the SM.

56

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

Johann Hinrich Wichern referred to the SM in his speech on the first ‘Kirchentag’ (National Convention of Protestant Churches), 22 September 1948 in Wittenberg, which was the real starting-point for diaconal institutions.235 The pietistic interpretation of the SM is still lingering in the numerous books on the SM in the US, UK, Germany, France and other European countries in the eighteenth century. 4) Utopian socialists. After Napoleon many nations struggled with recovering from hunger and poverty. The unrest in many European capitals – even Paris and Berlin – in 1830 and 1848 are signs of the tense atmosphere. Among oppressed people, the theory of what Karl Marx called ‘utopian socialism’ arose. Henri de Saint-Simon (1760–1825) based his ideology on the ideas of ‘Nouveau Christianisme’, in which the SM played a significant role. The social ethos of the SM inspired the first socialists. Even PierreJoseph Proudhon (1809–1865), who developed socio-economic theories (on poverty, etc.) saw Jesus in the SM as inspiration for his theories on justice and mutuality.236 The SM was also the inspiration for social movements in France, through Hugues-Félicité Robert de Lamennais (1782–1854), who broke with the Catholic Church and advocated socialist ideas based on the SM.237 In England Charles Kingsley (1819–1875) published sermons and books, using the Lord’s Prayer and other texts from the SM. One of his books, The Good News of God: Sermons, was published in the same year (1859) as On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, in which Kingsley rendered his friend strong support. 5) Bruno Bauer’s scepticism. After the setback in his career, Bruno Bauer (1809–1882) lived an ascetic life from 1848 in Rixdorf outside Berlin (today: Neukölln). Luke has some pieces of the original speech, but Bauer had a

235 “Es bedarf einer Reformation … aller unserer innersten Zustände … Die rettende Liebe muss ihr das große Werkzeug werden … Im Prinzip der evangelischen Kirche lag von Anfang an die Liebe zu den Elenden und Verlorenen”, etc. J.H. Wichern, Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Friedrich Mahling, vol. 3: Prinzipielles zur inneren Mission. Die wichtigsten Aufsätze, Vorträge und Abhandlungen über Fragen und Aufgaben der inneren Mission, Hamburg: Agentur des Roten Hauses 1902, esp. 248f, cf. “The protocol from the meeting” (in Die Verhandlungen der Wittenberger Versammlung für Gründung eines deutschen evangelischen Kirchenbundes, Berlin: W. Herz 1848, 68). 236 P.-J. Proudhon, De la justice dans la révolution et dans l’Eglise (“Of Justice in the Revolution and the Church”), Paris: Garnier 1858; cf. Alex Prichard, Justice, Order and Anarchy: The International Political Theory of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, London: Routledge 2013. Proudhon formulated the theory of mutualism in ‘Programme Révolutionnaire’ (1848), the same year as the Communist Manifesto appeared. 237 H.-F.R. de Lamennais, Worte eines Gläubigen vollständig übersetzt und mit critischen Materialien by J.A.W. Neander, Hamburg: Hoffmann & Campe 1834.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

57

sceptical attitude towards the Gospel tradition,238 as opposed to August Tholuck’s uncritical evaluation. Bauer inclined more towards the extreme position of the Tübingen school and considered the Jew Philo as the real father of Christianity, as the Roman stoic Seneca was, so to speak, its uncle.239 The SM is an illusion and became a factor after Matthew wrote his Gospel in the second century. Bauer argued from the very beginning that Matthew has a better text than Luke. Luke is therefore still younger, but both of them created ‘the SM’/SP as phantasy-products. Bauer’s voice was hardly heard. The mainstream philosophers and theologians evaluated the SM entirely differently. 6) Philosophy of life: Søren Kierkegaard and Arthur Schopenhauer. The Danish theologian and philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1853), offered no exegetical exposition of the SM. However, he delivered many sermons, an essay on the concept of anxiety, and the amusing and soberingly provocative novel about the theological graduate Ludvig From (= Pious), which he ironically called “First the Kingdom of God”.240 The task for humans is to seek the inside and not the surface of things. Men should, like the lilies and the birds, live out their God-given identity, and learn a few things from them: silence, trust and joy. That is what happiness is all about. Worrying in order to make oneself secure can never provide happiness. People have to move from aesthetics to ethics, and finally to a religious stage. The latter implies that we seek God and his Kingdom. Kierkegaard here offers us an existential perspective, which Bultmann and others picked up a hundred years later. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) yielded much broader influence both during his lifetime and later. In his earliest publications he was eager to tran-

238 B. Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker I (1843), 299–380; cf. idem, Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs, 4 vols., Berlin: Hempel 1850–1852. 239 B. Bauer, Philo, Strauß und Renan und das Urchristenthum, Berlin: Hempel 1874 (repr., Aalen: Scientia 1972); idem, Christus und die Cäsaren, Berlin: Grosser 1877 (ET: Christ and the Caesars: The Origin of Christianity from Romanized Greek Culture, Charleston: Davidonis 1998). Cf. Friedrich Engels, “Bruno Bauer und das Urchristentum”, Sozialdemokrat, 4+11 May 1882. 240 S. Kierkegaard, “The sermons on Matt 6,25–34, What We Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air”, 1847; “The Anxieties of the Heathen”; “The Lilies of the Field and the Birds in the Air”, in idem, Christelige taler, Kjøbenhavn: Reitzel 1848– 1849, part I (ET: Christian Discourses, ed. Walter Lowrie, London: Oxford University Press 1940). Cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 374, 417. The three humorous essays from the years 1847–1848 had a political dimension also; the 1848 revolutions in Copenhagen and Berlin, etc. and the beginning of the conflict with Prussia were indeed a cause for anxiety. In addition to the three essays on anxiety the novel named “First the Kingdom of God” in Øieblikket (7, 1855) shows his usage of the SM.

58

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

scend the Kantian approach to ethics.241 The will of life, life in community with others, emotions, and sympathy (German: Mitleid), had no room in Kant’s ethical universe, and Schopenhauer used the Antitheses to demonstrate Kant’s shortcomings. In his later writings Schopenhauer was more concerned with the ascetic impulses that are better expressed in Buddhism than in Christianity. But in the SM, in the Beatitudes and in Matt 6,19–34, Jesus provides a solid foundation, which churches tend to ignore. 7) The SM and Mormonism. In the strange revelations of Joseph Smith (1805–1844) in the Book of Mormon (from 1829), the revelation in 3 Nephi is a remarkable echo of the SM. Krister Stendahl has compared the two texts and how 3 Nephi used the same redactional principles as Matthew.242 The sayings in 3 Nephi 12f overlap, fill in and intensify the biblical record. With chapter 12 there begins the equivalent of the SM. It is addressed to ‘the Twelve’, who receive a peculiar teaching. In the SM Jesus pays little attention to himself, whereas 3 Nephi 12f ‘Christologises’. Jesus is a Saviour coming in his own name, not only a teacher in conflict with some of the versions of Judaism of his day. In the thirteenth chapter of 3 Nephi (Matt 6), the commandment-clarification is at work, but 3 Nephi 12,6 sets the tone: it adds to the Beatitudes the hunger and thirst for justice, salvation and the religious realm of the Spirit. 3 Nephi offers an interpretation of the SM, but more in the mode of ‘apocrypha’ than an historical interpretation. 8) Retrospect. The central role of the SM – as the core of Christianity – was still undisputed. The historical approach, at least source criticism, rather strengthened its position. The critical implications in the works of Strauss and Baur only had an impact in the books of Bruno Bauer. Source-criticism as a method and the historical view in ‘Life of Jesus’-research laid in general an historical foundation for the actual preaching and teaching focusing on lifeproblems, not least the social task of Christians. 1.3.6 Liberalism and the SM (1870–1914): Is the SM ‘pure Christianity’? Freedom, progress and modernity were slogans for liberalism between 1870 and 1914. The climate for liberal ideas was based on progress in science and technology, on modernity as it was expressed in new voices in philosophy 241

A. Schopenhauer, Die beiden Grundprobleme der Ethik (Über die Freiheit des menschlichen Willens, and Über das Fundament der Moral), 1841. The first was published in Trondheim, Norway (1839). 242 K. Stendahl, “The Sermon on the Mount and Third Nephi”, in Truman G. Madsen (ed.), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, Provo: Brigham Young University 1978, 139–154 = idem, Meanings (1984), 99–113. Also Heikki Räisänen, “Joseph Smith as a creative interpreter of the Bible”, in idem, The Bible among Scriptures and Other Essays (WUNT 392), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2017, 223–239.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

59

and in literature and art. Optimism dominated northern Europe and France, especially in the German ‘Kaiserreich’. Politically it was a period of stability in spite of conservative versus radical debates in the Third Republic in France (1870/1875–1940) and of the Disraeli versus Gladstone disputes in the UK. The ‘Victorian Era’ (1837–1901) in the UK, and the ‘Kaiserreich’ in Germany with Otto von Bismarck (1870–1888) as policymaker was in many respects a golden age.243 Stefan Zweig’s masterpiece The World of Yesterday: Memoirs of a European (1934) portrayed brilliantly the mentality of the Habsburg era. The sciences developed at a speed which was hard to understand and overlook. One of the few who were able to do that, Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919), claimed that nearly every riddle in the universe was basically solved.244 The international horizon was important in scholarship, with mutual exchange of scholars from most European countries. The broader horizon led to intensive colonisation during these years. The conference in Berlin (‘Kongoconference’, 1884–1885) divided Africa between seven European countries, and Spain, Portugal and the UK had their interests in Asia while France and the UK dominated the Middle East. The local populace could hardly understand that these ‘Christian’ countries represented the ethos of the SM. 1.3.6.1 Liberalism in the Modern Age: General Framework for the Influence and Interpretation of the SM The SM in this period was more than ever perceived as the essence of Christianity, but political liberalism could not give much room for the radical Christian ethos of the SM. Otto von Bismarck saw the SM as a threat to society. His slogan was: one cannot make politics with the SM.245 His argument 243 Bruno Bauer’s political criticism in his Zur Orientierung über die Bismarck’sche Ära, Chemnitz: Schmeitzner 1880, and Disraelis romantischer und Bismarcks sozialistischer Imperialismus, Chemnitz: Schmeitzner 1882. Cf. Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels, “The German Ideology”, in idem, Collected Works, vol. 5, New York: Lawrence & Wishart 1975, 19–539. The situation for the Jews in this era is illuminated in the debate between the two socialist friends Marx and B. Bauer in 1843: Bruno Bauer, Die Judenfrage (“The Jewish Question”), Braunschweig: Otto 1843 (ET: The Jewish Problem, Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College 1958), and Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question”, in idem/Friedrich Engels, Collected Works, vol. 3, New York: Lawrence & Wishart 1975, 146–174. According to Bauer political emancipation requires acceptation of a secular state and that the Jews relinquish their particular religious agenda. 244 Ernst Haeckel, Die Welträthsel: Gemeinverständliche Studien über monistische Philosophie, Stuttgart: Kröner 1895–1899 (ET: The Riddle of the Universe at the Close of the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1900) based on the program of Freiheit in Wissenschaft und Lehre, Stuttgart: Schweizerbart 1878 (ET: Freedom in Science and Teaching, London: Appleton 1879). 245 The slogan “Mit der Bergpredigt kann man keine Politik machen/nicht regieren” (“The SM is to no avail for a ruler/in policy-making”), is not precisely formulated by Bismarck, but it summarizes his position.

60

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

was aimed primarily at Catholics and at the influence of the pope in Germany. He saw that the radicalism in the SM challenged his own political agenda. He claimed therefore that the SM is not “ein schlechthin gültiges Sittengesetz”.246 Bismarck could at most accept the interpretation of the SM in so-called Liberal Theology, particularly its individualism, and favoured a classical – and misunderstood – Lutheran ‘Two-Kingdom’ interpretation of the SM. The secularization of the state gave more room for a secular foundation for ethics; in the UK Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900) developed a utilitarian position, searching for ultimate principles of morality. In France Charles B. Renouvier (1816–1903) combined impulses from Kant and from the sociology of Émile Durkheim, and in Germany the prominent branch of philosophy, neo-Kantianism, competed with other secular positions developed by Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, et al.247 In spite of this, the SM had an important place in the state schools. The democratisation of the schools attributed the study of the SM and other basic Christian texts an important role. The SM was part of the curriculum in e.g. Swedish schools even after the War of 1914–1918. In many countries we see a significant change: the SM in state schools replaced the Decalogue as the hallmark of Christian ethics. A new development in the theological faculties was the separation of historical and theological scholarship during these years. This was far more important than theological and philosophical conceptions. 1.3.6.2 Specialized Studies on the SM and Source-Criticism Before 1900 professors of theology had to cover nearly all disciplines. Otto Pfleiderer,248 Adolf von Harnack249 and Shirley J. Case,250 were historians who were able to specialise in many theological disciplines at the same time. Exegesis was still perceived as the basic discipline, and systematic theologians, such as Wilhelm Herrmann,251 were well trained and well informed 246

Cf. his interpreter Otto Baumgarten, Bismarcks Glaube, Tübingen: Mohr 1915, 187. H. Sidgwick, Methods of Ethics (1874/2015); Charles Renouvier, Science de la morale, Paris: Librairie philosophique de Ladrange 1869/1908; Hermann Cohen (1842– 1918), Kants Begründung der Ethik, Berlin: Dümmler 1877; idem, Ethik des reinen Willens, Berlin: Cassirer 1904. 248 Pfleiderer, Urchristentum (1887/21902). 249 Harnack’s famous book, Das Wesen des Christentums dealt with the teaching of the historical Jesus and its impact, but he also wrote a book on the sources of Q/the SM (idem, Sprüche und Reden Jesu [1907]). 250 Shirley J. Case, The Evolution of Early Christianity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1914, cf. idem, The Social Origins of Christianity (1923); idem, Jesus: A New Biography (1927); idem, The Social Triumph of the Ancient Church (1933); idem, Christianity in a Changing World (1941). 251 W. Herrmann, Die sittlichen Weisungen Jesu (1904/1966). 247

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

61

in New Testament scholarship. His colleagues in Marburg, Adolf Jülicher and Johannes Weiß, ‒ Bultmann’s two mentors – were primarily exegetes. E.g. in Berlin (Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Bernhard Weiß) and in Leipzig (C.F. Georg Heinrici)252 exegesis became a specialised discipline and the consequence was specialised methods. This led to the extremely specialized debates about e.g. source-criticism. In research on the SM one tried to get rid of the open ends of the twosource theory. The research on sources behind Q nearly led to a dissolution of Q. Heinrici argued in 1900 that the SM was basically a collection of small isolated sayings.253 At the same time Otto Pfleiderer continued Baur’s approach. He saw the SM as a product of the second century, and it should be interpreted as such.254 An American scholar, Benjamin W. Bacon (1860–1932) who paved the way to the later ‘redaction-criticism’ made some of the same observations. In his comprehensive analysis of the SM he reconstructed the original prophetic speech of Jesus with its interpretation of the Law: Jesus provided new principles, not new rules. Matthew’s ‘intrusive additions’ are ‘neo-legalistic’ and reflect his Jewish environment. Bacon thought the setting of Matthew was a Jewish community in the 80s CE but not as late as the ‘Tübingen school’ suggested.255 1) Philosophical (Psychological, etc.) and ‘Conceptual-history’ Methods. Specialisation easily leads to fragmentation, and it was important to find a common ground for a scholarly/scientific approach. A theological approach had/has too many limitations. A philosophical one could provide a common ground. In the Neo-Kantian climate after 1870 the notion of philosophy was identical with Kant’s philosophy. There were alternatives like Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and philosophical faculties entailed at that time new specialised disciplines as well: psychology, sociology, etc. These approaches were only occasionally applied to the SM. C.F. Georg Heinrici (1844–1915) tried to develop a new approach in a substantial and still overlooked study in 1900/1905. As a Liberal theologian

252

Jülicher was also professor of Church History. Wilhelm Heitmüller succeeded Johannes Weiß and Rudolf Bultmann as exegete. Bultmann was a student of Wilhelm Herrmann and trained in the field of systematic theology. 253 Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1900); idem, Bergpredigt II (1905). 254 Pfleiderer, Urchristentum I (21902), 569: “eine mit dem überlieferten Stoff der Sprüche Jesu ziemlich frei schaltende Komposition des Evangelisten unter Gesichtspunkten seiner Zeit”. It still is a reflection of Jesus’ teaching, ibid., 637–659. 255 Bacon, Sermon (1902); Votaw, “The Sermon on the Mount” (1904); idem, “Jesus’ Ideal of Life”, The Biblical World 35 (1910), 46–56. Cf. R.B. Miller, “The Sermon on the Mount”. Burton S. Easton, “The Sermon on the Mount”, JBL 33 (1914), 228–243.

62

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

he was critical of dogmatic systems,256 and the alternative was for him ‘conceptual history’ (German: ‘begriffsgeschichtliche Methode’). Heinrici argued that Justin and Origen already accentuated the concepts and the logic in a philosophy, and they found concepts/philosophical logic in the SM. 2) The ethics of attitude (motive, conviction) in ‘Liberal Theology’. The liberal ethics of attitude was developed primarily within the framework of Kantian philosophy. Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889), who developed an ‘elliptic theology’ with justification and Kingdom of God as focal points, gave the Kingdom of God primarily a presentic and ethical meaning.257 In his lectures on “Theologische Ethik” he saw the SM not as law, but as duty and basically as ‘attitude’ (German: ‘Prinzip der Gesinnung’).258 Ritschl referred here to the analysis of the SM by the exegete Bernhard Weiß.259 Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (1832–1910) and later Paul Wernle (1872– 1939) provided more fully exegetical foundations of the liberal interpretation of the SM. Holtzmann accepted Ritschl’s interpretation of the ‘Kingdom of God’, and he understood the SM as attitude ethics.260 Before the War (1914) Wernle had a typical social-liberal understanding of the SM; these ideals of Jesus should be put into practice and contribute to reorganise society.261 He was less optimistic in his bestselling book during the First World War (1917). 256

Heinrici, Bergpredigt II (1905), 3–9. He formulates the rule: “je freier, je anschaulicher, je unreflektierter die religiöse Wahrheit sich ihren Ausdruck schafft, desto zuverlässiger und berechtigter ist der Schluß, daß sie in der urprünglichsten Form vorliegt”. 257 Albrecht Ritschl, A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas 1872, 285: “The Kingdom of God consists of those who believe in Christ, inasmuch as they treat one another with love … thereby bringing about a fellowship of moral attitude and moral properties extending through the whole range of human life in every possible variation”. Ritschl was trained in Hegelian philosophy, but his pattern of thought here was well received among Kantian scholars. 258 A. Ritschl, Vorlesung “Theologische Ethik”, ed. Rolf Schäfer (AKG 99), Berlin: De Gruyter 2007, here 95, 168. Cf. Rolf Schäfer, “Das Reich Gottes bei Albrecht Ritschl und Johannes Weiß”, ZTK 61 (1964), 68–88. In Unterricht in der christlichen Religion, Bonn: Marcus 51895, 62f, Ritschl explained more the limitations of the SM (“nur nach Analogie anwendbar, theils auf den Verkehr … mit Menschen gleicher sittlicher Gesinnung bezogen sind, also immer auf die freie Beurtheilung von Umständen rechnen, die in der Regel nicht festgestellt sein können”). 259 B. Weiß, “Die Gesetzesauslegung Christi in der Bergpredigt”, TSK 31 (1858), 50– 94. 260 Holtzmann, Lehrbuch (21911), 203, 239 (the Beatitudes presuppose “Vorhandensein einer dem Wesen des Reiches Gottes kongenialen Gesinnung”), 241–248 (“Gesinnungsethik, Interimsethik”). 261 Wernle, “Die Forderungen der Bergpredigt” (1914). Also, idem, Die Anfänge unserer Religion, Tübingen: Mohr 1901 (ET: The Rise of Religion, London: Williams & Norgate 1903); idem, Die Reichsgotteshoffnung in den ältesten Dokumenten und bei Jesus, Tübingen/Leipzig: Mohr 1903.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

63

Here he took the ‘autonomy’ of the commands against the Jewish Law as his starting-point. The SM represents “Vereinfachung, Verinnerlichung, Verschärfung”.262 Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930) in his Berlin millennium-lectures “What is Christianity?” (Das Wesen des Christentums, 1899/1900) saw Jesus’ teaching as the answer to the challenges of the future.263 The answer can only be given on basis of history and life-experience.264 The SM points out a new direction for Church and society; it is an ethos separated from cult, rooted in an attitude (Gesinnung), basically the attitude of love.265 The SM offers insights into what Christianity and ethics are all about. The progress in religion means ‘internalisation’ (German: Verinnerlichung). According to Harnack and Martin Rade266 the SM urges Christians to be engaged in society.267 For Rade, the editor of Die Christliche Welt and a theological leader and organiser of the movement of progressive pastors, the main concern was the implication of the SM for social ethics. He blamed the churches for their lack of ‘Christian socialism’,268 but Rade’s and Otto Baumgarten’s reflection on ‘double morality’ in the end approximated to Luther’s position.269 Wilhelm Herrmann (1846–1922) presented a relatively new interpretation of the SM. He was Tholuck’s student and pietistic patterns of thought can easily be found in his writings, combined with the influence from A. Ritschl and A. von Harnack. Herrmann provided a deeper foundation for their ethics 262 P. Wernle, Jesus, Tübingen: Mohr 1917, ch. 8: pp. 103, 105f, 109f, 113, 116f and 119 (“Gesinnungsmoral und nicht mehr bloß … Recht”). He was, however, rather vague in his evalution of the present warfare. 263 Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums (1900), esp. 45–65. 264 Ibid., 4: “im historischen Sinn …, d.h. mit den Mitteln der geschichtlichen Wissenschaft und mit der Lebenserfahrung, die aus erlebter Geschichte erworben ist”, not “die apologetische und die religionsphilosophische Betrachtung”. Evaluation means to ask for the essence, and to differentiate between “Kern und Schale” (ibid., 7f). He knew, however, what Christianity is all about: “etwas Hohes, Einfaches und auf einen Punkt Bezogenes: Ewiges Leben mitten in der Zeit” (ibid., 5). 265 Ibid., 48: “Einen großen Teil der sogenannten Bergpredigt nimmt jene Verkündigung ein, in welcher er die einzelnen großen Gebiete menschlicher Beziehungen und menschlicher Verfehlungen durchgeht, um überall die Gesinnung aufzudecken”; “die Nächstenliebe ist auf Erden die einzige Bethätigung der in der Demut lebendigen Gottesliebe” (ibid., 49). 266 Rade, Glossen (1896), 937f, 961f, 985f, 1009f, 1033f, 1057–1059. 267 Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums (1900), 50–56: the question of asceticism, and 56–59 (“die soziale Frage”). Cf. Adolf Harnack/Wilhelm Herrmann, Essays on the Social Gospel, London: Williams & Norgate 1907. 268 Baumgarten, Bismarcks Glaube (above, p. 60, n. 246), 92. 269 Baumgarten, “Doppelte Moral”, RGG1 2 (1910), 123–127. The SM formulates the obligation of Christians: “Liebesgesinnung, Freiheit, Gesinnungsethik” and at the same time having to live out the duties that society requires (“Bereich von Pflichten”).

64

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

of attitude.270 He rejected the reading of the SM as law, as principles of pharisaic morality. The SM opens up for a ‘right disposition’ and emphasises the notion of ‘heart’. Herrmann differentiated between three layers in the SM: (a) the hyperbolic, very spontaneous formulation; (b) the radical commandments that want to promote a new attitude of freedom; and thirdly (c) the ideals that supersede every law. Herrmann ignored the possible consequences for a new society, and he ended up with an individualistic perception of the ethics of attitude (Gesinnungsethik). 1.3.6.3 Reactions to the Liberal Approach and the Ethics of Attitude The liberal methodology had the ambition of being ‘scientific’, universal, undogmatic, and its proponents claimed their approach to be ‘neutral’, ‘without presuppositions’, etc. These claims were disputed from different positions. 1) The religious-history perspective intrudes into theology. Albrecht Ritschl was still the big name in Göttingen in the 1890s when young scholars established ‘The religious-history school’. Most of them were brilliant exegetes (e.g. Hermann Gunkel, Wilhelm Bousset, Wilhelm Heitmüller) and they provided – together with the ‘systematic theologian’ in the school, Ernst Troeltsch (and his student Georg Wünsch) – new perspectives on the SM. From the religious-historical perspective Bousset saw the historicity (German: historische Bedingtheit) of the SM. The apocalyptic and Jewish-Pharisaic horizon is far from modernity. Jesus stands out from these limitations and we see clearly the ‘eternal value’ (German: Ewigkeitsideal) of his teaching, which is a consequent ethics of attitude, individualism, and an inner connection between ethics and faith, leading to devotion and enthusiasm.271 Another pioneer in the field of religious history, Nathan Söderblom (1866– 1931), a doctor from the Sorbonne who communicated with French scholars, wrote an important book on the SM in 1899.272 He became the first professor of ‘History of Religion’ in Germany (Leipzig),273 and he compared the SM to the Semitic Prophet-religion and to Graeco-Roman philosophy. 270

W. Herrmann, Ethik (1904/21913), 132, and on the SM pp. 92, 109, 117, 121, 144f, 149, 159f; idem, Die sittlichen Weisungen Jesu (1904/1966). 271 Bousset, “Bergpredigt”, RGG1 1 (1909), 1040: Opposed to: “Verzettelung ins Einzelne und Kleinste”, “Nüchternheit”, “nationale Sitte und Schranken”, and positively: 1. “das Streben nach Einheit und Ganzheit sittlicher Lebensführung, das Drängen auf die Gesinnung”. 2. “den kräftigen Individualismus”. 3. “die enge Durchdringung der sittlichen Forderungen mit dem Gottesglauben und ihren in diesem Gottesglauben wurzelnden Charakter der opferwilligen Hingabe”. 272 Nathan Söderblom, Jesu bergspredikan och vår tid, Stockholm: Åhlen 1899, 21930, based on his article “Le sens des commandements de Jésus dans le discours sur la montagne”, RTP 30 (1897), 247–263. 273 He was first professor in Uppsala, then in Leipzig 1912–1914. He wrote e.g. Die Religionen der Erde, Tübingen: Mohr 1906; Das Werden des Gottesglaubens: Unter-

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

65

2) Support from ‘conservative’/‘moderate’ exegetes/theologians. The ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ during this period had an increasingly antagonistic relationship. Liberal Theology was to a certain degree a form of secular pietism. The missionary movements, the pietistic movements and the free churches, mainstream Lutheran and Calvinist churches, and at the universities, the ‘Erlangen school’, represented something different.274 The debates about the credibility of the Creed demonstrated the differences.275 The SM was seldom a matter of dispute, because they had in common both the positive evaluation of the historical value and the exegesis. The extensive analysis of the SM by the prominent representative of the ‘Erlangen school’, Theodor Zahn (1858–1933), may serve as an example. The historical value of the SM is evaluated more positively, and the ethics of attitude was for Zahn also part of the explanation.276 In the UK a huge number of popular books on the SM came out. The Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834–1892) published an influential one, addressing the message to devoted Christians. The literal, theological and actual meanings are in focus, not the historical or philosophical meaning. The comprehensive encyclopaedia articles by e.g. Clyde W. Votaw have elements of pietistic, ‘renewal’ perspectives, but primarily presented the historical meaning. Their actual ethical reflections come closer to the liberal understanding.277 In France in 1905 there was nearly a total separation between Church and state after in 1903 3,000 Catholic schools were dissolved, monastic orders were repealed, and payments to bishops and priests were no more a state affair. The role of the SM in public life was accordingly reduced. The controversy between Alfred Loisy (1857–1940) and the Catholic Church (Pius X) was spectacular and ended in the excommunication of Loisy. In his books on the Gospels278 he had modified Adolf von Harnack’s position. For Loisy the SM was the core of Christianity. suchungen über die Anfänge der Religion, Leipzig: Hinrichs 1916; Einführung in die Religionsgeschichte, Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer 1920. Cf. Dietz Lange, Nathan Söderblom und seine Zeit, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2011. 274 The better organized liberal movement ‘Bund für Gegenwartschristentum’ became a leading force within parts of the reformed churches. 275 In Germany called the ‘Apostolikum-Streit’ launched by Christoph Schrempf, who in 1891 denied the usage of the Apostolic Creed. Berlin and Tübingen, Harnack and Schlatter became counterparts. 276 Zahn, Matthäus (1903/41922), 176–332, e.g. 237: “die unbedingt erforderliche Gesinnung”. 277 Votaw, “The Sermon on the Mount” (1904). 278 A. Loisy, Évangile et l’Église, Bellevue: Loisy 1904, and Les évangiles synoptiques, Ceffonds: Loisy 1907.

66

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

3) Johannes Müller (1864–1949) – ‘modern’ individualism. The castles in Mainberg and Elmau were for half a decade a place of recreation for a number of high-ranking people (in politics, business, art, etc., philosophers like Hans-Georg Gadamer and even influential theologians: Adolf von Harnack, Eivind Berggrav, et al.). As a result of his books on the SM279 and the teaching of Jesus Müller was granted an honorary doctorate at the (then) University of Berlin in 1916. Exegetes blamed him for his lack of historical and exegetical insights. In spite of his shortcomings he yielded much more influence than exegetes/theologians at the universities.280 He argued strongly that the SM is no codex of moral laws (German: ‘Sittengesetz’) and the SM is nearly free from the ‘Semitic reward-mentality’ (German: ‘die semitische Mentalität der Lohngerechtigkeit’). Three tools opened for a better understanding of the SM. It must be: – ‘verdeutscht’ (= made ‘German’), not so much in a nationalistic way, rather ‘modernized’ in order to find the pattern of thoughts that are valuable for every period of time (German: ‘bleibende Gedanken’). – ‘vergegenwärtigt’ (‘actualized’), confronting the text with the problems and challenges of today. – applied personally. The SM is able to enlighten every person and open their minds for what happens in life. Immediacy (German: ‘Unmittelbarkeit’) was Müller’s slogan. The SM edifies the personality: “be what you are” is the message of Matt 5,13f and other SM-texts. 1.3.6.4 Alternatives to the Liberal Understanding The liberal view of the SM dominated before 1914. In liberal societies there should be opposition, and critical and alternative opinions about the SM were often heard. 1) Radical socialism and Nietzsche. The utopian socialists were influenced by the SM, and even the founders of Marxism could use implications from the SM in their argument. However, like his fellow student in Berlin, Bruno Bauer, Karl Marx became increasingly skeptical, and his student, Karl J. Kautsky (1854–1938), emphasised more the limitations of the SM. He thought that Matthew had manipulated the text which praises the poor and criticizes the rich. Matthew was written twenty years later than Luke and he 279

Johannes Müller, Die Bergpredigt, München: C.H. Beck 1906 (and 1917, 1923, 1936, etc.); idem, Die Reden Jesu, 4 vols., München: C.H. Beck 1909–1933; idem, Jesus, wie ich ihn sehe, Elmau: Verlag der Grünen Blätter 21930 (= 31954: Jesus, der Überwinder der Religionen). Cf. Adolf Arenson, Die Bergpredigt, Berlin: Philosophisch-Theosophischer Verlag 1914, who also found a theosophical worldview in the SM. 280 Thomas Martin Schneider, “Glanz und Elend des Kulturprotestantismus: Adolf von Harnack und Johannes Müller-Elmau”, MEKGR 58 (2009), 193–203, cf. “Müller, Johannes”, Neue Deutsche Biographie XVIII (1997), 426–428.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

67

spiritualizes such that the criticism against the oppressors is reduced.281 The proletarian character is hardly visible in the present SM. Some socialists – like J. Karmeluk – picked up Nietzsche’s criticism of the SM.282 Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), in his Genealogy of Morality, was far more critical than Marx. He compared the ethics of ‘master versus slaves’, the values of nobility, pride, courage, power versus values of sentiment, subversion, kindness and empathy.283 Nietzsche’s criticism of the ethics of slavery was primarily heard as criticism of Jesus and the SM. The SM and particularly the Beatitudes poison true ethics. It expresses a religion of resentment and of envy of unfit cowards and their duties: humility, love, compassion, etc. It degrades life and praises weakness. Compassion, and love of enemies is the opposite of the ethics of ‘overman’.284 One has to overcome this Jewish-Christian morality in order to transform the values into a better ethics, the ideal of ‘overmen’. This typology was accepted in times of colonialism, and would be used/misused by the Nazis. Sigmund Freud had a similar negative evaluation of the SM. The Antitheses and the Golden Rule express excessive and inhuman demands. The aggressive instincts in every human being are unduly restrained by the superego, and the SM represents in fact an inhuman force.285

281 Karl Kautsky, Foundations of Christianity: A Study of Christian Origins, New York: International Publishers 1925 = Der Ursprung des Christentums, Stuttgart: Dietz 1908, esp. 16f, 344–347, 374–380 (in the chapters “Der Kampf um das Jesusbild”, “Klassenhaß”, “Reich Gottes”). Cf. idem, Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History, Chicago: C.H. Kerr 31909. 282 J. Karmeluk, Die proletarische Bergpredigt: Ein Intermezzo aus der Umwertung aller Werte (“Proletarian Sermon from the Mount: An intermezzo from the Transvaluation of Values”), Zürich: Grütli 1904. 283 F. Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, ed. Keith Ansell-Pearson (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007, 10–34. Cf. Karl Löwith, “Nietzsches antichristliche Bergpredigt”, Heidelberger Jahrbücher 6 (1962), 39–50. 284 F. Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra III 21 (Werke, vol. VI/1, 260: “Ich sollte nur Feinde haben, die zu hassen sind, … ihr müsst stolz auf euren Feind sein”). Nietzsche saw the democratic movement as the heir to Christianity, the political manifestation of a slave morality, because of its obsession with freedom and equality. Cf. Ernst Benz, Nietzsches Ideen zur Geschichte des Christentums und der Kirche, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1938. 285 S. Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, Chicago: Great Book Foundation 1961, 61ff (= Das Unbehagen in der Kultur [1930], in idem, Gesammelte Werke, vol. 14, London: Imago 1948, 421–516, here 476–506). Cf. Jean-Daniel Causse, “Le Sermon sur la montagne: Critique freudienne et redéploiement éthique” (“The Sermon on the Mount: A Freudian Critique and Ethical Restructuring”), Revue d’éthique et de théologie morale 150 (2008), 9–21. Cf. Hans Gleixner, “Wenn Gott nicht existiert …”: Zur Beziehung zwischen Religion und Ethik (Paderborner theologische Studien 46), Paderborn: Schöningh 2005 (on enemy-love, pp. 193–206).

68

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

2) Tolstoy – and Dostoevsky – and the challenge of a literal meaning. In the midst of the liberal upturn in society Russian intellectuals protested against the liberal watering-down of the literal meaning of the SM and its reduction to an ethics of attitude. They regarded the whole SM as the real Christianity. Fjodor Dostoevsky (1821–1888) was critical to its literal meaning; Ivan in The Brothers Karamasov favoured the principle of righteousness instead of loving your enemy.286 Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) understood the SM as a philosophy of life or as ‘world view’ (German: Weltanschauung). The radical ethos of the SM must be fulfilled. Matt 7,1f implies that no legal proceedings should take place. The famous author Tolstoy argued for a consequent, ascetic lifestyle. This was a shaking of the foundations of the liberal building. His exegesis challenged prominent scholars such as Karl Holl and Nathan Söderblom.287 Tolstoy inspired more directly the revolution in Russia (which came seven years after his death) – a revolution that blackened the principles of Tolstoy and of the SM.288 3) Dispensationalism. In 1909 The Scofield Reference Bible came out. John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) and the Plymouth Brethren have had enormous influence on Bible-readers in the US up to recent times. On the other hand, hardly any scholarly book outside the US has recognised its perspective. They divided sacred history into seven dispensations and saw its culmination in the dispensation of the Law (the 6th) and Grace (the 7th). Jesus addressed the SM to Jews before the cross and the SM has no role before Jews are converted in the coming Kingdom.289 The SM is understood as pure Law and not Gospel, it drives “neither the privilege nor the duty of the Church”.290

286 F. Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamasov (I.V.4: “Rebellion”, the Letter to Katya: Should a mother forgive the man who let her son be killed by a dog?). 287 Karl Holl: “Die heutigen denken bei der Bergpredigt immer nur an Tolstoi”, in “Tolstoj nach seinen Tagebüchern”, in idem, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. II, Tübingen: Mohr 1928, 433–449, here 433. 288 Tolstoy, “Die Bergpredigt” (“Nagornaja propoved”), 1884 (Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Moscow 1928–1958], vol. 25, 530f); idem, “What I Believe” (‘my religion’), 1885 (Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 23, 304–405). Cf. Marian Machinek, “Das Gesetz des Lebens”? Die Auslegung der Bergpredigt bei L.N. Tolstoj im Kontext seines ethisch-religiösen Systems (Moraltheologische Studien 25), St. Ottilien: EOS 1998; Martin George/ Jens Herlth/Christian Münch/Ulrich Schmid (eds.), Tolstoj als theologischer Denker und Kirchenkritiker, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 22015 (Martin Tamcke, “Tolstoj als theologischer Denker und Kirchenkritiker”, ibid., 608–619, esp. 611, 614). 289 Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. V, Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press 1948, 97. 290 The Scofield Reference Bible, New York: Oxford University Press 1909, 999f. The division is presented in the introduction, pp. 13–18.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

69

Like e.g. Albert Schweitzer and Friedrich Naumann, SM dispensationalism limits the period of time for the SM. They use, however, totally different arguments to arrive at their similar conclusions. 1.3.6.5 Correction of the Liberal Interpretation of the SM/the Historical Jesus The liberal position was challenged by those who insisted on a more literal and real historical interpretation of the text. 1) Friedrich Naumann. The prominent politician, founder of the German Liberal Democratic party, Friedrich Naumann (1860–1919) for a long period of time based his liberal views on the SM. His famous journey to Palestine in 1899 changed his views.291 Jesus’ historical preaching had taken place in the land where after 1,800 years he found no social change. No progress had taken place. Jesus’ teaching fits into this culture and therefore had little relevance in a modern, flourishing Europe. This view could result in contextualising the message of the SM. According to Naumann these efforts are a waste of time. An irrelevant message can never be the essence of Christianity. 2) Albert Schweitzer – from ‘interim ethics’ to ‘reverence for life’. Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) was 26 years old (1901) when as a soldier he was reading Matt 10, and suddenly perceived the concept of consequent eschatology. Jesus had asked his enthusiastic followers to live out a radical ethos. They expected the Kingdom of God to come in the immediate future. In this short period the radical ethos of the SM and the instructions in Matt 10 (plus 11,5ff) should be put into practice. The SM conveys authentic sayings of the historical Jesus and is not a redactional composition: “sie sind in der Hauptsache so gehalten, wie sie uns überliefert sind”.292 When it came to interpretation, Schweitzer could now no longer agree with his teacher Holtzmann and his liberal ethics of attitude. He followed rather Johannes Weiß, who in 1892 had insisted on the connection between a futuristic eschatology and ethics. The SM is meant to be ‘interim-ethics’ for the disciples, for the short period of time before Jesus’ martyrdom.293

291 F. Naumann, Briefe über die Religion, Berlin-Schöneberg: Buchverlag der “Hilfe” 1903 (Postscript in 61916), cf. Ingrid Engel, Gottesverständnis und sozialpolitisches Handeln: Eine Untersuchung zu Friedrich Naumann, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1972. 292 A. Schweitzer, Das Messianitäts- und Leidensbewußtsein Jesu (1901/1956), 19: “Die neue Sittlichkeit, welche hinter dem Buchstaben den Geist des Gesetzes entdeckt, macht geschickt zum Reich Gottes. Nur die Gerechten kommen in das Gottesreich: das stand für alle fest. Wer also die Nähe des Reiches predigte, musste auch die Gerechtigkeit auf das Reich hin lehren.” 293 J. Weiß, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1892, 42–50, somewhat modified in 21900 (= 31964), 138–144, 158.

70

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

This label ‘interim-ethics’ is largely attached to Schweitzer’s understanding of the SM. However, in his earliest and later sermons294 and in his book on ‘Reverence for life’, the SM represents a positive impulse for ethical thinking.295 The SM is an inspiration to understand life and a model for true life. 40 years old, on a riverboat in Gabon in 1915, Schweitzer formulated the concept of ‘reverence for life’. This did not mean a big change of his perception of the SM. His intuitive insights were always combined with scholarly work, and it is indeed the SM more than the mysticism of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, which inspired Schweitzer’s concept of ‘reverence for life’. 3) Reform-Judaism – a new perspective. Naumann had scratched the surface of Jesus’ Jewishness and his cultural context. Specialists in rabbinic sources could go deeper, and representatives of Reform-Judaism did so. The debate between the Jewish scholars Gerald Friedlander and Claude G. Montefiore was an eye-opener for many Christian scholars. Montefiore was in close contact with the New Testament scholarship of his time, particularly the contribution by Windisch. Both Montefiore and Friedlander opposed the liberal understanding of the SM and the way liberals perceived the criticism of ‘Judaism’ in the SM. Friedlander thought that Jesus misunderstood the Jewish Law, whereas Montefiore thought it was in-group criticism, and paralleled it to prophetic criticism in the Tanach. His profound studies of rabbinic sources helped him to make an historical analysis of the SM and see Jesus within the framework of Judaism. He incorporated the teachings of Jesus and Paul into his own ethical and theological thinking. He argued that Jesus went beyond the rabbinic interpretation and returned to prophetic concepts. Friedlander saw Jesus as an outsider and he blamed the SM (from Matt 5,17 on) for giving an “unfair treatment of the Pharisees”.296 His scepticism should not be overlooked, but Thomas W. Manson characterised his position in the following way for good reasons: “any good in the SM can be paralleled from Jewish sources and nothing that cannot be paralleled from Jewish sources is any good.”297 Abraham Wolf and Leo Baeck similarly criticised Harnack’s simplistic opposition of Jewish and Jesus’/the SM’s understanding of the Law. Harnack’s picture of Jesus in the SM, representing ‘classical religion’ is indeed one-sided, and his understanding of Judaism is false. The reconstructions of the historical Jesus in Liberal Theology had come to a dead end; the un294 A. Schweitzer, Werke aus dem Nachlaß: Predigten 1898–1948, ed. Richard Brüllmann/Erich Gräßer, München: C.H. Beck 2001. 295 Schweitzer, Ehrfucht vor dem Leben (1916/1947; ET 1966). 296 Friedlander, Jewish Sources (1911), 36: the chapter heading. 297 T.W. Manson, Ethics and the Gospel (1962), 67. Friedlander, Jewish Sources (1911), 111 etc., comes very close.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

71

Jewish Jesus had never existed.298 Jewish scholars in many ways renewed the scholarly interpretation of the SM. 4) The ultimate test: how did they cope with the War? Few longed for a war among ‘Christian nations’ in Europe in 1914. Alliances and greed gave birth to the catastrophe of the First World War. Advanced technology (particularly German), militarism and the willingness to engage in ideological wars led to the devastating ‘war for righteousness’.299 How did intellectuals react in times of liberalism? Liberal scholars had argued that truth was universal and that science and philosophy led to progress and humanity. How did theologians react who claimed that the SM with the message of enemylove was the essence of Christianity? The manifesto from 93 German intellectuals (“Aufruf an die Kulturwelt”), published on the 4th of October 1914, was a shocking event. World-famous scientists, musicians (e.g. Franz Liszt), humanists and theologians refuted every criticism of the German war, highlighting Wilhelm II as a hero of enemy-love (“wegen seiner unerschütterlichen Feindesliebe”). Many of the intellectuals had contributed substantially to the interpretation of the SM: amongst them were A. von Harnack, W. Herrmann, F. Naumann, R. Seeberg and A. Schlatter. On the other hand, William Sanday was one of the few theologians300 among the 117 British scholars who immediately came out with a “Reply to the German Professors by British Scholars”. They underlined the strong desire to preserve British neutrality and Great Britain’s love of peace. “We grieve profoundly that, under the baleful influence of a military system and its lawless dreams of conquest, she [i.e., Germany] whom we once honored now stands revealed as the common enemy of Europe and of all peoples which respect the law of nations.” The appeal to listen to the SM was expressed by the “The Federal Council of the Churches in America” and by many church leaders at an international meeting in Uppsala in 1917. ‘Progressive Christianity’ claimed that the SM was the essence of Christianity, and to violate the SM implied a shaking of the foundation. Some academic articles and books on ‘enemy-love’ appeared, 298 A. Wolf, “Professor Harnack’s ‘What is Christianity’”, JQR 16 (1904), 668–689, and L. Baeck, “Harnacks Vorlesungen über das Wesen des Christentums”, MGWJ 45 (1901), 97–120, here 105f. Cf. Gottfried Mehnert, Jüdische Wissenschaft im Dialog mit evangelischer Theologie (Forum Christen und Juden), Berlin: LIT 2017, and Aaron Ackermann, Judentum und Christentum, Leipzig: Kaufmann 1903, 27f. 299 Herbert Butterfield’s famous essay “The war for righteousness”, in idem, Christianity, Diplomacy and War, Nashville: Abingdon 1953, 23ff (ch. 3). Cf. Richard M. Gamble, The War for Righteousness: Progressive Christianity, the Great War, and the Rise of the Messianic Nation, Wilmington: Isi Books 2003. 300 His contributions to the SM in W. Sanday (ed.), Studies in the Synoptic Problem: By Members of the University of Oxford, Oxford: Clarendon 1911, also in idem, Outlines of the Life of Christ, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1905.

72

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

especially in Germany,301 without going into the heart of the matter, the Antitheses of the SM. During the First World War many scholars restricted ‘enemies’ (ἐχθροί) to mean just “personal enemies” and not “nations”, or they tried to distinguish between primitive hatred and intelligent love of enemy.302 5) Retrospect. This period started with optimism and ended in catastrophe; not only politically, but also with reference to the interpretation of the SM. Scientific foundation, refined methodology, neutral approach, etc. could secure the position of the SM as the essence of Christianity. Liberal Theology was aware that it did so – with a double agenda: both to argue for its historicity and to establish an ethics of attitude. The latter corresponded to the mentality of individualism, inwardness, immediacy, autonomy, authenticity and attitude. However, criticism arose from many sides: the ethical criticism (Marxism, Nietzsche, etc.), the lack of consequence (Tolstoy), the deficiency of spirituality (J. Müller), the distance to the literal meaning – and most disturbing: the modern lead into an unrealistic, unhistorical, un-Jewish, interpretation of the SM. The combination of historical approach and insisting on a principle/ ethics of attitude had to collapse. Most of all: when the war came the SM had to be reinterpreted. On the battleground the ‘essence of Christianity’ was sacrificed. 1.3.7 Struggle for the Meaning of the So-called ‘SM’ (1918–1945) Stephan Zweig was correct: the time in Europe before 1914 was really the ‘world from yesterday’. The title of Oswald Spengler’s work Der Untergang des Abendlandes (1918–1921)303 presented an iconic description of the change in mentality. The Marxist revolution in Russia, the social unrest in most European countries, the worldwide financial crisis, were the new horizon for churches, theology, university and cultural life. Karl Barth and others saw the manifesto “Aufruf an die Kulturwelt” in 1914 as the end of a road. The way of Liberal Theology was a way of no return. 301 Otto Baumgarten, Der Krieg und die Bergpredigt, Berlin: Carl Heymann 1915 (Lecture held in Berlin in 1915); idem, Politik und Moral, Tübingen: Mohr 1916. Cf. idem (ed.), Geistige und sittliche Wirkungen des Krieges in Deutschland (Veröffentlichungen der Carnegiestiftung für internationalen Frieden), Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt 1927; Ernst Troeltsch, “Der Völkerkrieg und das Christentum”, Christliche Welt 29 (1915), 294–303; idem, Deutscher Geist und Westeuropa: Gesammelte kulturphilosophische Aufsätze und Reden, Tübingen: Mohr 1925; Ferdinand Kattenbusch, Über Feindesliebe im Sinne des Christentums, Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes 1916; Walter Bauer, “Das Gebot der Feindesliebe und die alten Christen”, ZTK 27 (1917), 37–54. 302 The best evaluation is by Marie-Joseph Lagrange, “L’exégèse biblique en Allemagne durant la guerre”, RB 29 (1920), 285–300. 303 Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 2 vols., Wien/Leipzig: Braumüller 1918–1921; ET: The Decline of the West/Perspective of World History, 2 vols., New York: Knopf 1918–1923.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

73

The war had huge impact on the study of the SM. Some saw the war as the result of the neglect of the SM as ethical demands. Would it still be possible to return to a literal, Calvinistic, pietistic interpretation? Was the Catholic position reliable and could it be modernised?304 Could a new ‘Dialectical Theology’ shed new light on the SM? The influence of liberal exegesis was still lingering, Ernst Troeltsch/Georg Wünsch found it possible to re-define the liberal position with regard to its political function, and Otto Baumgarten and Heinrich Weinel adjusted the liberal position to be more than an individualistic ethics of attitude.305 Hans Windisch argued against the understanding of the SM in Dialectical Theology, and refined the liberal interpretation through a broader wisdomapproach.306 However, the liberal understanding could not survive the battlegrounds of the war. Martin Dibelius expressed in 1925 the impasse of the previous liberal interpretation of the SM and a search for a new approach. “Es scheint, daß die Theologie sich allmählich darauf besinnt, was sie der Bergpredigt schuldet. Es ist hohe Zeit dazu, denn das Mißverständnis dieses Kernstückes im Evangelium ist unter Laien, aber auch unter Theologen beachtlich; das muß zumal in einer krisenhaften Zeit wie der unseren verwirrend wirken, und ein gut Teil der landläufigen falschen Urteile über Christentum und Welt (Ehe, Eid, Recht, Staat, Kultur) hängen in der Tat mit einem oberflächlichen Verständnis der Bergpredigt zusammen.”307

A reduced and spiritualized ‘Sermon on the Mount’ had lost its power. In society, in philosophy and theology – particularly Dialectical Theology – a rethinking took place, and the understanding of the crisis, not new methods, etc., allowed for a new beginning in the interpretation of the SM. 1) Dichotomy of historical versus dogmatic exegesis. This dichotomy was visible in many ways after 1920. The methods of literary criticism, tendencycriticism, form-criticism, redaction-criticism, etc. had become extremely specialised. Other theologians were not able to follow, and exegetes perceived them often as amateurs. Theologians could easily leave this playground to the exegetes, because there were too many hypotheses and diverse historical 304 Scholarly exegesis was still dependent on permission from the Magisterium. The opening for historical-critical exegesis came as early as 1943 through the encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu”. Before the War Max Meinertz (1880–1965) had published “Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt”, in idem/Adolf Donders (eds.), Aus Ethik und Leben. FS J. Mausbach, Münster: Aschendorff 1931, 21–32; idem, Theologie des Neuen Testamentes, vol. I, Bonn: Peter Hanstein 1950; Soiron, Bergpredigt (1941). 305 Baumgarten, Bergpredigt und Kultur der Gegenwart (1921), cf. Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, Der heilige Zeitgeist, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2011. 306 Windisch, Sinn der Bergpredigt (1928/1937). In 1937 he expanded the subtitle: to Ein Beitrag zum Problem der richtigen Exegese he added (Ein Beitrag) zum geschichtlichen Verständnis der Evangelien und) zum Problem der richtigen Exegese). 307 In his review of Paul Fiebig’s book on the SM, TLZ 50 (1925), 200–202, here 200f.

74

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

reconstructions with too little theological impact. The devastating effect was that many theologians and philosophers could not follow their arguments. Not only the interests, but also the methods became different. ‘Dialectical Theology’ (K. Barth, R. Bultmann) tried to bridge the gap. For both Barth and Bultmann the reconstructions of the historical Jesus and the historicity of the SM were less important than its transcendent meaning. They both perceived Pauline theology as more crucial than Jesus’ historical teaching. H. Windisch protested against this approach and demanded a pure historical approach to the SM. 2) Source criticism or form-history as main model? In RGG1 Wilhelm Bousset had based his exposition of the SM on the two-document theory. Erik Peterson in RGG2 adopted the views of Heinrici and form-history (Bultmann and M. Dibelius): The SM is a collection of individual sayings or groups of sayings of diverse origin.308 A great number of alternative source-theories could not prevent ‘form-history theory’ being the leading theory.309 This had an impact on the understanding of the SM. Heinrici’s and Bultmann’s decomposition of the SM made the notion of the SM problematic. Was it just a heap of isolated sayings that were arbitrarily put together as a ‘sermon’? Or can this radical view be modified; had the sayings a certain structure (Peterson) or had the SM from the very beginning a catechetical structure (Dibelius)? Bultmann saw the SM as a late stage in the development of the Jesus-tradition.310 1.3.7.1 Interpretations of the SM outside the Universities A common factor for new approaches to the SM was that the SM has power, and that the theological and not a philosophical approach was the key. 1) Christian socialism. Since the meeting of ‘Socialist International’ in Paris on 14 July 1889, the socialist movement had grown rapidly and its reorganisation in Bern in 1919 had a huge impact in Europe as well as in the US. In spite of the split with the communist-oriented ‘Comintern’ in 1919, socialism had a huge impact on many (at that time) liberal theologians, like Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich, et al. Contemporary pastors illustrated the international movement during the war and how they were all inspired by the teaching of the Kingdom of God 308

E. Peterson, “Bergpredigt: Biblisch”, RGG2 1 (1927), 907: “keine Rede, sondern eine Sammlung von Sprüchen”. 309 The four-document theory of Burnett H. Streeter (1874–1937) argued that Luke and Matthew had different sources: Matthew directly through Q, and Luke via Proto-Luke. W. Bussmann, E. Hirsch and others developed multiple-source theories. 310 Cf. the relaxed attitude of Thurneysen, Bergpredigt (1936), 7: “Matthäus lässt Jesus auch da, wo er gar nicht von sich selber redet, doch nur dazu reden, damit er, Jesus, vor seine Hörer trete”.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

75

and the social principles of Jesus in the SM. The pietistic pastor from Württemberg, Christoph Friedrich Blumhardt (1842–1919), proclaimed himself a socialist in 1899 and through his sermons – often on the SM311 – he influenced ordinary people and theologians like Georg Wünsch, Karl Barth and Leonhard Ragaz (1869–1945). In the year he died, Ragaz published his commentary on the SM, but from the very beginning the SM had been the source of his theology.312 A parallel in the US, the Social Gospel movement, used the SM as source for its theology. The Baptist pastor, Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1919), argued that the SM entails radical demands that make the sinfulness of the individual clear, but also shed light on institutionalised sinfulness. The SM shows the axiomatic social convictions of Jesus: “In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus demanded that the standards of social morality be raised to a new level.”313 The SM does not provide demands. It demonstrates “the value of life” (ch. I) and Jesus’ commitment of “standing with the people” (ch. III). The Social Gospel movement had a big influence in Europe in the 1920s, and it was always the SM that gave it the grounds. The poet and former military chaplain Geoffrey A. Studdert Kennedy saw the SM as the Law of the Kingdom and due to his personal story and poetic form, many listened to his pacifistic interpretation.314 2) Colonialism and Asian interpretations. E. Stanley Jones (1884–1962), a Methodist missionary in India became a close friend of Gandhi and the Nehru family. From the very beginning he tried to contextualise Christianity for 311 C.F. Blumhardt, Vom Reich Gottes: Aus Predigten und Andachten, Schlüchtern: Neuwerk 1922; idem, Von der Nachfolge Jesu Christi, Berlin: Furche 1923. 312 Ragaz, Die Bergpredigt Jesu (1945); idem, Dein Reich komme: Predigten, Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn 1909; idem, Weltreich, Religion und Gottesherrschaft, 2 vols., Zürich/Leipzig: Rotapfel-Verlag 1922. Cf. Dittmar Rostig, Bergpredigt und Politik: Zur Struktur und Funktion des Reiches Gottes bei Leonhard Ragaz (Europäische Hochschulschriften: Reihe XXIII, 419), Frankfurt am Main etc.: Peter Lang 1999. 313 Walter Rauschenbusch, The Social Principles of Jesus, New York: The Association Press 1918, 3; idem, Christianity and the Social Crisis, New York: Macmillan 1907; idem, Christianizing the Social Order, New York: Macmillan 1912, and comprehensively in his A Theology for the Social Gospel, New York: Macmillan 1917. 314 G.A. Studdert Kennedy (1883–1929), wrote Lies!, London: Hodder & Stoughton 1919, Democracy and the Dog-Collar, London: Hodder & Stoughton 1921, and a number of books (cf. the anthology After War, is Faith Possible?, Cambridge: Lutterworth 2008) after being pacifist and religious socialist. Söderblom listed in his Nobel speech 1930 others: bishop Theodore Woods (1874–1932), then Frederick Denison Maurice (1805– 1872), Charles Kingsley (1819–1875), Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828–1889), Henry Scott Holland (1847–1918) and Charles Gore (1853–1932). Archbishop Cosmo Gordon Lang said: “God can never be an Ally, only the Supreme Lord”. In German speaking countries, e.g. Rudolf Hermann (Die Bergpredigt und die Religiös-Sozialen, Leipzig: Deichert 1922) and Rudolf Liechtenhan (1875–1947), pacifist, New Testament scholar in Basel, who was close to K. Barth.

76

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

India, which he developed in his seminal work, The Christ of the Indian Road (1925). The SM was crucial in this effort and he agreed with Gandhi: it is not about how we apply the SM but rather whether we do. His exposition of the SM was written at Ashram in the Himalayas, and from this mountain he formulated the vision: “The greatest need of modern Christianity is the rediscovery of the Sermon on the Mount as the only practical way to live”.315 He emphasised obedience but argued strongly against its ‘grotesque literalism’. The SM must be understood as, and its understanding entails, a vision for renewal of society. At the same time a brilliant thinker and writer, the Japanese philosopher Toyohiko Kagawa (1888–1960) became captivated by the SM. He was a candidate for the Nobel Prize, both in literature and for the Peace-prize. As a social reformer and pacifist, he was both a hero and a challenge in a society committed to war and colonisation.316 He used the SM as a foundation for his work and thinking. 3) Struggling for the socio-political meaning of the SM. An important meeting took place in Stockholm in 1925. The two internationally oriented bishops, Nathan Söderblom and George K.A. Bell, were driving forces in establishing ‘Life and Work’ as an ecumenical council – including the major denominations (but not Roman-Catholics or Pentecostals). The conference stressed the “necessity of applying the spirit and teaching of Christ to economic and industrial life”, witnessing the power of the Gospel in all realms of life, in industry, society, politics and international relations. The goal was to establish a common basis for the churches to renew their efforts on behalf of peace and justice. Söderblom was awarded the Nobel Peace-prize in 1930, and he gave an extraordinary Nobel speech: “Together with the Christians in all nations at war, we are deeply aware of the incompatibility between war and the spirit of Christ, and we would, therefore, like to stress some main points regarding the part to be played by Christians in community life … According to the Christian point of view, our awareness of right and wrong is a divine gift, as are its outgrowths: law and civil order. Civil order, at least at a basic level, is a prerequisite for the efficient practice of the teaching of the Gospel. Every existing legal system is incomplete, requiring for its completion the development of moral consciousness.”317

These efforts in Christian socialism and ‘Life and Work’ were disputed, both philosophically and theologically. 315

E.S. Jones, The Christ of the Mount (1931), 11. Toyohiko Kagawa wrote a book in Japanese on the SM, but became internationally best known through his Religion of Jesus, London: Student Christian Movement Press 1931, Jesus through Japanese Eyes, London: Lutterworth 1934, and Love – The Law of Life, London: Student Christian Movement Press 1930. 317 The Nobel Prize. Homepage. 316

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

77

4) Double standard and Christian realism? Many philosophers, sociologists and theologians looked beyond the exegetical interpretation in order to find the meaning of the SM. After the war (1919) Max Weber (1864–1920) made his important differentiation between an ‘ethics of responsibility’ (Verantwortungsethik) and an ‘ethics of attitude’ (Gesinnungsethik).318 The liberal interpretation must fail, because we do not live in an ideal world, but in a world of political struggle, greed, evil, etc. The SM presupposes these facts, whereas the liberal exegesis tends to deny them. “Mit der Bergpredigt … ist es eine ernstere Sache, als die glauben, die diese Gebote heute gern zitieren. … Denn wenn es in Konsequenz der akosmistischen Liebesethik heißt: ‘dem Übel nicht widerstehen mit Gewalt’, – so gilt für den Politiker umgekehrt der Satz: du sollst dem Übel gewaltsam widerstehen, sonst – bist du für seine Überhandnahme verantwortlich.”

O. Baumgarten and G. Wünsch took up his argument from different perspectives,319 but Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971) gave this effort a new basis. Niebuhr reacted against the one-sidedness of both Liberals and of Christian socialists. In An Interpretation of Christian Ethics (1935), he addressed the problem of being a follower of Jesus in the 20th century. The SM demands perfection. As such it tells human beings what they are not capable of doing through their own power. Jesus’ ethics is an impossible possibility. The Kingdom of God is always coming but it is not here. Therefore, Christians must live with an ethics of realism, a realism that takes into account the fallenness and chaos of the world. 1.3.7.2 The New Wave of Eschatological Approaches The old world came to an end in 1918 and suddenly ‘eschatology’ became a crucial theme. The notion was open: definition, content, time-aspect (mainly present or mainly future) and function, varied from one theologian to another. It replaced the dreams of a new ‘Christian world’ (German: ‘Christliche Welt’). This was characteristically the name of the most influential periodical before 1918.320

318 Max Weber, “Politik als Beruf” (1919), in idem, Gesammelte politische Schriften, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1974, 550f. 319 Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, “Lex Christi und Eigengesetzlichkeit: Das Grundproblem der ethischen Theologie Otto Baumgartens”, in idem, Der heilige Zeitgeist (above, n. 305), 161–209. 320 Martin Rade was the editor from 1887 till 1932. Karl Barth was assistant editor in 1909–1910. Cf. Johannes Rathje, Die Welt des freien Protestantismus: Ein Beitrag zur deutsch-evangelischen Geistesgeschichte; dargestellt an Leben und Werk von Martin Rade, Stuttgart: Klotz 1952.

78

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

1) The SM as eschatological stimulus (Martin Dibelius). Dibelius based his views on form-history. In his seminal work Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums he saw the SM as an early catechism, based on Jesus’ teaching.321 The sayings in the SM were spoken on “a variety of occasions”, but the SM is still Jesus’ programmatic speech, “the best example of his teaching, an impressive illustration of his manner of addressing men and a wonderful indication of his power to teach the people …”.322 He insisted on an historical approach, but from the very beginning he argued that a merely historical view is insufficient. The same applies to a legalistic and pietistic understanding. The SM provides “generally accepted motives applied in a certain situation” that should be interpreted on an “übergeschichtlichen Hintergrund”, which means: the SM gives no ‘general ‘laws’, rather principles that should be understood within a general philosophical/ theological framework.323 In the ‘Shaffer Lectures’ on the SM at Yale University in 1937 he delivered a comprehensive view of his interpretation.324 Like Schweitzer he underlined the ethical dimension, but it is not ‘interim ethics’: eschatology underlines the radical and absolute demands, as ‘the pure will of God’. An eschatological stimulus is given. The commands are therefore not about doing, rather about being. The SM is “not an ideal but an eschatological stimulus intended to make men well-acquainted with the pure will of God”. It is not “a body of instructions for this life or a program of reform for this world”.325 Dibelius combined this interpretation with his source-criticism and argued that Matthew modified this eschatological understanding. He “wanted to incite the Christians of his own generation to live their lives according to these rules, and he endeavoured to present a program of Christian ethics for all generations of the Church”.326 2) The existentialistically-oriented interpretation (R. Bultmann). Bultmann decomposed the SM radically, and was more critical in his evaluation of the sources than M. Dibelius and went further than Heinrici in atomising and

321

M. Dibelius, Formgeschichte (1919), 77–79; (31959), 258–264. M. Dibelius, Sermon (1940), 16f. 323 TLZ 50 (1925), 201. German: “allgemeingültige Motive in aktueller Ausprägung”. Dibelius warned against ‘Modernisierung’ and ‘Atomisierung’. He saw form-history as a tool: “Denn Formgeschichte treiben heißt nicht nur ein paar Etiketten ankleben, sondern heißt von der Form den Sinn der Formung ablesen und daraus die Entstehung, die Absicht und Wesensart des Geformten erschließen” (ibid., 202). This is the way to find essentials in Jesus’ teaching. 324 M. Dibelius, Sermon (1940)/“ Bergpredigt” (1953). 325 M. Dibelius, “Bergpredigt” (1953), 135f. 326 M. Dibelius, Sermon (1940), 21. 322

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

79

dissolving the tradition. The SM represents only the last stage in a linear process of tradition, the development of a catechism comes very late.327 Bultmann argued in 1920 that the SM does not represent ‘Christianity’. The SM represents the ‘Palestinian’ community in Jerusalem and for them Jesus is a Jew. ‘Christianity’ is rather a product of the Hellenistic community, Paul and early Catholic texts.328 Coming from his form-history and other writings about 1920 it is a surprise to read his Jesus-book (1926). The theology in the SM expresses something new. Jesus is still perceived as a Jewish rabbi, but the SM is embedded in his eschatological teaching329 and the understanding of ‘God’s demand’ (German: ‘Forderung Gottes’) is rooted in eschatology and the concept of God.330 Bultmann underlined the difference between commandments, halachic rules, given Laws and the demands as ‘absolute’, ‘whole’ (German: ganz). By obeying the absolute authority, God, man becomes ‘whole’.331 Bultmann rejected the liberal ‘ethics of attitude’,332 and replaced it in his Jesus-book and during the following years with an ‘I-You’-philosophy. Inspired by Kierkegaard and Heidegger he emphasised the encounter with a ‘you’. ‘Love’ cannot be fixed commands and rules, because the encounter with the ‘you’ is more demanding than rules. Bultmann comes close to formulations by Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas. This new approach to Jesus and the SM influenced Bultmann’s gifted students, who after 1945 dominated at the universities, not only in Germany. 3) Christological approaches (Barth, Thurneysen, Schlatter). The Dialectical Theology was perceived as one school for a few years. Bultmann and Gogarten, Barth and Thurneysen took their own theological routes. The inter327 Bultmann, GST, 381: “… sein Evangelium am stärksten den systematischen Charakter eines Lehrbuchs oder Katechismus hat”. He sees the SM as a result of giving the proper order (German: Sachordnung, ibid., 349–351) and keywords (ibid., 352–355) and by using scenes from Q and Mark (ibid., 358f). 328 Bultmann, “Ethische und mystische Religion im Urchristentum”, Christliche Welt 34 (1920), 725–731, 738–743, repr. in Jürgen Moltmann (ed.), Anfänge der dialektischen Theologie, vol. II (TB Systematische Theologie 17/2), München: Kaiser 1963, 29–47, 42: “Jesus war ein Jude und die palästinensische Gemeinde war eine jüdische Sekte” and he argued that this teaching has no actual relevance, ibid., 44: He assumes that it is an ethics of attitude and a mental status (German: ‘psychischer Zustand’) and cannot be the basis for theology. 329 Referring to Matt 5,3ff, 7,13f and 5,24f, Jesus (1926/1964), 31, 45, etc. The treatment of prayer and providence – based on Matt 7,7ff and 6,25–33 – has the same perspective, ibid., 154f. 330 In his review of H. Windisch, Deutsche Literaturzeitung 50 (1929), 258, and Jesus (1926/1964), 78–86. 331 Bultmann, Jesus (1926/1964), 108f; it leads to a better understanding of Matt 5,48. 332 Ibid., 95–108, and in the article “Das christliche Gebot der Nächstenliebe” (1930), in idem, Glauben und Verstehen, vol. I, Tübingen: Mohr 1933, 229–244.

80

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

pretation of the SM by Barth and Thurneysen demonstrates the gap between their and Bultmann’s position. Karl Barth (1886–1968) often preached on texts from the SM and gave lectures on it in Bonn (1925/26).333 He revised his position in his Kirchliche Dogmatik,334 but he remained critical to the focus on men or ‘attitude’ in Liberal Theology. Consequently he denied that the person and attitude of the historical Jesus is the crucial point. An eschatological message transcends these events. However, the SM reflects ‘the true Jesus’ (German: den wahren Jesus), and the place of orientation must be God’s Kingdom and Jesus, the renewed man.335 Eduard Thurneysen (1887–1974) went a step further. He thought a radical Christological interpretation was the only adequate interpretation of the radicalism in the SM. In the Beatitudes, in the Antitheses, in every text, he sees the image of Jesus. The SM is therefore not commands, not teaching, but proclamation of Jesus: “Wenn … gilt, dass Jesus, Jesus selber und allein der wirkliche Inhalt des Evangeliums ist, dann ist dieser Jesus und Jesus allein auch der ganze Inhalt der Bergpredigt. …”336

This ‘dialectic’ has more in common with the interpretation by Adolf Schlatter (1852–1938). He accentuated much more the Jewish roots of the SM, and that exactly a Jewish text reflects the image of Jesus.337 This Christological interpretation of Thurneysen/Barth – and Schlatter – had a huge impact in the Nazi era. Christ and not Hitler was the right teacher, the true divine image. 1.3.7.3 Does the Historical Meaning Have Primacy? The time of ‘historicism’ is over, and still is the role of history the burning issue: Should the role of ‘history’ be relativized, should history be given a new interpretation, or is history as ‘facts’ still the starting-point for every interpretation? 333 “Erklärung der Bergpredigt”. The last word in this lecture was: “Die Wirklichkeit der Bergpredigt ist der Bergprediger”, quoted after Berner, Bergpredigt (21983), 138. Thurneysen modified this sentence in Bergpredigt (1936/1964), 7: “Dann ist der Bergprediger die Bergpredigt.” 334 K. Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik, vol. II/4, Zollikon-Zürich: TVZ 21957, 766–782. The Karl Barth-Gesamtausgabe provides more information (vol. 31: Predigten 1921–1933 and vol. 44: Predigten 1921, Zürich-Zollikon: TVZ 1988 and 2006). 335 K. Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik II/4, 768. 336 Thurneysen, Bergpredigt (1936), 5, 7, 26. 337 Adolf Schlatter, Die Gabe des Christus: Eine Auslegung der Bergpredigt, Velbert: Freizeiten-Verlag 1928/Gießen: Brunnen 21982 (Theologie und Dienst 30); cf. idem, Der Einzige und wir anderen, Velbert: Freizeiten-Verlag 1929, published as early as 1879. Pp. 149–162 depict the image of Jesus according to the SM – correctly seen by H.D. Betz, Synoptische Studien (1992), 237–244.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

81

1) German voices. The liberal interpretation encountered problems after 1920. Its strength was the historical approach, and ‘historical’ was applied in many new ways. In 1920 Heinrich Weinel (1874–1936) wrote an important book on the SM with a broad religious-historical perspective. At the end he repeats the thesis that the SM does not give laws or commandments. It invites to a new life, to fulfil the will of God and achieve ‘purity’ and love. An ethics of attitude is still the answer.338 Karl Bornhäuser (1868–1947), Bultmann’s colleague in Marburg, concentrated on the rabbinic parallels as the right way of historical exegesis. He read the SM in this way as a contextualized document, and the slogan of ‘simultaneity’ is both stimulating and speculative in his interpretations of some difficult texts in the SM. He ended up with an extreme disciple-ethics and a ‘nomistic’ understanding of the SM.339 Hans Windisch (1881–1936) was never afraid of being contentious and he criticised both the Liberal Theology and the new wave of theological exegesis. Windisch’s book made the question of the meaning crucial. From the standpoint of Paul, Luther and Calvin on the soteriology and understanding of the fulfilment of the Law in the SM, Jesus’ teaching appears nearly heretical.340 The SM was formed in the framework of ‘Jewish’ religion,341 or more precisely, in the SM we have a mixture of two traditions: radical wisdom and prophetic-eschatological teaching of salvation or judgment.342 The wisdom teaching indicates that the meaning of the commands is that they shall be fulfilled. The eschatological dimension gives a motivation and not the content. The Jewish scholar Montefiore agreed to a great extent and recognized Windisch as the best partner in the Jewish-Christian dialogue. He had, however, to correct some anti-rabbinic biases which Windisch had inherited from liberal exegesis. 2) Scholarship on the SM in the UK and the US. British scholarship has always been in the forefront in SM-research. In the decades between the wars, Charles H. Dodd and Thomas W. Manson in particular followed up the scholarship of e.g. Clyde W. Votaw, James H. Moulton and James Moffatt. For both, the source-problem is important. Manson argued that an inaugural speech was part of Q, and that the additions in Luke and even Matthew 338

Weinel, Bergpredigt (1920). Bornhäuser, Bergpredigt (1923). Cf. M. Dibelius’ critical review in TLZ 43 (1924), 346–348. 340 Windisch, Meaning (1951), 107, 121f. 341 Ibid., 144 = idem, Sinn der Bergpredigt (1937), 98–124, concluding, p. 123: “… durchaus innerhalb der israelitisch-jüdischen Religionsgeschichte … doch dem rabbinischen Judentum entwachsen und fremd”. The notion of ‘Israelitic-Jewish’ religion could be used without objections in the 1930s. 342 Windisch, Sinn der Bergpredigt (1937), 20. 339

82

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

followed the intentions in the Q-material.343 Dodd understood the SM as ‘didache’, mainly as genuine Jesus-sayings, elaborated as catechism in Q.344 Dodd’s understanding of ‘realised eschatology’ determined his understanding of the ethics of the SM. Contrary to the Jewish notion that the coming Kingdom is a response to the repentance and strict obedience to the Law, Jesus offers the Kingdom as pure grace. Jesus recognised the Law as an authentic revelation of the will of God, and did not replace the Law by a new code. Dodd thought the SM was ‘interim ethics’ in a different sense than Schweitzer had in mind.345 Manson provided a thorough analysis of the SM, based on a strict twodocument hypothesis.346 In spite of the evangelist’s additions the SM recalls the genuine sayings of Jesus, which takes “fundamentals of Judaism and restates them as fundamentals of the New Israel living under the New Covenant”.347 Manson’s student, Walter Städeli, formed an original thesis. Due to the correct observation of the Beatitudes as ‘entrance requirements’ (= Pss. 15; 24), Städeli argued strongly in favour of a cultic setting of the SM.348 Manson interpreted the SM more deeply as a Messianic concept within the context of grace.349

The Quaker Henry J. Cadbury (1883–1974) saw the same “peril of modernizing Jesus” in liberal exegesis. He argued for his own position in a peaceful and unpolemical way.350 To underline the Jewishness of Jesus is indeed the best way to avoid modernising Jesus. According to Cadbury, Jesus was unmodern, he had an apocalyptic view, accepted demonic possession, etc. Cadbury asked: Did Jesus have a social outlook at all? Jesus was not a modern socialist, communist, capitalist, militarist. “Jesus’ concern is not so 343 T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1931); idem, The Sayings of Jesus (1949), 46– 62 and 150–179. 344 Dodd, “Primitive Catechism” (1959). Less clear in idem, The Founder of Christianity, New York: Macmillan 1970, 54–79. 345 This summarizes his treatment in “The Messiah and the Kingdom of God” and “Ethical Teaching of Jesus” in T.W. Manson (ed.), A Companion to the Bible, London: T&T Clark 1939 (21956), 373–381. C.H. Dodd, Gospel and Law: The Relation of Faith and Ethics in Early Christianity (Bampton Lectures in America, 1950), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1957. 346 T.W. Manson, Ethics and the Gospel (1962), 49, states: “Q and his own private treasury, which has been called M, … published in written form, and I should think in Aramaic, round AD 50”. 347 Ibid. (1962), 50. The key is Jesus’ messianic self-conception, pp. 57 and 58ff. 348 W. Städeli, A Study of Christian Perfection in the Context of the Sermon on the Mount, PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1964. 349 W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah, Philadelphia: Westminster 1945; idem, Jesus and the Christian, London: Clarke 1967. 350 H.J. Cadbury, Peril of Modernizing Jesus, New York: Macmillan 1937, and later in Jesus: What Manner of Man, New York: Macmillan 1947.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

83

much the saving of society but a society of saviors.”351 Jesus uses hyperbole, quantification and contrastive measures in order to present the ‘more than’, ‘above and beyond’ commitments. Jesus emphasised requirements and not rules, looking at results without teaching utilitarianism or altruism. He called for discipleship at all costs based on the impending urgency of the Kingdom. Other exegetes interpreted the SM in similar ways as Cadbury had done. Horace Marriott reconstructed Q in its original form, and the Jewish setting behind the SM.352 Contrary to most contemporary scholars he thought the eschatological character was minimal. Alexander D. Lindsay rejected the interpretation of the SM as a moral code, which is not applicable to ordinary people. The SM gives direction, a standard of perfection. Only evil forces in this world make adjustment to the high standard necessary.353 1.3.7.4 From a Jewish Perspective to the Jewish Quest Jews were deeply integrated in western societies in the first third of the last century. Thousands of Jews were killed as soldiers during the First World War and at the universities Jews played a significant role. Jewish exegetes avoided many misconceptions of the SM, and they took the scholarly floor in the debate about the Jewishness of the historical Jesus.354 Montefiore launched ‘the Jewish quest’, which anticipated the ‘New Quest’ in exegesis after 1980. He was followed by Leo Baeck, who in 1922 argued that the liberal conception represented ‘Romantic Religion’ in contrast to Judaism. The first comprehensive study of the historical Jesus from this perspective was provided by Joseph Klausner (see above, pp. 23, 24). Christian exegesis: contributing to or opposing the Jewish quest? Jewish scholars contributed to Christian exegesis and many Christian scholars were pioneers of Jewish studies. One of them was Franz J. Delitzsch (1813–1890). In spite of his efforts for the evangelisation of the Jews, his achievements in biblical scholarship were always appreciated by Jews.355 He preserved the Hebrew language and he vigorously opposed the anti-Semitic movement in Germany. In his commentary on Matthew he saw the analogy between the SM and the covenant of Sinai and interpreted the SM as a new Law.356 351

Cadbury, Peril of Modernizing Jesus (1937), 116. Marriott, Sermon (1925). 353 Alexander D. Lindsay, The Moral Teaching of Jesus: An Examination of the Sermon on the Mount, New York: Hodder & Stoughton 1937. 354 Lindeskog, Jesusfrage (above, p. 16, n. 41). 355 Delitzsch’s translation of the New Testament into Hebrew (1877) was meant to be used in the evangelization of the Jews. The foundation of Institutum Judaicum (Delitzschianum) served the same purpose. 356 F.J. Delitzsch, Neue Untersuchungen über Entstehung und Anlage der kanonischen Evangelien, Erster Theil: Das Matthaeus-Evangelium, Leipzig: Dörffling u. Franke 1853, 72–79: The SM “entspricht der Sinai-Gesetzgebung im Exodus; Matthäus will die Grund352

84

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

This view could still be combined with a liberal understanding of the SM. A number of converted Jews prevented that from happening. Many of them such as Paul Billerbeck (1853–1932) and Paul Fiebig (1876–1949), were Lutherans with more conservative than liberal tendencies, and scholarship is still profiting from their contributions.357 Billerbeck was born into a Jewish family and his love for the Jewish people and Jewish texts was the impetus for his diligent collecting of parallels. As a priest he noticed the differences between the SM and the Jewish sources, and he focused more on the originality of Jesus. He argued from quantity of religious-ethical sayings, from form (brevity, firmness), pattern of thought, the formulation of basic statements, the soteriology behind the sayings, etc.358 Fiebig was a pioneer when it came to analysis of forms and rhetorical structures in the SM.359 Other scholars analysed the rabbinic halachic texts and their parallels in the SM. In spite of Fiebig and Billerbeck many of their close colleagues had antiJewish biases, also in their exegesis of the SM. Gerhard Kittel (1888–1948) compared the ethics of Jesus to ethical discourses in Judaism. Not the novelty of demands, rather the inwardness and concentration – plus the contradiction to ritualism and to nationalism – differentiates Jesus from Judaism. This addition was an element in Kittel’s anti-Jewish attitude.360 Kittel also added a Christological perspective. He blamed those who separated the ethics of the SM from the person of Jesus. He agreed with the Lutheran theologian Carl Stange (1870–1959), who on the one hand read the SM through Kant’s lenses and agreed with the liberal ‘ethics of attitude’ interpretation. An optimistic ethical idealism in the footsteps of Tolstoy is impossible. Stange therefore presented a Pauline interpretation: The commands of Jesus are like the Jewish Law a measure, a praeparatio evangelica, leading from imperative to judgment, from ideal to penitence.361

gesetzgebung des Himmelreichs geben” (ibid., 72). Delitzsch also thought that the SM was an analogy to Exod 20,2–17 and Exod 21–23, the covenant rules. The SM offers the third use of the law of Christ (usus tertius legis) (ibid., 73f); “die Lebensordnung des Himmelreichs, das reichsgenossenschaftliche Verhalten, die wahre neutest. δικαιόσυνη – das ist ihr Thema” (ibid., 74). 357 His dialogue with the Amsterdam Rabbi Justus Tal (cf. Justus Tal, Jood en jodendom in Christen-omgeving, Rotterdam: W.L. & J. Brusse 1917) is illuminating, cf. Bill. I, 474. 358 Bill. I, 473, also Bill. IV/1, 1–22. Billerbeck’s line of argumentation is historical and he emphasised that Jesus’ commands were meant to be fulfilled. Still did Windisch, Sinn der Bergpredigt (1937), 93, and C.G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (1930), 163–165, blame what they see as Billerbeck’s dogmatic fallacy. 359 Fiebig, Jesu Bergpredigt (1924); idem, Erzählungsstil (1925); idem, “Sinn der Bergpredigt” (1929/30). 360 G. Kittel, “Die Bergpredigt und die Ethik des Judentums” (1924/25). 361 Ibid., 64. Stange had for a long time reflected along these lines, cf. Die christliche Ethik in ihrem Verhältnis zur modernen Ethik, Göttingen: Dieterich 1892; idem, Das

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

85

1.3.7.5 The SM in Times of Fascism and Reactions against NS (1933–1950) 1) The Nazi usurpation of the SM. The SM had been a problem for Bismarck, but for Hitler or Stalin it was a disgusting document. The Fascists clearly saw the possible negative potential of the SM: the theme of enemy-love became the main obstacle, and very early on (1934) the rejection of oaths came into focus. In the army and the civil service there had to be loyalty to Hitler: “I swear to God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German Empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath.”362

The Nazi leaders followed Hitler’s extremely negative evaluation of the Jewish heritage and of Jesus’ teaching. They could use Matt 10,34 and the text about the cleansing of the Temple and saw clearly that the SM provided strong arguments against Hitler’s politics.363 Benito Mussolini had the same attitude. His project in Palestine to build ‘The Church of Beatitudes’ (designed by the architect Antonio Barluzzi) on the hillside near Tabgha was more a cover up than gratitude to the speaker of the Beatitudes. 2) Brave reactions: Lütgert and Bonhoeffer. Barth saw from the very beginning that Hitler and the Nazi party were a catastrophe for Germany. The conference in Barmen 1934 formulated a clear protest in the Barmendeclaration against the Nazi ideology:364

Problem Tolstois, Leipzig: Dieterich 1903; idem, Die Ethik Kants: Zur Einführung in die Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Leipzig: Dieterich 1920. 362 Cf. Eberhard Röhm, Sterben für den Frieden. Spurensicherung: Hermann Stöhr (1898 bis 1940) und die ökumenische Friedensbewegung, Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag 1985. Stöhr paid a high price for his denial of the oath. Karl Barth lost his position because of his denial of the ‘Service oath for public servants’: “I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to the leader of the German Empire and people, Adolf Hitler, to observe the law and to conscientiously fulfill my official duties, so help me God.” 363 Manfred Eder, “Hitler und die Bibel”, in Georg Steins/Franz Georg Untergaßmair (eds.), Das Buch, ohne das man nichts versteht: Die kulturelle Kraft der Bibel, Münster: Lit 2005, 130–162, presents many examples, e.g. how the Hitlerjugend rephrased the Lord’s Prayer: “Your Name makes the enemy tremble, Your Third Kingdom come, Your Will be done”, etc. (ibid., 141). Or the programme of the Hitlerjugend: “Wir sind fröhliche Hitlerjugend. Wir brauchen keine christliche Tugend. Denn unser Führer ist Adolf Hitler. Er ist unser Erlöser und Mittler” (ibid., 152f) as response to Hitler’s own usage of the Beatitudes, saying: “Ihr habt das Glück”. 364 Thomas Martin Schneider, Gegen den Zeitgeist: Der Weg zur VELKD als lutherischer Bekenntniskirche (Arbeiten zur kirchlichen Zeitgeschichte 49), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2008.

86

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

The Church acknowledges the benefit of this divine appointment in gratitude and reverence before him. It calls to mind the Kingdom of God, God’s commandment and righteousness. … We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well.365

The response from Bonhoeffer’s teacher Wilhelm Lütgert (1867–1937) was even clearer.366 As professor in Berlin he was already in 1935 denied giving public speeches. In a remote place he gave three speeches with extremely clear criticism of the Nazi ideology. He saw the Nazi ideology as the opposite of Christianity, which is a Semitic religion. Its characteristics are fear of God, love, humility, the cross, etc. which fundamentally contradict the Nazi ideology. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945) wrote as a student of Reinhold Seeberg Sanctorum Communio: Eine dogmatische Untersuchung zur Soziologie der Kirche (1927/1930). Here he emphasised the visibility of the Church. This book qualified him as a lecturer in systematic theology in Berlin. His authorisation was revoked in 1936, and he was blamed for being a pacifist and an enemy of the State. Already two days after Hitler was installed as Chancellor (21 March 1933), Bonhoeffer delivered a radio address in which he warned against Hitler: To open up for an idolatrous cult of the leader (German: Führer) is dangerous. The Führer can easily turn out to be a seducer (German: Verführer). Bonhoeffer had to leave the country, and this enabled him to secure international support for the ‘Confessing Church’ in Germany. He returned after a 365 The article V in the “Barmen Declaration” was most difficult to formulate, but has had the most lasting influence, cf. Martin Honecker, “Zur gegenwärtigen Bedeutung von Barmen V ”, ZEE 16 (1972), 207–218. German: “Fürchtet Gott, ehrt den König. (1. Petr 2,17) Die Schrift sagt uns, dass der Staat nach göttlicher Anordnung die Aufgabe hat, in der noch nicht erlösten Welt, in der auch die Kirche steht, nach dem Maß menschlicher Einsicht und menschlichen Vermögens unter Androhung und Ausübung von Gewalt für Recht und Frieden zu sorgen. Die Kirche erkennt in Dank und Ehrfurcht gegen Gott die Wohltat dieser seiner Anordnung an. Sie erinnert an Gottes Reich, an Gottes Gebot und Gerechtigkeit und damit an die Verantwortung der Regierenden und Regierten. Sie vertraut und gehorcht der Kraft des Wortes, durch das Gott alle Dinge trägt. Wir verwerfen die falsche Lehre, als solle und könne der Staat über seinen besonderen Auftrag hinaus die einzige und totale Ordnung menschlichen Lebens werden und also auch die Bestimmung der Kirche erfüllen. Wir verwerfen die falsche Lehre, als solle und könne sich die Kirche über ihren besonderen Auftrag hinaus staatliche Art, staatliche Aufgaben und staatliche Würde aneignen und damit selbst zu einem Organ des Staates werden.” 366 Lütgert, “Die Bergpredigt als Grundgesetz der Kirche” (1936/2009). His Der Kampf der deutschen Christenheit mit den Schwarmgeistern (1936) entails three other provocative articles: “Rasse und Religion”, “Mystik und Glaube”, “Der Herrenmensch und der Gekreuzigte”.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

87

calling to an underground seminary in Finkenwalde for training Confessing Church pastors. His teaching on the SM in 1935 was published in the commentary Nachfolge (1937; ET: The Cost of Discipleship, 1949) – in the year the Nazis closed the seminar. The book fulfilled a plan as Bonhoeffer revealed in a letter to his friend Erwin Sutz in September 1934: “Die gesamte Ausbildung eines Theologennachwuchses gehört heute in kirchlichklösterliche Schulen, in denen die reine Lehre, die Bergpredigt und der Kultus ernstgenommen wird – was gerade alles drei auf der Universität nicht der Fall ist”.367 A few months later he wrote to his brother: “Die Restauration der Kirche kommt gewiß aus einer Art neuen Mönchtums, das mit dem alten nur die Kompromißlosigkeit eines Lebens nach der Bergpredigt in der Nachfolge Christi gemeinsam hat. Ich glaube, es ist an der Zeit, hierfür die Menschen zu sammeln … Es gibt doch nun einmal Dinge, für die es sich lohnt, kompromißlos einzutreten. Und mir scheint, der Friede und die soziale Gerechtigkeit, oder eigentlich Christus, sei so etwas”.368

The opposition against Hitler had to reject the new laws Hitler imposed. Scholars like Bultmann opposed the resignation of Jewish scholars through the so-called ‘Arierparagraph’ and argued that the laws of the state can have provisional status only, and argued – based on the SM – that the only authority is the will of God.369 3) The exegesis of the pro-Nazis. Some clergy supported Hitler, and this group of ‘German Christians’ tried to establish an alternative to the exegesis of the SM in the ‘Confessing Church’ (Bonhoeffer, Thurneysen, K. Barth, et al.).370 One of its leaders, Ludwig Müller (1883–1945), acted in the first years of the Nazi regime as the leading bishop (‘Reichsbischof ’). He made a ‘translation’ of, and a commentary on, the SM in 1936. The ‘archbishop’ did not translate, but ‘Germanized’ the ‘words from God’.371 Two examples: “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt 5,9) is ‘Germanized’ to “Wohl denen, die mit ihren Volksgenossen Frieden halten”. Müller eradicated every Jewish reference in the SM: The Pharisees are called ‘teachersʼ and the Golden Rule 367 D. Bonhoeffer, Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Eberhard Bethge, vol. I, München: Kaiser 1958, 42. 368 Ibid., vol. III, München: Kaiser 1960, 25. 369 R. Bultmann, “Der Arier-Paragraph im Raume der Kirche”, TBl 12 (1933), 359–370 and “Die Bergpredigt Jesu und das Recht des Staates”, FF 12 (1936), 101f, here 102. 370 Gerhard Heinzelmann (1884–1951), professor in Jena, close to the SS, argued against the use of the SM in the actual situation (not ‘Rechtsordnung’, not ethical devices), in “Das richtige Verständnis der Bergpredigt”, TSK 108 (1937–38), 438–471, here 470. 371 Deutsche Gottesworte verdeutscht von Reichsbischof Ludwig Müller, Weimar: Verlag Deutsche Christen 1936. Cf. Thomas Martin Schneider, Reichsbischof Ludwig Müller: Eine Untersuchung zu Leben, Werk und Persönlichkeit (Arbeiten zur kirchlichen Zeitgeschichte 19), Göttingen 1993, 256–269. Pp. 259f quote the explanation of Matt 5,38– 42: “Wenn dein Kamerad in seiner Erregung dir ins Gesicht schlägt, ist es nicht immer richtig, gleich wieder zu schlagen. Es ist mannhafter, überlegene Ruhe zu bewahren. Wahrscheinlich wird dein Kamerad sich dann schämen.”

88

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

is about doing good to countrymen (German: ʻVolksgenossenʼ). Müller sharpened every sentence that entailed criticism of ‘Judaism’, because every sentence in the SM must be adjusted to “der heutigen Zeit für die nationalsozialistischen Menschen”. Müller’s eis-egesis could not persuade many. A scholarly trained exegete like Walter Grundmann (1906–1976) could perhaps persuade more people. Already a well-known propagandist for the Nazi ideology, he choose the theme of the SM for his inaugural lecture in Jena (1939) – in the same year as the foundation of ‘The Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life’.372 He argued that Luke has the oldest version because of its lack of Jewish motifs. Matthew still reflects Jesus’ fight against Judaism and his rejection of rabbinic interpretations of the Torah. Jesus was crucified because of the replacement of the Torah and the Jewish dogma of retribution. Love, the relation to God as ‘Abba’, forgiveness in private circles, that is the meaning of the SM. Grundmann enlarged the picture in his book on Jesus (1940). He underlined that Jesus came from (the pagan) Galilee. Jesus thought non-Jewish, and the SM was delivered as a polemic against Jews.373 Susannah Heschel’s book on The Aryan Jesus has documented Grundmann’s role in dejudaising the New Testament, portraying Jesus as Aryan.374 These extreme, but influential examples of (mis)use of the SM have their counterparts in cautious statements and political correctness. To offend the Nazis could cost lives.375 Even the socialist Georg Wünsch, specialist in the interpretation of the SM, criticised a Communist interpretation and gave room for unpolitical exegesis.376 4) Retrospect. Few repeated the liberal views in the period, and there was no need to pursue the arguments against the liberal position. Form-history had made the historical foundation more fragile. Scholars like Bultmann and M. Dibelius had to find a new perspective. The perspective of eschatology was distinct and open at the same time. Jewish exegesis, the realism according to Cadbury, Niebuhr, the Dialectical Theology underlined that the SM has to be followed, and only followers discover its power. The message of the SM was nearly shattered during the two wars. Politics totally ignored the ethos of the SM. The Nazis and the so-called ‘German Christians’ had to reinterpret the SM, and opposition against the Nazis was possible only at a high cost. Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship was a pro372

Grundmann, Frage (1939). W. Grundmann, Jesus der Galiläer und das Judentum, Leipzig: Wigand 1940. 374 Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, Princeton: Princeton University Press 2008. 375 Friedrich Traub excuses the SM for not dealing with political questions, “Problem der Bergpredigt” (1936). Even R. Seeberg, Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt (1934), accentuated Jesus’ rejection of “zeitgenössischer jüdischer Moral”. 376 G. Wünsch, “Liebe und Kampf in der christlichen Ethik”, TBl 20 (1941), 323–333. 373

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

89

gramme. The exegesis of the SM made clear that Jesus was the only ‘Führer’ one should follow (therefore the German title ‘Nachfolge’). The Christ-like behaviour in the SM implied opposition to Hitler and the Nazis. 1.3.8 SM/Scholarship on the SM in Shadowland 1950–1975? A new world after 1945 desperately needed new programs. How much could the SM, ‘the Magna Carta of Christianity’, contribute? To what extent was it a critical voice? In scholarship the SM was not in the centre of the debates, but rather in shadowland. Central themes were ‘demythologisation’, ‘salvation history’, ‘existential interpretation’, ‘redaction-criticism’, ‘Luke as a storm centre’, etc. New insights for theological thinking came from scholarship about Paul and John, rather than about Jesus. Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship was widely used in the 1950s, and inspired church leaders like Carl F.H. Henry (1913–2003), theologians and exegetes. A number of books in the same style were published, exposing the literal meaning of the SM and its actual theological interpretation.377 1.3.8.1 The Influence of the SM outside New Testament Scholarship This is the period of the so-called ‘New Quest’ in Jesus-research. The interpretation of the SM did not profit much from that. Relatively few new contributions were published during the ‘New Quest’ period. The SM was more in focus outside New Testament scholarship. 1) Immediate reactions after the Second World War. History never repeats itself, but when it comes to the SM, there was a similar new awareness and openness for the message of the SM after the Second World War as we saw after the First World War. Only a few examples may be mentioned. Winston Churchill during the war (1941) made the famous statement: “the closer we follow the Sermon on the Mount the more likely we are to find success in our endeavours”; “Christ’s story was unequalled and his death to save sinners unsurpassed; moreover the Sermon on the Mount was the last word in ethics”.378 The Beatitudes, the principles of the Golden Rule, charity, forgiveness and courage were the source for his program after the War “In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Goodwill”. 377

The founder of Christianity Today, Carl F.H. Henry, Christian Personal Ethics, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1957; Clarence Jordan (founder of the disputed ‘Koinoniá Farm’), The Sermon on the Mount, rev. ed., Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson Press 1970, and Carson, Sermon on the Mount (1978). McArthur provided an overview of the scholarship, Understanding (1960). This thematic study was widely read because of its comprehensive analysis, but it lacks originality. 378 According to his secretary John R. Colville, Fringes of Power, London: Hodder & Stoughton 1983, 648.

90

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

The fine words about the SM seldom materialised in churches and schools. The SM was part of the curriculum in ‘Middle-schools’/’High-schools’ in the West, and totally dropped in East Europe. A strong German voice, Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster (1869–1966), claimed an educational reform based on the Decalogue and particularly on the SM with the goal of building character and consciousness. The philosopher, ethicist, educator for many generations, characterized the SM as the true psychotherapy.379 His criticism of German militarism in the two wars had given him high credibility, but few listened to him. One famous SM scholar, Martin Dibelius, reflected the war experience, and accentuated more than before that the SM as an ethics of attitude should have implications for daily life and politics. In lectures to German prisonersof-war he proclaimed the SM as the norm for private and also political actions. A close reading of Rom 13 and Mark 12,13ff can easily end up in a fatalistic Bible-obedient (‘biblizistische’) attitude. A close reading of the SM leads to another attitude: “sich in jedem Augenblick und mit jeder Gesinnung und Handlung vor Gott verantwortlich zu wissen”.380 It was Helmut Thielicke who offered the most moving interpretation of the SM or rather the Lord’s Prayer immediately before and after the end of the war in 1945. He started during the war with the prayers “Hallowed be thy Name, thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done”. After the war he continued with the prayers “Give us today our daily bread, forgive us our sins, deliver us from evil”.381 Nobody disputed the actual meaning of the SM. 2) Back to basics: Ecumenism and salvation-history. It was time for all churches to get together after the war, and accentuate common faith and prac379 F.W. Foerster, Mein Kampf gegen das militaristische und nationalistische Deutschland, Stuttgart: Verlag Friede durch Recht 1920, and idem, Erlebte Weltgeschichte 1869– 1953: Memoiren, Nürnberg: Glock und Lutz 1953. The term ‘wahre Psychotherapie’ occurs in Erlebte Weltgeschichte, 46. From being in political opposition, after 1945 he renewed his Jugendlehre: Ein Buch für Eltern, Lehrer und Geistliche, Berlin: Reimer 1904, in the books Christus und das menschliche Leben, Recklinghausen: Paulus-verlag 31953, 416–442; idem, Moderne Jugend und christliche Religion, Freiburg etc.: Herder 1960, 266–270, 311–326. Cf. Bruno Hipler, “Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster (1869–1966): ‘Ein Inspirator der katholischen Friedensbewegung in Deutschland’”, StZ 208 (1990), 113–124. 380 M. Dibelius, “Studienbriefe für unsere Kommilitonen in Kriegsgefangenschaft, Theologische Reihe: Brief 1: Altes und Neues Testament als Quelle sozialer und politischer Lehre“, paper delivered 12 July 1947 (Dibelius-Nachlaß, University of Heidelberg, Handschriftenabteilung), pp. 8–10: “Maßgebend für das christliche Handeln auch in der Politik ist die Bergpredigt (und nicht etwa Röm 13). Denn aus der Bergpredigt ergibt sich die Verpflichtung, alle Fragen, Handlungen, Tendenzen des Lebens vor Gottes Angesicht zu stellen; fromme Ûbungen wie weltliche Sorgen … werden vor Gott gerichtet (These V).” 381 H. Thielicke, Das Gebet, das die Welt umspannt: Reden über das Vaterunser aus den Jahren 1944/45, Stuttgart: Quell-Verlag 1945, 131973 (ET: Our Heavenly Father: Sermons on the Lord’s Prayer, New York: Harper & Row 1960), cf. idem, “Ich aber sage euch …”: Auslegungen der Bergpredigt in Stuttgarter Gottesdiensten, Stuttgart: Quell 1949.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

91

tices. The ecumenical conference on ‘Life and Work’ in Stockholm (1925) and the ‘Faith and Order’ conference (Lausanne, 1927) prepared for the establishment of the World Council of Churches (WCC, 1948). The SM was – in spite of its exegetical problems – a text that united all churches.382 The fourth assembly of the WCC in Uppsala 1968 saw the ethics of the SM as ‘counter-cultural’ ethics against the world of violence and injustice. They proclaimed that the anticipation of God’s Kingdom and signs of the new creation Christ accomplished, can in glimpses be visible today. The concept of ‘salvation history’ was from the very beginning important in the ecumenical movement (e.g. William Temple, Hendrikus Berkhof, Leonard Hogdson, Oscar Cullmann).383 It combined the role of the church and the perspective of a universal history. The meaning of history was, after the meaningless war, a burning issue.384 The notion of ‘salvation history’ could provide an appropriate response. The only major denomination outside the WCC, the powerful Roman-Catholic church, supported theologians in the WCC in this theological work. In this context Christ was seen as ‘the centre of time’ (German: Mitte der Zeit). History and not only individuals can change, and some events give new meaning to history and to the future. The SM could be seen as the norm and a prerequisite for the crucifixion and resurrection.385 The concept of ‘salvation history’ gave rise to the nigh on all-embracing debate between Cullmann and Bultmann.386 However, they agreed in important aspects when it came to the SM. Both argued that Jesus did not give new commandments, and that Jesus did offer ‘radical’ interpretations of old commandments. Cullmann saw Jesus’ interpretations in the SM as ‘paradigms’, examples. Bultmann still saw the commandments as a ‘form’, as calling and 382 Christian Krause, “Die Bergpredigt in den ökumenischen Studien seit dem zweiten Weltkrieg”, LR 18 (1968), 65–74. Ernst Käsemann’s paper at the ecumenical symposium in Göttingen 1952, “Does the New Testament canon ground the unity of the church or the diversity of the churches?” (in idem, Essays in New Testament Themes, London: SCM 1964, 95–107), did not mention the SM. 383 Cf. Geiko Müller-Fahrenholz, Heilsgeschichte zwischen Ideologie und Prophetie: Profile und Kritik heilsgeschichtlicher Theorien in der ökumenischen Bewegung zwischen 1948 und 1968, Freiburg: Herder 1974, 137–169 (on Cullmann). 384 Cf. Herbert Butterfield, Christianity and History, London: Bell 1949; idem, History and Human Relations, London: Collins 1951; idem, Christianity, Diplomacy and War, London: Epworth Press 1953. Cf. Kenneth McIntyre, Herbert Butterfield: History, Providence, and Skeptical Politics, Wilmington: Isi Books 2011. 385 O. Cullmann, Christus und die Zeit, Zollikon-Zürich: TVZ 1948, 200–205 (ET: Christ and Time, Philadelphia: Westminster 1964). 386 Bultmann, “Heilsgeschichte und Geschichte: Zu Oscar Cullmanns ‘Christus und die Zeit’” (1948), in idem, Exegetica, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1967, 356–368, and extensively in idem, Geschichte und Eschatologie, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1958. For a more recent treatment: Jörg Frey (ed.), Heil und Geschichte (WUNT 248), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2009 (on Bultmann: Klaus W. Müller, “Bultmann und die Heilsgeschichte”, pp. 693–723).

92

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

decision-making (German: Ruf zur Entscheidung). Both saw love as expression of the total commitment Jesus requested.387 3) Moral Re-Armament and the Principles of the SM. We find another typical reaction in Moral Re-Armament (MRA). Frank N.D. Buchman (1878– 1961), the driving force behind the Oxford Group, was convinced that military rearmament alone would not resolve the crisis after 1945. The title of his first book after the war was Remaking the World (1947), and here he encouraged people to be actively involved in political and social issues. Changing the world starts with seeking the change of every person, based on the four ‘absolutes’ (absolute honesty, absolute purity, absolute unselfishness and absolute love). These principles can be practised by Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and Confucianists.388 However, are they really the principles of the SM, or is this a rather superficial interpretation? A totally different group, but with the same willingness to base their principles on the SM, was represented by La Communauté des Béatitudes. A protestant priest who in 1974 converted to Catholicism, Gérard Croissant, founded this community in 1973. Like the MRA groups, it became more and more isolated.

4) The SM in colonial, multi-religious setting; interpretation and world view. Through European colonialism other religious traditions came closer, and towards the end of colonialism their influence increased in some intellectual circles. On the other hand, Gandhi was eager to employ the SM and many writers were eager to interpret the SM, mostly by ignoring a historical analysis. Many tried to capture its meaning through a consequent transcendent perspective (see above). The SM was in this way captured by the so-called ‘New Thought’. Emmet Fox (1886–1951), developed the theory and had huge influence in the US before 1940 and in Europe after 1945.389 Karl O. Schmidt (1904–1977) preached and wrote books, distributed in millions of copies, based on ‘New Thought’.390 A very similar pattern of thoughts occurs today in the ‘New Age’ movement, but contrary to ‘New Thought’ the SM is not used much here. The Swedenborg movement used the SM much more and as part of their world view. 387

Cullmann, Christus und die Zeit, 201f, 204. F.N.D. Buchman, Remaking the World, London: Blandford Press 1955 (1947), 46, 166, and the four absolutes, pp. 36, 40, 96, 131. He refers to Robert E. Speer, The Principles of Jesus, New York: Association Press 1902. 389 Emmet Fox, The Sermon on the Mount: The Key to Success in Life (A General Introduction to Scientific Christianity in the Form of a Spiritual Key to Matthew V, VI and VII), New York: HarperOne 2010. 390 Karl O. Schmidt, Die Religion der Bergpredigt als Grundlage neugeistigen Tatchristentums: Worte des Vollendeten, Pfullingen: Baum 1932 (1976); idem, Die Goldene Regel: Das Gesetz der Fülle (1957), Hammelburg: Drei-Eichen-Verlag 2007; cf. idem, Die geheimen Herrenworte des Thomas-Evangeliums: Wegweisungen Christi zur Selbstvollendung, Pfullingen: Baum 1966. 388

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

93

Similar movements grew up outside Europe; the Hindu, Swami Omkarananda, interpreted the SM in a ‘spiritual way’ in his ‘Divine Light’ movement.391 In the period of transition from the colonial to the post-colonial era we see many attempts to integrate their world view with the SM. The very fact that they did so, demonstrates the influence and importance of the SM. 5) Criticism and Analytical Philosophy. The philosophical criticism of the SM came primarily from analytical philosophy. Bertrand Russell (1872– 1970) formulated his criticism of the SM already in his book on Bolshevism, written shortly after he had met Lenin during a visit as official British delegate in Moscow 1920.392 As contrast to Bolshevism the SM might be attracttive, but Russell formulated here his scepticism against the moral principles in the SM also. “what modern apologists call ‘true’ Christianity is something depending upon a very selective process. … It picks out certain parts of the Sermon on the Mount, though even these it often rejects in practice. It leaves the doctrine of non-resistance, for example, to be practised only by non-Christians such as Gandhi. The precepts that it particularly favours are held to embody such a lofty morality that they must have had a divine origin. And yet … these precepts were uttered by Jews before the time of Christ.”393

He argued that the SM is less realistic than e.g. Confucianism, and that the ethics of the SM can easily become oppressive ethics. It jumps too quickly from ‘ought’ to commands.394 The same kind of criticism came from psychology. Sigmund Freud saw the SM as appeals to the super-ego. They produce more guilt than normal people can stand.395 Freud turned the Lutheran understanding of the commandments as mirrors (German: ‘Sündenspiegel’) upside down. 391 Friedemann Horn/Erich L.G. Reissner (eds.), Der innere Sinn der Bergpredigt (Swedenborg Bücherei 4), Zürich: Swedenborg-Verlag 1963; Swami Omkarananda, Der universelle Geist der Bergpredigt, Schopfheim: H. Schwab 1968. 392 B. Russell, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, London: George Allen & Unwin 1920, 7: “The principles of the Sermon on the Mount are admirable, but their effect upon average human nature was very different from what was intended. Those who followed Christ did not learn to love their enemies or to turn the other cheek … The hopes which inspire Communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically, and are likely to do as much harm.” 393 In the famous response to Hubert Butterfield’s Christianity and Religion (1950), first published in Dagens Nyheter in November 1954. His article “Can Religion cure our Problems?” was published in Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, New York: George Allen & Unwin 1957, 193–204, here 202f, and in Robert E. Egner/Lester E. Denonn (eds.), The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell, London: Routledge 1961/1992, 598–606, here 603f and 595 on Buddha and Socrates.. 394 Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, 72, and in Basic Writings (1961/1992), 595 (for both books, see previous note). 395 Freud, Das Unbehagen in der Kultur (above, n. 285), part V, 476–506. Theodor Reik and Erich Fromm advocated more balanced views.

94

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

6) East Europe and GDR a blind-zone? In the shadow of Communism some – especially Czechs – were able to study the SM intensively.396 The most creative exegeses came from Milan Machovec (1925–2003), Josef B. Soucek (1902–1972) and Petr Pokorný (1933–2020).397 GDR-universities and seminars also had some excellent scholars. The ideological pressure varied in the GDR, and Catholics could more easily keep their identity. E.g. Heinz Schürmann contributed substantially to SM research, and both Schürmann’s and contributions from Traugott Holtz and Walter Grundmann were debated in ‘Western exegesis’. Grundmann’s exposition of the SM in his widespread commentaries on Luke and Matthew is typical for the ‘conservative redactor’ perspective and his anti-Judaism was subdued after the Nazi period.398 Compared to Grundmann Erich Fascher was ‘unpolitical’ and struggled against the Nazis before 1945. His exegesis on the SM in the time of the GDR is difficult to reconstruct. However, the reader of his brilliant overview of the history of interpretation of the SM in RGG3 (1957) is unprepared for his final sentence, a reference to Marx, Kautsky (and Ragaz): “Jesu sittliche Forderungen lassen ihn als Anwalt der Armen, Rechtlosen und Unterdrückten erscheinen. Sie bieten Handhaben zur Kritik an der bestehenden und zum Aufbau einer neuen Gesellschaftsordnung (K. Marx, K. Kautsky, L. Ragaz).”399

According to GDR ideology, ‘political criticism’ was criticism of western capitalism. At the end of the 1970s the GDR peace-movement also criticised the GDR society, using mostly the social criticism of the prophets, and, increasingly, the SM (see below 1.3.9.1).400 1.3.8.2 New Premises for the Interpretation of the SM Often changes are difficult to observe. Most of the changes in the SM research/Jesus-research are recognisable in the general discipline of ‘Sociology of knowledge’. Most significant is the struggle for objectivity, the search 396

Berner, Bergpredigt (21983), 54 (pp. 54–57, 163–166). Pokorný lectured occasionally in West Germany before 1989. One can read his book Der Kern der Bergpredigt, Hamburg: Evangelischer Verlag 1969, partly on the background of his involvement in the “Christliche Friedenskonferenz”. 398 T. Holtz, “Grundzüge einer Auslegung der Bergpredigt”, ZdZ 31 (1977), 8–16; Grundmann, Lukas (21961), 139–154; idem, Matthäus (1968). Grundmann is a peculiar case. From being a ‘German Christian’ in the Nazi era, he became a stasi-informant in the GDR, spying on (high ranking) theologians in Eastern and Western Germany. His cover name was IM Berg (“Mountain”), obviously referring to the SM. His extreme anti-Semitism faded after 1945, but traces of it can still be seen in the exegesis of the Antitheses. 399 E. Fascher, “Bergpredigt II.: Auslegungsgeschichtlich”, RGG3 1 (1957), 1050–1053, here 1053. 400 Wolfgang Büscher/Peter Wensierski/Klaus Wolschner (eds.), Friedensbewegung in der DDR: Texte 1978–1982, Hattingen: Scandica-Verlag 1982. 397

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

95

for facts, analytical truth, scientific reason as an adequate response to the failure of ideologies (Nazism, Communism, etc.) and their propaganda. 1) Specialisation in scholarship. The gap between exegetes versus ‘theologians’ grew wider after 1945, largely because ‘exegesis’ became more specialised. Some exegetes specialised in the field of the Synoptics, or John, Luke-Acts, Paul, or Qumran, Nag Hammadi, etc. Even in SM scholarship, some focused on the historical Jesus, some on the sources, some on the role of the Early (Palestinian) Church, some on the contribution of Luke and Matthew, etc. Among theologians we see a similar tendency to specialisation. Few theologians specialised in SM-research. Specialisation increased the gap between scholarship and non-scholarly books. 2) New era in US scholarship. A new era in the US started after the War. Import of European scholars: William D. Davies from the UK/Wales, Helmut Köster, Dieter Georgi, Hans Dieter Betz from Germany, and Krister Stendahl and Nils Alstrup Dahl from Scandinavia, et al. gave important impulses. Intensive efforts at the larger universities and numerous undergraduate colleges paid off. The contributions to the SM were no exception. This led to a more intensive dialogue with European scholarship, as we see in the works of Robert A. Guelich. Like his teacher Leonhard Goppelt, he acknowledged the Jewishness of Jesus, and how Jesus interpreted the Law differently from contemporary rabbinic interpretations.401 The dialogue was indirectly fruitful for many scholars. Amos N. Wilder (1895–1993), brother of the poet Thornton Wilder, had sensitivity for the literary style and rhetorical expressions in the SM. He reflected the discussion in Europe in his thesis on apocalyptic eschatology as background for the SM. This eschatology led to “conflict with the current codes of common life”… it “breaks with the pattern and institutions” both then and now.402 Mennonites and Anabaptists have often been marginalised in Protestant circles. In the 1970s there came a new theological awareness of their foundations. John Howard Yoder (1927–1997) represented this dialogue with scholarly research, and he applied these insights in his interpretation of the SM. It coincided with the emergent political theology and pacifism. The SM as a political document basically confirmed the statements in the Anabaptist thinking according to the Schleitheim Confession.403 3) Jewish scholarship after the Holocaust. The creation of the state of Israel and the search for Jewish identity were the priorities after the Holo401

Guelich, Sermon (1982). Wilder, Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus (1950), and specifically in “The Teaching of Jesus: II. The Sermon on the Mount” (1951), 164. 403 J.H. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus: Vicit agnus noster, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1972 (repr., 2008); idem, Discipleship as Political Responsibility (1964), Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press 2003; idem, Reinhold Niebuhr and Christian Pacifism, Washington: The Church Peace Mission 1966. 402

96

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

caust. Dialogue with other faiths was rarely on the agenda. Very different Jewish voices could be heard at this time of great changes. Samuel Sandmel harshly criticised the many Christian scholars who misunderstood Jewish texts and theology.404 He thought Christian scholars were too apologetic in their exegeses of anti-Semitic elements in the New Testament. The reformed Jew evaluated the sources positively, and wanted to show “where Jews can reasonably stand with respect to Jesus”.405 Hans-Joachim Schoeps had close dialogue with exegetes and theologians in Germany after the War.406 He underlined the differences between Jesus and Jewish understanding of the Law, and he thought Jesus represented a refined Judaism in the SM.407 David Flusser (1917–2000) came into dialogue with Christian scholars through the discoveries at Qumran. Flusser saw Jesus as an authentic Jew, who stood close to the Pharisees. Jesus was foremost a teacher of the Law, giving a similar interpretation of it as some of the rabbis of his time. Flusser thought, however, that Jesus was misunderstood by his followers.408 4) The new Catholic exegesis and the SM. The thoroughly historical exegesis of the SM started with Thaddäus Soiron and Max Meinertz,409 and grew strongly in the 1950s with e.g. Josef Staudinger, Pierre Bonnard410 and in the 1960s with Heinz Schürmann and Rudolf Schnackenburg. According to Heinz Schürmann (1913–1999), the SP/IS is a post-baptismal catechism. Eschatology and ethics are therefore closely connected.411 His 404

Sandmel, “Parallelomania” (1962). Sandmel, We Jews and Jesus, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1965, xv. Chapter III (“Jesus the man”) presented a history of research. 406 Cf. H.-J. Schoeps, “Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz”, in idem, Aus frühchristlicher Zeit, Tübingen: Mohr 1950, 212–220, here 219 (cf. “Restitutio principii als kritisches Prinzip der Nova lex Jesu”, ibid., 271–285, and “Von der Imitatio Dei zur Nachfolge Christi”, ibid., 286–301). The lecture in Uppsala 1941 was followed up by one with the same title in 1959, in idem, Studien zur unbekannten Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, Göttingen: Musterschmidt 1963, 41–61 (cf. “Die Umwandlung”, pp. 62–67; “Jüdischer Glaube und jüdisches Gesetz heute”, pp. 140–154). 407 His role as leader of the ‘German Vanguard’ (German: Der deutsche Vortrupp), the so-called ‘Nazi Jews’ (1933–1938), is highly disputed. His support of the monarchy and his anti-communist resentments were well known. 408 D. Flusser, Jesus in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten (Rowohlts Monographien 140), Hamburg: Rowohlt 1968. 409 M. Meinertz, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Bonn: Hanstein 1950. 410 Josef Staudinger, Die Bergpredigt, Wien: Herder 1957; Pierre Bonnard, “Le Sermon sur la montagne”, RTP 3 (1953), 233–246. Cf. idem, L’Evangile selon Saint Matthieu (CNT 1), Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé 1963, 21970. 411 Schürmann, Lukasevangelium I (1969), 312–386; idem, “Eschatologie und Liebesdienst in der Verkündigung Jesu”, in idem, Ursprung und Gestalt, Düsseldorf: Patmos 1970, 279–298. 405

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

97

sophisticated literary criticism intended to provide a clear-cut division between authentic Jesus-sayings and Luke’s additions. Rudolf Schnackenburg (1914–2002) made Würzburg a stronghold for modern Catholic scholarship. His studies on Matthew/the SM and the moral traditions were based on the same methodology as in Protestant exegesis.412 After 1968 the debate about political issues was lively among Schnackenburg’s many gifted students (e.g. Josef Blank, Paul Hoffmann). He was well prepared for the new phase of discussions after 1980.413 1.3.8.3 New Objectivism: Back to Basics through History and Scientific Proofs 1) New sources (Qumran, Nag Hammadi). New sources can often change an interpretation, and two sensational discoveries had the potential to change the interpretation of the SM drastically. Most scholars immediately saw their potential and their closeness to the SM. Jewish and Christian scholars from many denominations worked together from the very beginning. Bultmann saw Qumran as just another embodiment of ‘Early Judaism’,414 whereas many scholars saw its peculiar impact for Jesus-research – and for the interpretation of the SM with its ‘Torah-hightening’.415 The dating of the Qumran texts is generally relatively undisputed, whereas the dating of the Nag Hammadi texts was highly disputed from the very beginning. Before 1980 the majority of scholars tended to date the Gospel of Thomas so late that it had hardly any impact on the interpretation of the SM. Regardless of the dating, the parallels of the Gospel of Thomas and many Qumran texts must be considered, and they have provided new input to SMresearch. 2) The SM and the historical Jesus (‘Second Quest’, 1950–1980). The search for the historical Jesus was primarily a reaction within the Bultmannschool against Bultmann’s sharp distinction between Jesus’ teaching and the Christian kerygma. Bultmann saw the teaching of Jesus only as a prerequisite for New Testament theology.416 Suddenly the slogan ‘New Quest’ (instead of ‘No Quest’) came up, which was an enormous overstatement, because at least 412 Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft I (21962/1986). After the encyclical letter from Pius XII (“Divino afflante Spiritu”, 1943) it was important to find a new way forward for Catholic exegesis. 413 Schnackenburg/Gründel (eds.), Bergpredigt (1982). 414 Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (51965), in his Preface. 415 H. Braun, “Beobachtungen zur Tora-Verschärfung im häretischen Spätjudentum”, TLZ 79 (1954), 347–352 (enlarged in idem, Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühChristlicher Radikalismus, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1957). In the beginning Catholics tended to see a monastic community behind the text, and parallels to the ‘monastic’ ethics in the SM. 416 E. Käsemann, “Hinweise auf neuere neutestamentliche Forschung” (1949/50, 1951/52). Cf. N.A. Dahl, “Review of Rudolf Bultmannʼs Theologie des Neuen Testaments”, TRu 22 (1954), 21–49; Baasland, “Consistent Jesus-Research?” (2015).

98

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

500 Jesus-books had appeared in the period of the so-called ‘No Quest’. In the years after the War ‘New’ was a popular word to use.417 3) The historical Jesus and the SM in the Bultmann-school. Bultmann was one of the few prominent exegetes in the generation before the War, who still played a role after 1945. More importantly, he had many gifted students who filled the big gaps at the German universities. The ‘Bultmann-school’ was influential through their methods, through their emphasis on hermeneutics (and existential interpretation), and because they covered all fields of studies. G. Bornkamm, H. Braun, E. Fuchs contributed to SM-research without putting the SM on the top of their agenda. Bultmann saw many sayings in the SM as an appeal to existential and ethical decision-making (Jesus’ ‘Entscheidungsruf’). His students found real argumentation in the SM. They used form-criticism only in the analysis of the individual sayings, and due to the ‘criterion of dissimilarity’ they emphasised where Jesus/the SM differs from ‘Judaism’. The so-called SM is therefore basically Jesus-tradition. Günther Bornkamm (1905–1990) was asked by (the Bultmann-student) Erich Dinkler to write the article on the SM in RGG3, and he gave the SM more room than Bultmann did. He agreed with Bultmann that Jesus had no apocalyptic or casuistic argumentation, and he emphasised Jesus’ ‘Unmittelbarkeit’, his vision of God and man. But he interpreted the SM as Messianic Law that should be fulfilled.418 He saw the SM as the expression of a ‘better righteousness’. Other Bultmann-students like Ernst Käsemann (1906–1998) and Herbert Braun (1903–1991) emphasised more the contrast to Jewish legalism. Braun elaborated on the Qumran texts and found a totally new ‘radicalism’ in Jesus’ teaching. According to Braun the SM is against every kind of cultic and civil law.419 Käsemann emphasised the criticism of the Jewish Law in order to accentuate Jesus’ appeal to freedom (German: ‘Ruf zur Freiheit’).420 417 Not novelty, but a new beginning. Some would rather preserve the best of the liberal tradition; Mosbech, “The Ethics of the Sermon on the Mount” (1953). 418 RGG3 1 (1957), 1047–1050, 1049: “Aus dem Gesagten erhellt, daß die B[ergpredigt] nicht ein Programm zur politischen und sozialen Weltgestaltung sein will, aber auch nicht sich auf eine Sphäre privater Innerlichkeit beschränken oder gar als bloßer Spiegel unserer Erlösungsbedürftigkeit sich verstehen läßt (dh als Weisungen, die gar nicht direkt auf den Gehorsam der Tat abzielen).” He followed up his analysis in Jesus of Nazareth, London: Hodder & Stoughton 1960 (German ed. 1956). 419 Braun, Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus (above, n. 415); idem, Jesus (1969). Hans Conzelmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, München: Kaiser 2 1967, 140–143, refers primarily to Braun’s studies. 420 Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes, London: SCM 1964; idem, Jesus Means Freedom: A polemical survey of the New Testament, London: SCM 1969, cf. idem, On Being a Disciple of the Crucified Nazarene, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2010.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

99

In the Bultmann-school the image of Jesus was much in accordance with Paul’s theology. This is most visible in E. Fuchs’ and G. Ebeling’s images of the historical Jesus. Ernst Fuchs (1903–1983) saw the new Law in the SM in accordance with the way Jesus showed compassion for sinners in words and acts. This is the core of, and the bridge to, the preaching of righteousness.421 Gerhard Ebeling (1912–2001) saw Jesus’ faith as trust in God, which transforms even death into hope. These interpretations were formed at a time when dialogue with Jewish scholarship was very poor, and when the strongest Jewish voice in Germany was the philosopher H.-J. Schoeps (see above, pp. 25 and 96). 4) Goppelt and Jeremias – continuing the Schlatter/Fiebig tradition? Bultmann’s works422 and the works of his students could easily be misused for anti-Semitic purposes, and were modified by other scholars. Some were labelled as conservative, due to their evaluation of authenticity and their affinity to a sort of ‘salvation history’. Leonhard Goppelt (1911–1973) combined insights from the Erlangen J.Chr.K. von Hofmann-school and from Gerhard von Rad, and saw Jesus’ ethics in the SM in continuity with the Tanach. The SM goes behind the halachah and perhaps the original meaning and structure of the ethical teaching in the Tanach. The hermeneutical process continues: the SM cannot be applied literally today.423 In the field of ethics Goppelt contributed to the ‘new’ discipline of social ethics as it was developed in the ecumenical movement.424 Joachim Jeremias (1900–1979) lived in Jerusalem during his school days (1910–1918) and he was attracted to the efforts of his teacher, Gustaf Dalman. The Jewish setting of the SM was for them the starting point. Jeremias used form-criticism very reluctantly and developed instead a more advanced literary criticism, which enabled him to differentiate between the language of the evangelists and the voice of Jesus. He found the voice of Jesus in the Aramaic sayings still reflected in the (Greek) Gospels, in some formal features (passivum divinum, rhythm, use of hyperbolic sayings), and in the unique sayings of Jesus (parables, riddles, preaching of the Kingdom of 421 Esp. E. Fuchs, “Jesu Selbstzeugnis nach Matthäus 5”, ZTK 51 (1954), 14–34 = idem, Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus: Gesammelte Aufsätze 2, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1960, 100–125. 422 Cf. Gerdmar, Roots of Theological anti-Semitism (2009), 373–411. 423 Goppelt, Die Bergpredigt und die Wirklichkeit dieser Welt (1968), 27–43; cf. his Christologie (1968), 65–74 and 102–136 (“Die Herrschaft Christi und die Welt”). 424 Johann Christian Konrad (von) Hofmann (1810–1877) saw world-history as part of salvation history. History is given its unity and meaning from its centre, the historical selfgiving of the triune God in Jesus, cf. Weissagung und Erfüllung im Alten und Neuen Testamente, Nördlingen: C.H. Beck 1841 (21860). L. Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. I, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1976/31980, 45f, saw Cullmann and Gerhard von Rad in a similar perspective (ibid., 49).

100

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

God, Amen- and Abba-sayings). The SM is nearly 100% authentic sayings, and formed a Christian catechesis from the beginning.425 The most innovative contribution in his exegesis was, however, that he saw the teaching in the SM both in relation to Judaism – based on his profound and sensitive understanding of Jesus’ Jewishness – and in relation to Jesus’ entire teaching. His thesis was that the SM must not be seen as a compendium of Jesus’ teaching, but rather as a part of it and that the most important parts precede. Jeremias argued correctly that “something precedes” in the SM.426 The basic teaching of the Kingdom of God has Christology as its premise. Christology is certainly implied in decisive texts like the Beatitudes, the propositio, the Antitheses, and basically in nearly every crucial text and not merely in the I-sayings and judgment-sayings. The notion of the Kingdom of God is proclaimed as a key concept in sayings like Matt 5,3.10.20; 6.9.33. Matt 6,33 (ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ) is indeed a crucial sentence in the SM because of the two key words βασιλεία and δικαιοσύνη. Jesus’ ‘Kingdom ethics’ show the impact of the demands. The concepts ‘children of God’ (5,9.45) and forgiveness (5,25; 6,14) are presupposed. That is why the ‘Gospel’ more than ‘Law’ precedes the SM. For Goppelt and Jeremias the setting of the SM is the Tanach/Judaism, not a philosophical one, not general problems, not the ‘Hellenistic’ environment, and not so much actual questions, etc. 1.3.8.4 New Dominating Method: Redaction-criticism Historical studies must strive for a complete picture of the events. Formhistory did so, but saw the perspective of redaction not only in terms of individuality and as collective process. These ‘theological’ contributions of the individual redactor demonstrate the contrast to the ‘historical Jesus’. 1) Matthew as conservative redactor. German redaction-criticism tended to accept the form-historical insights as a basis. Most scholars often gave up solving the source problem, and concentrated on studying Matthew as author.427 G. Bornkamm set the program in his essay on ‘Matthew as interpreter of Jesus-sayings’ and he set the standard in his RGG3-article on the SM.428 The opinio communis of Matthew as ‘conservative redactor’ before 1980 yielded new insights in the interpretation of the SM. 425

Jeremias, Sermon (1961), 20–24. Idem, Abba (1966). Jeremias, Sermon (1961), 24, 29–32. 427 Eichholz, Auslegung der Bergpredigt (1965), has a more consequent redactional viewpoint, but is still in tune with the concept of a ‘conservative redactor’. He put Matthew in an historical context, reflecting a time of co-existence between Judaism, proclaiming grace and demanding obedience. 428 Bornkamm, Matthäus (1954), 341–346, reprinted in idem, Studien (2009), 3–8; idem, “Bergpredigt: I. Biblisch”, RGG3 1 (1957), 1047–1050; idem, “Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt” (1977/78). 426

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

101

Some scholars combined this insight with the theory that some absolute demands in the SM are consciously ‘modified’, interpreted (in a halachic way?), and applied in a new situation. M. Dibelius did this combination in his ‘Shaffer Lectures’ (1937/1940; see above, p. 78) and many followed him. That we have two stages in the tradition-process can most easily be seen in the Beatitudes as many commentators argue.429 Tor Aukrust focused on the ‘absolute’ Antitheses and their modifications, already in Matt 5,32, but more on the ‘social commandments’ in Matt 6,19–7,11.430

The concept of ‘conservative redactor’ fits together perfectly with the theory of the SM as a catechism. Before 1980 this was the dominating theory. Scholarship in the UK/US (E.G. Selwyn, P. Carrington and C.H. Dodd), in Scandinavia (H. Riesenfeld, B. Gerhardsson, E. Bejer), in the GDR (H. Schürmann), Dibelius, and even in the Bultmann-school (G. Bornkamm), defended the theory. 2) The historical Matthew. William D. Davies (1911–2001), the exegete from Wales who worked in the US after 1950 (Duke, Princeton, Union Theological Seminary/New York) through his fundamental study on Matthew/the SM set a new standard. He intended to specify a precise setting of the SM within Judaism. He launched the debates on ‘Paul within Judaism’ and ‘Matthew within Judaism’.431 He provided both a contribution to the historical Jesus and at the same time a redactional study. The setting is the Matthean community in its Jewish context, and Davies contributed to the disputed Jamnia-hypothesis: that the so-called ‘Synod of Jamnia’ (about 80 CE) made discussions about the canon of the Old Testament and about the shape of Judaism. According to Davies, the SM/Matthew is a response to this event.432 Davies’ focus on the situation in the Matthean church provided a new starting-point. After 1980 the Matthean community and their historical role became the big issue in scholarship. 1.3.9 The SM out of Its Isolation in a Secular Age (after 1980) The peace-movement, Liberation Theology, and the post-colonial era in the 1980s put the SM in the centre of many debates in politics and society. The 429 Cf. most commentators and e.g. John Wick Bowman/Roland W. Tapp, The Sermon on the Mount, Philadelphia: Westminster 1957; John Wick Bowman, “An Exposition of the Beatitudes”, JBL 15 (1947), 162–170. 430 In his Norwegian book on social ethics (Mennesket i samfunnet, vol. 1, Oslo: Land og Kirke 21967, 71–86) and “Bergpredigt: II. Ethisch”, TRE 5 (1979), 618–626. Ulrich Luck took a different approach, focusing on de-radicalisation through wisdom elements in Matthew’s redaction, in his Die Vollkommenheitsforderung der Bergpredigt (1968). 431 William D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, London: SPCK 1948. He was influenced by his colleagues David Daube, Louis Finkelstein, Abraham J. Heschel, et al. E.P. Sanders was one of his students. 432 Davies, Setting (1964), 256–315; idem, Sermon on the Mount (1966). Cf. Samuel Sandmel’s critical review in ThTo 23 (1966), 290–294.

102

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

result was a tsunami of publications on the SM about 1980.433 Studies on the SM had greater influence outside Church and theology than inside.434 The SM was not high on the agenda in theology, in books on ethics, in catechetical praxis, etc. Was it because the exegetical results were diverse and the highlyspecialised scholarship had not communicated the results well enough? The key-texts in the SM and their influence. We have seen that in the history of interpretation, certain texts from the SM came into a new focus. The interpretation of the SM after 1980 confirms this observation: – The Beatitudes are applied to oppressed people, are given a concrete meaning in political theology, or are understood as ‘gospel’ and expression of grace among many theologians. – The saying about salt/light and the sayings about prayer (particularly the Lord’s Prayer) are key texts for those who read the SM as disciple-ethics. – The statement about Law and the Antitheses are the centre for dialogue with Jewish exegetes. – Some of the Antitheses and particularly Matt 5,38–47 were read as protests against violent regimes and became the key text for the peace-movement. – The saying about property and anxiety (Matt 6,19–34) was strongly seen in the framework of asceticism.435 The sociological approach (e.g. Gerd Theißen: ethos for ‘wandering radicals’) and the perspective from Hellenistic texts (e.g. H.D. Betz: the topos of tranquility of mind) presented different interpretations of this text. 1.3.9.1 Influence of the SM outside New Testament Scholarship: Debates about its Political Meaning The assassination of the Nobel laureate Martin Luther King Jr. gave power to the global liberation movement, and in the first place to the black population in the US. The Baptist pastor studied the SM and used it intensively. It was the source of inspiration for the group behind the Kairos-document (1985) in their struggle against Apartheid in South Africa. It was the same in Latin America, Christian ‘grassroots communities’, by theologians like Hélder Câmara (1909–1999), Gustavo Gutiérrez (b. 1928), Leonardo Boff (b. 1938), et al. Some groups fighting for freedom had Che Guevara more than Jesus as model, but the SM gave hope for the poor and encouraged peaceful anticapitalistic revolutions.436 433

Hubert Frankemölle, “Neue Literatur zur Bergpredigt”, TRev 79 (1983), 177–198. Cf. Goppelt, “Problem der Bergpredigt” (1968), 27: “Das Problem der Bergpredigt treibt gegenwärtig Menschen am Rande der Kirche mehr um als die Theologen.” 435 Derrett, Ascetic Discourse (1989); idem, Sermon (1994). 436 Luise Schottroff/Wolfgang Stegemann, Jesus and the hope of the poor, Eugene: Wipf & Stock 2009; Willy Schottroff, God and the Lowly: Socio-Historical Interpretations of the Bible, Maryknoll: Orbis 1984. 434

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

103

During the ‘Cold War’ the separation of politics and theology dominated. Now the so-called student-revolution in Europe protested against this and political theology became an important factor, mostly based on Marxist ideology. The so-called materialistic exegesis (e.g. Fernando Belo, Kuno Füssel, Michel Clévenot, Ton Veerkamp) did not deal as much with the SM as one would expect. The anti-capitalistic/anti-US revolutions in South America, Asia (Vietnam) and Africa gave impulses to the new post-colonial theology in South America and elsewhere. On the other hand, the SM was actively used in the peace-movements in official ‘Marxist-Leninist’ Eastern Europe. The peace-movement in the GDR was a parallel to the anti-nuclear-weapon demonstrations in the West.437 At the end of the Cold War peace-movements in East and West were united in opposition against the German military in the GDR and West Germany. After the fall of the iron curtain, it is hard to realise how intense, tense and anxious the situation was in the 1980s. Peace-movements worried people both in the East and the West. On both sides of the wall the slogans were taken from the SM: No violence by the demonstrators.438 The text of the SM appeared in many newspapers. The interpretation of the SM by the journalist, Franz Alt, reverberated both inside and outside the church.439 No wonder that 1982 was called the year of the SM.440 The debate about the SM reached the highest political levels. Three consecutive chancellors in Germany took it up. Helmut Schmidt repeated the Bismarck position: the SM cannot be used in politics. Helmut Kohl argued that the SM can hardly be used in everyday life, only within churches and their institutions. Gerhard Schröder argued that the SM was utopian, but still important in politics.441 437

Gerd Meyer/Jürgen Schröder (eds.), DDR heute: Wandlungstendenzen und Widersprüche einer sozialistischen Industriegesellschaft, Tübingen: Narr 1988. Martin Stolpe wrote in his article “Jesu Handlungsauftrag in der DDR”, ibid., 100f: Jesus preaches ‘a better/God’s righteousness’ that demands people in the GDR to act: “Ob nun Gesinnungsoder Verantwortungsethik, jedenfalls wird eine Richtung angegeben …” 438 Jürgen Moltmann (ed.), Friedenstheologie – Befreiungstheologie: Analyse – Berichte – Meditationen (Kaiser-Traktate 26), München: Kaiser 1988. 439 Franz Alt, Frieden ist möglich: Die Politik der Bergpredigt (Serie Piper), München: Piper 1983 (ET: Peace is Possible: The Politics of the Sermon on the Mount, New York: Schocken 1985); idem, Liebe ist möglich: Die Bergpredigt im Atomzeitalter, München/ Zürich: Piper 1987 (2001). Cf. idem, Jesus – der erste neue Mann, München: Piper 1989; idem, Der ökologische Jesus, München: Riemann 1999. Lack of scholarly insights and the lack of a firewall against anti-Semitic understanding allowed these books little influence in scholarly exegesis. 440 Hubert Frankemölle, “Neue Literatur zur Bergpredigt”, TRev 79 (1983), 177–198. 441 Helmut Schmidt, “Politik und Geist”, EvK 14 (1981), 209–214, here 214: not “Kanon für staatliches Handeln”. Helmut Kohl, “Die Folgen bedenken: Die Politiker und die Wirklichkeit”, in Hans-Joachim Veen (ed.), Argumente für Frieden und Freiheit,

104

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

Theological Debates. On the basis of the SM, Pope John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger argued against the ‘Marxist’ interpretation of Jesus’ teaching. Ratzinger, as leader of the ‘Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, in 1984 formulated “Instructions of certain aspects of the ‘Theology of liberation’”. “Justice as regards God and justice as regards mankind are inseparable. God is the defender and the liberator of the poor. These requirements are found once again in the New Testament. They are even more radicalized as can be shown in the discourse on the Beatitudes.” … It is “illusory and dangerous to … accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the ideology, or to enter into the practice of classstruggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads”. “… The new ‘hermeneutic’ inherent in the ‘theologies of liberation’ leads to an essentially ‘political’ re-reading of the Scriptures.”442

Inspired by Ernst Bloch and in the wake of liberation theologies Jürgen Moltmann (b. 1926) had in his “theology of hope” (1964) already formed a political theology.443 In the 1980s he was more influenced by the Anabaptist position in his reading of the SM. The Schleitheim Confession (1527) according to Moltmann was on the right track.444 These debates also challenged New Testament exegetes. Martin Hengel445 argued along the lines of Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl, and was immediately opposed by his predecessor Ernst Käsemann446 and by the specialist on biblical social ethics, Wolfgang Schrage.447 Käsemann and Schrage

Melle: Knoth 1983, 89–95. Gerhard Schröder resonated more the use of political theology after 1980. He stated: “Die Fundierung von Politik, zum Beispiel durch die Bergpredigt als zentrales Element christlicher Politik, ist für mich als Person als auch für die SPD von großer Bedeutung”, quoted after Gregor Schöllgen, Gerhard Schröder: Die Biographie, München: DVA 2015, at n. 656. 442 Ratzinger formulated this on behalf of the ‘Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, published by the United States Catholic Conference, Indiana 1984 (Ch. IV on the biblical foundation, Ch. VII on Marxist analysis and Ch. X on the ‘new hermeneutics’). It refers to Paul VI, “Octogesima Adveniens”, AAS 63 (1971), 424f. 443 J. Moltmann, Politische Theologie, politische Ethik (Fundamentaltheologische Studien 9), München: Kaiser 1984, 153f, 189–192; idem, Der Weg Jesu Christi, München: Kaiser 1989, 61, 147. The vision of the Kingdom of God functions like Ernst Bloch’s utopian image of an egalitarian society. 444 In his introduction to J. Moltmann (ed.), Nachfolge und Bergpredigt, München: Kaiser 1981, 8f. 445 Hengel, “Das Ende aller Politik” (1981); idem, “Die Stadt auf dem Berge” (1982); idem, “Die Bergpredigt im Widerstreit” (1983); idem, “Wider den politischen Mißbrauch der Bergpredigt” (1983). 446 Käsemann, “Bergpredigt – eine Privatsache?” (2005), esp. 127–129. 447 Two of Hengel’s articles together with Käsemann, “Bergpredigt – eine Privatsache?” (1982), were collected in Wolfgang Brinkel/Burkhardt Scheffler/Martin Wächter (eds.), Christen im Streit um den Frieden: Beiträge zu einer neuen Friedensethik, Freiburg i.Br.: Dreisam 1982. Cf. Schrage, “Das Ende aller Politik?” (1982).

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

105

accentuated the potential in the SM for social-ethics, whereas Hengel argued against a misuse of the text in favour of certain political agendas.448 A similar debate took place between Reinhard Feldmeier and Ulrich Luz twenty years later. Feldmeier argued strictly theologically, more like Karl Barth than Martin Hengel. Luz defended the same position as Schrage/Käsemann.449 The theologian Wolfgang Huber has recently argued against Hengel’s position.450 The SM as ethics should indeed not be mixed with politics or the field of justice: Foundation Principles Driving force Formulations

Ethics

Politics

Justice

Vision of good life Norms and criteria Motivations Rules/Maxims

Vision of society Programs Power – institutions Public discourse

Constitution Laws Norm-control Juridical decisions

One should not prevent the influence of its ethics on politics and justice. To eliminate the SM or restrict its meaning has political consequences and is accordingly a sort of ‘political theology’.451 Protestant ethicists (Wolfgang Huber, Christofer Frey, Martin Honecker, et al.)452 and Catholics (e.g. the ethicist Eberhard Schockenhoff)453 give the SM ample room within a universal ethical argumentation. Josef Ratzinger and even more, Stanley Hauerwas, emphasise the SM as disciple-ethics. It is, however, a paradox that in the same period as the influence of the SM debates flourished in society, the SM disappeared from curricula in schools and from handbooks on ethics. 1.3.9.2 The Scholarly Debate in the Age of Post-modernism Before 1980 ‘The historical-critical method’ was perceived as one concept. An absolute requirement in scholarly exegesis was the acceptance of this 448 For Hengel it was impossible to follow the argumentation by S. Schulz, “Strategie zeitgemäßer Veränderungen” (1970). 449 Feldmeier, “Die Alternative des Allmächtigen” (2003), and Luz, “Die Bergpredigt – politisches Programm oder lebensferne Utopie?” (2003). 450 Wolfgang Huber, Darauf vertraue ich: Grundworte des christlichen Glaubens, Freiburg i.Br.: Kreuz Verlag 2011 (ch. 6: “Herausfordernd für den Einzelnen und die Gesellschaft. Die Bergpredigt”). 451 Moltmann, Nachfolge (1981), 10f. 452 Christofer Frey, Theologische Ethik (Neukirchener Arbeitsbücher), NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1990; idem, Wege zu einer evangelischen Ethik: Eine Grundlegung, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 2014; Martin Honecker, Einführung in die theologische Ethik, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1990, 267–284. 453 Schockenhoff, Naturrecht und Menschenwürde (1996) (ET: Natural Law [2003]), 255–279, more comprehensive – and a bit modified – in idem, Bergpredigt (2014).

106

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

method. In the period of new historicism after 1945 this claim was often repeated. This methodological construct was launched nearly 200 years ago, and nobody practises this kind of method now any more. We have since acquired a large variety of methods applied to the SM, so the claim of ‘The historicalcritical method ’ is more myth than reality today. The criticism of the cluster of methods and of single methods took place long before the 1980s.454 Post-modernism and its close relative, postcolonialism, intensified the criticism, and labelled it as an ‘old paradigm’ that needs a fundamental rethinking. The new dynamic was most visible in US scholarship, where exegetes at universities and colleges worked closely with colleagues in the field of all kinds of new methods: literary (narrative analysis, rhetorical criticism, etc.) and socio-historical (socio-anthropological, inculturation, etc.). Post-colonialism came as a protest against the Western method. After European colonialism subsided after 1960 and was mostly terminated by the 1980s, the post-colonial approach should replace the native, vernacular – and liberation approaches.455 Perspectives like ‘central versus marginal’, ‘identity’, ‘power/hegemony/ hybridity’, anthropology, etc. came into the forefront, and were also applied to the SM.456 This interpretation of the SM is often found in popular books, together with highly specialised articles and profound studies. 1) Harsh criticism of the SM. During the last twenty years secularism has made criticism of Christianity and of the SM more aggressive and less scholarly. Dawkins’ atheism has its parallels in educated theologians who have become atheists. They use their scholarship to criticise the Bible and its ethics. Joachim Kahl and Horst Herrmann are two examples. They express admiration for the SM, but think it is unrealistic and sometimes alarming and unethical.457 Herrmann has therefore formulated an ‘Anti-Catechism’ where 454 Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 134–160, 462–472. Various kinds of ‘form-history’ have been especially criticised. 455 Rasiah S. Sugirtharajah, The Bible and the Third World: Precolonial, Colonial, and Postcolonial Encounters, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2001, 7–9, 175–275. 456 Fernando F. Segovia/Rasiah S. Sugirtharajah, A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings, London: T&T Clark 2009, 83–85. Cf. Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading (JSNTSup 204), Sheffield: Sheffield University Press 2000, 128–195; Lazare S. Rukundwa, Justice and Righteousness in Matthean Theology and its Relevance to the Banyamulenge Community: A Postcolonial Reading, PhD diss., University of Pretoria, 2007, 234–274 (applied on the SM); Mothy Varkey, Concept of Power in Sermon on the Mount: A Postcolonial Reading, Tiruvalla: Christava Sahitya Samithi 2010 (ch. 3). 457 Richard Dawkins pays respect to the SM: “The Sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time” (The God Delusion, New York: Houghton Mifflin 2008, 283). Others in the ‘No God’-movement do not admit this exceptional status, like Joachim Kahl, Weltlicher

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

107

he explicitly and implicitly refers to the SM and wants to provide a better alternative.458 John Caputo, Roland Boer and the former Pentecostal preacher, Hector Avalos have a similar agenda. Avalos sees academic biblical scholarship as an apologetic enterprise trying to consolidate its culturally and morally superior authority. Scholars in the field of ethics try to minimise its problematic aspects and Jesus and the SM should not be considered as role models in contemporary ethical development.459 2) Canonical fallacies: no fixed borderline? Post-modern thinking avoids the notion of normative sources and normative interpretation. This is also applied to the New Testament and its interpretation. To see the New Testament/ canonical writings as more important than e.g. the Qumran and Nag Hammadi texts is an illegitimate presupposition. Before 1980 these texts had a limited impact on SM research. Intensive studies of the texts have led to a new evaluation of at least the Gospel of Thomas as a potential source for the SM. Borderlines between Tanach and New Testament – more and more replaced by ‘First and Second Testament’ –, between New Testament and Early Christian writings, and between ‘orthodox’ and ‘heretical’ literature were challenged in many ways. For the study of the SM the re-evaluation of the Gospel of Thomas became very important. There is still a significant difference between scholarship in Europe versus the US when it comes to dating and evaluating the Gospel of Thomas, but the Gospel of Thomas is everywhere more frequently used as parallel text of the SM. 1.3.9.3 New Methodological Considerations concerning the SM New sources give the best input in historical science. After 1980 few new discoveries were made. Instead of new sources a number of new methods led to a revival in scholarship. The scholarship in the US, more than European scholarship, is characterized by emphasis on cultural-anthropological approaches, a broader religio-historical perspective, less biases on denomination, and a greater openness for literary criticism.

Humanismus: Eine Philosophie für unsere Zeit, Berlin: Lit 32007, and already in his bestselling pamphlet, Das Elend des Christentums, Hamburg: Rowohlt 1968 (ET: The Misery of Christianity: Or, A Plea for a Humanity without God, Harmondsworth: Penguin 1971), 23, 38 against the Antitheses, particularly Matt 5,22. 458 (Karlheinz Deschner and) Horst Herrmann, Der Anti-Katechismus: 200 Gründe gegen die Kirchen und für die Welt, Hamburg: Rasch und Röhring 1991. The former priest Herrmann thinks Matt 5,27–32 is morally and psychologically misleading. 459 Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies, Amherst: Prometheus 2007, and idem, The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press 2015. Even Matt 5,39–48 is seen in light of Jesus’ hate-speeches (Luke 14,26; Matt 10,34, etc.), ibid., 51–54.

108

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

1) Social-anthropological approaches. When it comes to the use of methods from the social sciences, recent creativity seems unlimited; sociological (feminist approach, stratification, ancient economy, post-colonial approach, etc.) and social-anthropological approaches with the themes honor–shame, clean–unclean, kinship, food, perceptions of limited good, gift, patronage– clientage, etc., have also been fruitful for the study of the SM.460 Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey launched the ‘new’ field of social anthropology applied to the Gospels and the SM.461 2) Rhetorical approaches. Next to methods from the social sciences, literary methods have been applied to Matthew/the SM (reader-response, socio-rhetorical, narrative analysis, etc.). Classical rhetoric has been used for more than 2,000 years, but fell into disrepute in the wake of historical criticism from about 1830 on. It took 150 years before rhetorical criticism was applied to the SM. After the ‘new rhetoric’ in the 1960s and in the climate of post-modernism, the number of rhetorical studies exploded after 1980.462 Rhetorical studies are often used as a tool for post-modernist perspectives, similar to the role of the ‘sophists’ before Plato and Aristotle developed rhetoric as a discipline. Rhetoric has for a long time been used merely as a tool for literary criticism, analysing the outline and certain literary forms. In SM research the problem of hyperbolic language was seen by the liberal theologians, George A. Barton (1859–1942), Paul Fiebig,463 and more recently by Anthony E. Harvey.464 The broader use of rhetoric as argumentation theory started with Amos N. Wilder465 but essentially with the classicist, George A. Kennedy. 460 Kenneth E. Bailey (1930–2018), without sophisticated methodology, has provided fruitful studies particularly of the parables in Luke and in general to Jesus’ teaching in a Mediterranean context (cf. Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 2008). 461 Malina, New Testament World (1981, 32001); idem, Social World of Jesus (2002); Malina/Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (22003); Neyrey, Honor and Shame (1998), and in Richard L. Rohrbaugh (ed.), The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, Peabody: Hendrickson 1996 (the articles: “Clean/Unclean, Pure/Polluted and Holy/Profane”, 80–104; “Meals, Food and Table Fellowship”, 159–182). 462 Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca, Traité de l’argumentation (1958). 463 W. Herrmann, Die sittlichen Weisungen Jesu (1966), 208ff; G.A. Barton, “The Meaning of the ‘Royal Law’, Matt. 5:21–48”, JBL 37 (1918), 54–65 (the SM as oriental hyperbole); Fiebig, “Sinn der Bergpredigt” (1929/30). 464 Harvey, Strenuous Commands (1990), making this approach to a key. Cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 11f, 149–161, 222–225, etc.; Thomas Kazen, “Emotional Repression and Physical Mutilation? The Cognitive and Behavioural Impact of Exaggeration in the Sermon on the Mount”, in Roitto/Shantz/Luomanen (eds.), Social and Cognitive Perspectives on the Sermon on the Mount (2019), 1–27. 465 A.N. Wilder, Early Christian Rhetoric: The Language of the Gospel, London: SCM 1964, together with Old Testament scholars in the US, e.g. James Muilenburg and recently

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

109

His work and contributions by Burton Mack, Jan Thom, Ernst Baasland, et al. will be analysed in § 3.8. 3) Orality as Centre of Debate. With the rise of the historical-critical method, oral traditions were downgraded as reliable sources. Form-history (especially M. Dibelius) saw the relevance of orality, but had basically the same negative attitude. The re-evaluation of orality by the ‘Swedish school’ and Birger Gerhardsson’s ‘rabbinic approach’ has for a long time been blocked by the dominating Bultmann-school, and criticism of Gerhardsson’s work by Morton Smith and others.466 After 1980 the ‘social memory theory’ of Maurice Halbwachs was picked up by many New Testament scholars. Simultaneously Richard Bauckham, Kenneth E. Bailey, and others gave new impulses to the scholarly debates on the role of orality. Its relevance for the source problem is obvious467 as also for the question of the composition of the SM.468 1.3.9.4 The Source-problem: Comprehensive or Competing Solutions It is perhaps too audacious a statement that 90 % of the books on the SM assume that the sermon cum grano salis originates from the historical Jesus. The breakthrough of the historical-critical method did not change very much in this respect. Source-critical questions and solutions of ‘the synoptic problem’ for the last two hundred years have often influenced the interpretation of the SM. After 1980 the emphasis on Matthew and his community have had more impact than source-theories. In general, three tendencies have dominated research on the SM. 1) The revival of Q as source and the new evaluation of the Gospel of Thomas. The focus on the Q community in the 1970s (Lührmann, Schulz, Hoffmann, Polag, et al.) led to the ‘International Q-project’ (IQP) with James M. Robinson and later John S. Kloppenborg as leading scholars. In this project the Gospel of Thomas was ackowledged as source on the same level as the Synoptics. Luke – and not Matthew – is favoured as the best source in the search for the original form of Q. Both H.D. Betz and U. Luz suggested – somehow independently from this discussion – that Matthew and Luke had a different form of Q available to

Jack R. Lundbom, “Theology in Language, Rhetoric, and Beyond”, Theology & Life 34 (2011), 253–276, and idem, Theology in Language, Rhetoric, and Beyond: Essays in Old and New Testament, Cambridge: Clarke 2015, 48ff. 466 Morton Smith’s review in JBL 82 (1963), 169–176. 467 Kirk, Q in Matthew (2016), 184–224, sees the source problem in light of orality. 468 Scott/Dean, “A Sound Map of the Sermon on the Mount” (1993). More in § 3.9 (below, p. 278).

110

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

them. They assumed more than reconstructed the content and setting of QMatt and QLuke. 2) The SM as product of Matthew. According to the two-source theory at least two thirds of the SM derive from Q and Q was generally seen as a collection of authentic Jesus sayings. Baur and the ‘Tübingen-school’ had an indifferent attitude towards the source problem and argued that the SM as Matthean text was a second-century product. This position was the main obstacle for seeing the SM as genuine teaching of Jesus. After 1980 ‘Matthew’/‘the Matthean community’ became the most important factor, as in the old Tübingen-school. The difference was the dating: we are now in the 80s of the first and not in the second century.469 The new emphasis on ‘Matthew’ as the author could be formed in a radical or a moderate way. In the dawning dispute about the SM about 1980 Willi Marxsen made the following radical statement: The SM is not Jesus’ speech, it is a creation of Matthew and it is his message to his community in the 80s.470 Andreas Lindemann made a similar statement: The SM is “von Mt selbst geschaffen und keineswegs mit der Lehre Jesu identisch”.471 The impact of ‘no way’ (German: keineswegs) can be understood drastically or moderately; the distance between the historical Jesus and the SM is in any case underlined. When Benjamin W. Bacon as early as 1902 introduced a sort of ‘redactioncriticism’, he was more cautious. He saw the SM in its final shape as an elaboration of ‘Matthew’ about 80 CE, without arguing against its authenticity. 472 Graham N. Stanton (1940–2011) has more recently presented a similar moderate view: “For Matthew, the Sermon is but one part of his attempt to set out the significance of the story and teaching of Jesus for the life of his own community”.473 He comes close to Bornkamm’s view of Matthew as a conservative redactor. Like Ulrich Luz, Stanton argued against scholars who have “removed” the SM “from its present setting in Matthew” and treat the speech “as a convenient summary of the teaching of Jesus”.474 The key-issues in the SM and in the rest of Matthew are the same. 469 A comparison between Leonhard Goppelt and his student Jürgen Roloff, in his Neues Testament (31982), 107–122, shows the difference: Roloff’s starting point is Matthew, whereas Goppelt had started with the historical Jesus. 470 Marxsen, “Streit am falschen Ort” (1982), 508: “Wir haben es nicht mit einer Rede Jesu zu tun, sondern mit einer Schöpfung des Matthäus, etwa in den achtziger Jahren des ersten Jahrhunderts.” 471 Conzelmann/Lindemann, Arbeitsbuch (61982), 258, italics mine. 472 Bacon, Sermon (1902). ‘Form-criticism’ overturned this theory but M. Dibelius and redaction-critics like Bornkamm et al. combined the two approaches. 473 Stanton, A Gospel for a New People (1992), 628. 474 Stanton, “Sermon on the Mount/Plain” (1992), 744; idem, A Gospel for a New People (1992), 309–314.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

111

A third position is to emphasise both the independence of the SM and its place within Matthew’s composition. Many scholars like H.D. Betz emphasise the independence whereas others overemphasise the Matthean character. A balanced view is possible and will be demonstrated in this book. 3) H.D. Betz’ works and efforts to explain the growth of the SM. Hans Dieter Betz (b. 1931) also tries to present a comprehensive reconstruction of the growth of the SM. He could not accept the theory of Hans-Theo Wrege who just assumed oral traditions behind the SM. According to Betz this is no solution at all.475 Betz works with the source problem ‘analytically’, asking for the date and provenance of the different units of the SM. He is quite sure that the Lord’s Prayer derives from Jesus and the SM as a whole is a pre-Matthean source composed by a redactor in the mid-50s. Matthew’s community has a strained relationship with Judaism. It reflects a contemporary polemic against Paul’s teaching (Matt 5,17–20; 7,15–23). The main part of Q circulated in two versions and Matthew is a conservative redactor of QMatt.476 The role of Matthew is significant,477 but only at the final stage of the tradition process. In § 2 we will analyse other source theories. Similar to Betz’ approach Kari Syreeni in his ‘constructive’ approach found three different strata behind the SM.478 1.3.9.5 The SM and the Third Quest; the Jewish Quest in New Light Like in the so-called ‘New Quest’ in the ‘Third Quest’ the historical Jesus is also highlighted, but the methodology of the ‘Second Quest’ was revised: – The ‘Third Quest’ uses ‘form-criticism’ less. – Q is a main witness together with the Gospel of Thomas. Mark is less important. – The ‘Second Quest’ argued from the principle of dissimilarity. The ‘Third Quest’ accentuates the Jewishness of Jesus. – The evidence from archaeology and the socio-cultural setting for Jesus, particularly the Galilean context, are significant. The result is that Jesus is seen primarily as a sage (John D. Crossan, Robert Funk, Burton Mack, Marcus J. Borg, Ben Witherington III, Stephen J. Paterson). They emphasise the strata in Q which – also according to John Kloppenborg – is unapocalyptic. The Jesus of the SM is the real Jesus.

475 Wrege, Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt (1968). Cf. H.D. Betz’ harsh criticism: “out-dated before it appeared”, Synoptische Studien (1992), 254f. 476 The structure of his solutions resembles W. Bousset’s, in “Bergpredigt”, RGG1 1 (1909), 1047–1051. 477 H.D. Betz, “The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Interpretation” (1991). 478 Syreeni, The Making of the Sermon on the Mount (1987).

112

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

However, the ‘Third Quest’ contributed – in spite of their intentions – little to research on the SM. Another paradox is that they accentuated the Jewishness of Jesus, but in the end – and in their exegesis of the SM – they emphasised the Hellenistic context more than the Jewishness.479 1) Jewish interpretation and Jewish dialogue. After 1980 respectful discussions were superceded by real dialogues. It started with dialogues with Pinchas Lapide. This historian, diplomat and master of disclosure made the SM a main object for his Jewish interpretation and had high-level dialogues with Hans Küng and Ulrich Luz.480 The dialogue between Josef Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict and the master of rabbinic studies, Jacob Neusner was really spectacular. Ratzinger designated Neusner as his favourite rabbi.481 Lapide used the Jewish ‘background’ in his interpretation of the SM in order to avoid a false understanding and false translations and to establish the correct setting for Jesus’ teaching. The SM is basically a Jewish text, and the lack of understanding the Hebrew language and mentality prevent many Christian scholars from understanding the SM.482 This presupposition was the perspective in the exegesis of David Flusser (1917–2000) after 1980, whereas Jacob Neusner (1932–2016) had a broader approach, using the parallels in the halachic tradition more intensively.483 Lapide rejects eight well-known interpretations of the SM (1. the perfectionist; Mosissimus Mose/‘Werkgerechtigkeit’, 2. the impracticable, 3. the interim-ethics, 4. the utopian, 5. disciple-ethics, 6. Romanticism, radical ethics, 7. the ethics of attitude, 8. Zelotic understanding) and opens for his own solution: the SM as realistic utopia; the obedience of God is taken with the utmost seriousness and Jesus is practising the quintessence of Judaism.

479 Many extremely valuable archaeological studies came out after 1970, but studies have been produced at all periods from scholars with totally different understandings of Jesus. Archaeology became here an ideological issue, cf. Crossan/Reed, Excavating Jesus (2001). 480 H. Küng/P. Lapide, Jesus im Widerstreit, Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag/München: Kösel 1976; P. Lapide/U. Luz, Der Jude Jesus: Thesen eines Juden, Antworten eines Christen, Zürich: Benziger 1980. 481 Jacob Neusner, “My Argument with the Pope”, The Jerusalem Post, 29 May 2007; Geza Vermes reviewed Ratzinger’s book in The Times, 19 May 2007. 482 Lapide, Sermon (1986 = Bergpredigt [1982]), 4–7. Cf. idem, Ist die Bibel richtig übersetzt?, 2 vols., Gütersloh: Mohn 2004. 483 J. Neusner, A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press 22000. Ratzinger made the following statement about this book: It is “by far the most important book for Jewish-Christian dialogue in the last decade”, Jesus of Nazareth (2007), 69(ff) in the interpretation of the Antitheses.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

113

More recently Daniel Boyarin (b. 1946) and Amy-Jill Levine (b. 1956) have studied Matthew and the SM as Jewish sources and as inner-Jewish polemic.484 Geza Vermes (1924–2013) has delivered the most comprehensive contribution after his re-conversion to Judaism in 1970. The general view of Jesus the Jew (1973) ended up with intense studies of the SM. In his latest work The Authentic Gospel of Jesus (2003) he distinguished genuine, probably authentic, and editorial material, and he confirmed the opinio communis that the SM entails mainly authentic sayings.485 Vermes, like Qumran scholars saw the wisdom-teaching and parabolic-prophetical sayings of Jesus as a specific voice within first-century Judaism. It is the common premise for these Jewish scholars that Matthew/the Gospels represent one of the best/most reliable Jewish source-documents from the first century. 2) Specialists of Jewish Studies; Philo-semitism? Otto Betz, the Qumran specialist with a profound knowledge of rabbinic texts, had a sharp eye for parallels, analogies and typologies in the Tanach. Like Jewish scholars he revealed the Jewish background that sheds new light on New Testament texts. Sometimes the analogies turned out to be typologies, using the patterns of interpretation in the Qumran texts. Betz focused on the analogy between Matt 5–7 and Exod 19 (esp. Matt 5,1–20 and Exod 19,1–8), and the SM is therefore a new Law for the new Covenant.486 Recent Jewish scholars tend to be very critical of this type of exegesis. Martin Hengel (1926–2009) was much more conscious of analogies. In his studies of Ben Sira and other Jewish texts between 200 BCE and 100 CE Hengel presented more arguments against the sharp division between Judaism and Hellenism. The SM has some Hellenistic features and is nevertheless a genuine Jewish text.487 Every individual should follow its radical demands and Christian halachah. The SM provides a new understanding of the Law based on the preaching of the Kingdom of God and on the role of the Torah in messianic times.

484

Boyarin, Border Lines, and Levine, The Misunderstood Jew (for both, see above, p. 25, n. 81). Cf. Amy-Jill Levine/Dale C. Allison/John Dominic Crossan (eds.), The Historical Jesus in Context, Princeton: Princeton University Press 2006. 485 Vermes, The Religion of Jesus (1993), 76–118; idem, The Authentic Gospel of Jesus (2003). 486 O. Betz, “Bergpredigt und Sinaitradition” (1987), 333: “Gesetz des neuen Bundes, und ihre Adressaten sind nicht primär die Jünger, sondern die Vertreter des neuen Israel”. 487 Hengel, “Jesus und die Tora” (1978); idem, “Die Bergpredigt des Matthäus und die Botschaft Jesu”, in Gottes Recht und unsere Gerechtigkeit: Beiträge aus der Evangelischen Militärseelsorge 39 (1982), 33–54; idem, “Leben in der Veränderung” (1970).

114

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

Klaus Wengst saw Jesus as a teacher of the Torah. As interpreter Jesus was entirely within the framework of Judaism. He spoke as a Jew to fellow Jews and the Torah is common ground and cannot be abolished.488 O. Betz, Hengel489 and Davies/Allison thought basically in terms of ‘new Covenant’. W.D. Davies still insisted on the Jamnia-theory. D.C. Allison put other historical, exegetical and theological arguments in the forefront, and sees the SM as inspiring moral imagination.490 1.3.9.6 The SM and Church-oriented Approaches (Evangelicals, New Anabaptists, Catholics) The division Catholic versus Protestant is hardly recognizable in scholarship on the SM. The confessional bias among Protestants can still be seen in Mennonites/Anabaptists, evangelicals and also in Methodists. Jack R. Lundbom has recently developed a similar theory to Pinchas Lapide’s from a Methodist perspective:491 The SM is a realistic way to a holy life (‘perfection’), but, different from Lapide, he sees the SM as document of a new Covenant. 1) Hauerwas: community-oriented ethics. Stanley Hauerwas (b. 1940) is one of the most influential scholars in the US. He is inspired by Bonhoeffer’s interpretation and has an affinity to the Anabaptist and Mennonite approach.492 Like Bonhoeffer, Hauerwas sees the dilemma of a pacifist position. He states that the SM “does not generate an ethics of nonviolence. Instead, it reveals that a community is necessary if the Sermon is rightly to be read and lived”.493 He argues against a literal and individual understanding of the SM. Hauerwas was open for a virtue ethics interpretation, and exegetes like Daniel J. Harrington494 or theologians like Glen H. Stassen made virtue ethics

488

Wengst, Regierungsprogramm (2010); idem, Christsein mit Tora und Evangelium: Beiträge zum Umbau christlicher Theologie im Angesicht Israels, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2014. 489 Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus (1969), cf. idem, “Jesus und die Tora” (1978/ 2007), 374; idem, “Leben in der Veränderung” (1970/2007), 213f; idem, “Zur matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund” (1986). Martin Hengel/Anna Maria Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007, 418–451. 490 Davies/Allison, “Reflections” (1991), esp. 294f, 309 (“the Sermon on the Mount proclaims likeness to the God of Israel through the virtues of Jesus Christ”); Allison, Sermon on the Mount (1999). 491 Lundbom, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (2015). 492 S. Hauerwas, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer and John Howard Yoder”, in Greenman et al. (eds.), Sermon (2007), 207–222. 493 Hauerwas, “Living the Proclaimed Reign of God” (1993), 153–157, here 157. 494 Harrington/Keenan, Jesus and Virtue Ethics (2002), 61–67 (ch. 5: “The Sermon on the Mount and Christian Virtue Ethics: How Do We Get There?”).

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

115

a major issue. Hauerwas has a broader theological argumentation: grace and deliverance are the foundations of ethical teaching.495 The Mennonite ‘Anabaptist’ position in Europe is hardly represented in scholarship. One of the few is the theologian, Jürgen Moltmann.496 In his ecumenical efforts he includes impulses from Orthodox theology as well, referring to Gerhard Lohfink: “The ethics of discipleship correspond to the Trinitarian understanding of God the Father.”497 In the fundamental guideline of the SM, “be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matt 5,48), lies also the basis for enemy-love. 2) Catholics and the Pope – and many Protestants. The Schnackenburgschool and Catholic exegetes took the leading position in the exegesis of the SM, a subject that for a long period of time had been dominated by Protestant exegetes. Rudolf Schnackenburg (1914–2002) continued his research on the SM and further extended its political meaning after 1980,498 whereas his student Helmut Merklein (1940–1999) emphasised its theological foundation. The SM delivers not extraordinary demands, nor ‘counsels’. Merklein thought the SM offered examples for a new lawgiving with ‘love’ at its centre. The concept ‘Kingdom of God’ designates a new order and this theological concept has great ethical impact.499 It surprised many that Rudolf Pesch (1936–2011) and Gerhard Lohfink (b. 1934) with prominent positions as university professors, became members of the ‘Integrierte Gemeinde’ in Munich. The decision corresponds with their exegesis of the SM. The radical demands are contrast-ethics. They are demands for devoted followers of Christ. Lohfink argued that the addressee of the SM was ‘Israel’ or ‘the circle of disciples which represented Israel’, and therefore intentionally the disciples of Jesus.500

495 Stassen/Gushee, Kingdom Ethics (2003); Stassen, Living the Sermon, New York: John Wiley & Sons 2006. Cf. Charles L. Quarles, Sermon on the Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church, Nashville: B&H Publishing Group 2011. 496 He interprets the SM more often along the lines of the Anabaptists and defends the Schleitheim Confession. 497 J. Moltmann, “God the Father in the Life of the Holy Trinity”, International Journal of Orthodox Theology 1 (2010), 38–48, here 43. 498 Schnackenburg/Gründel (eds.), Bergpredigt (1982). 499 Helmut Merklein, Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip: Untersuchung zur Ethik Jesu (FB 34), Würzburg: Echter 31984; idem, Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft: Eine Skizze (SBS 111), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 31989, esp. 77–83; idem et al., “Bergpredigt”, LTK3 2 (1994), here 254f. 500 Lohfink, Jesus and Community (1985), 35–39 = Wie hat Jesus Gemeinde gewollt? (1982), 46–50; and idem, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (1988); idem, Jesus von Nazareth (2011), esp. 273–328 (Jesus and Torah).

116

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

Lohfink’s protestant colleague in Tübingen, Peter Stuhlmacher (b. 1932), supported Lohfink’s insights even though he, like his teacher Ernst Käsemann, focused more on the SM as the ‘law of freedom’.501 A significant change in the debate came with Joseph Ratzinger’s book on Jesus in 2007. The Pope argued as theologian and on the basis of historical exegesis.502 He ended up with a form of Christological exegesis: the SM is not about morality, rather about unity with Christ. The debate about Ratzinger/the Pope’s book was most lively in Catholic circles. Here he achieved most support, and recently e.g. Michael Theobald (b. 1948) and Eberhard Schockenhoff (b. 1953) have produced more scholarly arguments for a more mainstream understanding of Ratzinger’s position.503 1.3.9.7 Comprehensive (Religion-)Historically and Hermeneutically Oriented Approaches Comprehensive studies of the SM are difficult to put into one category or one type of interpretation. We cannot put one label on the interpretations of e.g. Dale C. Allison, Gerd Theißen, Hans Dieter Betz and Ulrich Luz. Theißen and Betz particularly read the SM into a broader framework. Betz has been for decades the most prominent SM-scholar. His collection of essays (1985), his commentary (1995), his studies of various problems of the SM make him one of the most productive and influential exegetes in this field of studies.504 He sees the SM as an extremely sophisticated theological and ethical document. It can even be compared with philosophical Hellenistic texts. 1) An ideological setting of the SM? Gerd Theißen (b. 1943) thinks the SM consists of authentic Jesus-sayings, sayings from Q and Matthew’s general interests. A more detailed source- and tradition-criticism is therefore superfluous. Theißen’s main concern is the ideological setting of the SM. He uses comparisons extensively: is the ethics based on commandments or on insight? Are the Antitheses about intensification or mitigation? Can universal or radical tendencies be combined? Does renunciation of status play a role for the concept of loving neighbours? What impact has wisdom versus eschatology? Theißen is a master when it comes to asking the right questions and having 501

Stuhlmacher, “Jesu vollkommenes Gesetz der Freiheit” (1982). Ratzinger, Jesus von Nazareth I (2007), 64–127 (chs. IV + V on “The Lord’s Prayer”, 128–168). The mixed reactions among scholars were predictable. The very fact that the Pope – not exercised by the magisterium – presented his perspective was a great stimulus to scholarship and gave lay people access to current exegesis of the SM. 503 Michael Theobald, “Wie die Bergpredigt gelesen werden will”, TQ 192 (2012), 256– 279; Schockenhoff, Bergpredigt (2014). 504 H.D. Betz, Essays (1985) = Studien zur Bergpredigt (1985); idem, The Sermon on the Mount (1995); idem, Synoptische Studien (1992). Cf. idem, “Sermon on the Mount/ Plain” (1992). 502

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

117

clear categories. The result is that texts open up, and this results in rather unexpected insights into Jesus’ teaching in general, and into the SM as well. 2) Hermeneutical approach. There is no specific ‘Swiss’ interpretation of the SM. The long history of interpretation since Zwingli, Calvin and the Anabaptists has probably provided a certain horizon for interpreting the SM among Swiss scholars. The hermeneutical effort is commonplace for them. Eduard Schweizer’s (1913–2006) balanced studies on Matthew and the SM offered some original perspectives. For Schweizer the SM “urges men to draw practical conclusions; at the same time, it must be clearly maintained that love springing from faith can never become a program. In political and social movements, it must remain the salt and light …”505 Schweizer’s students, Hans Weder (b. 1946) and Ulrich Luz (b. 1938), continued Schweitzer’s work and his thesis that ‘love’ summarizes the message of the SM. Weder thinks Jesus really replaces the Law506 and in the Antitheses expresses an immoderate view (German: Maßlosigkeit) of the commands.507 Few have better formulated the theological implications of the SM-sayings. Luz is primarily a Matthew-scholar, and he reads the SM within the framework of Matthew. Luz was given the prestigious task of writing the article on the SM in RGG4 by the editor and the most famous SM scholar of today, H.D. Betz.508 Luz sees the prayer in Matt 6,10 (γενηθήτω τὸ θέληµά σου) as the centre of the SM, based on his consequent chiastic structuring of the SM (see below § 3.7.2). The love-commandment is the core of the Antitheses,509 and from here Luz develops the ethical and political meaning of the SM. 1.3.9.8 Retrospect Four main tendencies dominated scholarship after 1980. (a) Scholarship was during this period highly specialised; new methods, new approaches, impulses from the social sciences, specialised source theories and hypotheses about the ʻMatthean communityʼ, etc. divided scholars. A common exegetical effort on the SM has been more difficult than ever. This was not considered as a problem because it fits into a post-modernist way of thinking: no common paradigm should be established. 505

Schweizer, Bergpredigt (21984); idem, Matthäus (41986), 124–135 = Matthew (1975), 193–209. Original is his approach to Matt 6,1–18: “Der Jude im Verborgenen”, in idem, Matthäus und seine Gemeinde (1974), 86–97. 506 Weder, Rede der Reden (1985), 100: “setzt sich Jesus ab gegenüber dem Gesetz des Mose, und also nicht gegenüber einer Auslegung eines bestimmten Schriftgelehrten”. 507 Weder, ibid., 105–107, 153–155, has good observations on the “maßlose Vorstellung vom Leben”. “Leben besteht in der Beziehung zur Liebe, die nicht beeinträchtigt wird von Haß und Zorn” (ibid., 107). 508 Luz, “Bergpredigt”, RGG4 1 (1998), 1309–1315. 509 Ibid., 1315. Cf. Luz, Matthäus I (52002), 543 = idem, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 392.

118

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

(b) Confessional biases played less a role. It might still be worth noticing that a scholar is Catholic, Anabaptist, Methodist, or ‘liberal’, ‘evangelical’, etc. The confessional biases are more often replaced by self-criticism on behalf of the actual denomination. (c) Increasing secularisation and multiculturalism put ethical and not dogmatic questions in the forefront. The ethos of the SM in a broader philosophical framework, and not eschatology and theological framework is the focus. Studies of the SM in the framework of philosophy deal with questions of life more generally. (d) The Jewishness of the SM is emphasised more profoundly than ever. 1.3.10 Influence and Interpretation of the Most Influential Speech Ever The influence of the SM is overwhelming. It can be followed through 20 centuries and in all religions and nearly all regions and cultures; how genuinely, how broadly and how deeply is another question. The comprehensive efforts of interpretation are not that amazing, but the overview has shown that few texts better than the SM illustrate the thesis of Gerhard Ebeling that the history of the church is the history of its interpretation of the Scripture.510 This influence is not always based on sophisticated scholarly interpretations. Scholarly interpretations sometimes have a rather modest influence. On the other hand, the influence will never last if it is not based on a profound understanding of the SM. Scholarly interpretations have the potential to provide this help, and sometimes they deepen the meaning that made the SM influential. The scholarship of the SM is today primarily a task for exegetes. The history of research has shown, however, that it is theologians more than exegetes who have dominated in the history of research. When typical interpretations of the SM are listed, most of them are formulated by theologians. Augustine, John Chrysostom, Luther and Calvin had exegetical skills, but were primarily theologians. Even after the ‘historical-critical method’ started to dominate, theologians like W. Herrmann, L. Ragaz, D. Bonhoeffer, K. Barth, S. Hauerwas, J.H. Yoder and J. Ratzinger are more often quoted than many exegetes.511 A number of exegetes have still made a great impact in the research of the SM. Names such as G. Kittel, M. Dibelius, J. Jeremias, W.D. Davies, R. Schnackenburg, M. Hengel, G. Lohfink, G. Theißen, U. Luz and H.D. Betz must be mentioned. 510 Gerhard Ebeling, Kirchengeschichte als Geschichte der Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift, Tübingen: Mohr 1947. 511 In all histories of interpretation, by Kantzenbach, Bergpredigt (1982); Kissinger, Sermon (1975); Bauman, Sermon (1985); Greenman et al. (eds.), Sermon (2007).

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

119

1.3.10.1 The Influence The influence and interpretation of the SM closely follow developments in society, in the history of ideas and the sociology of knowledge. 1) Factors contributing to influence. The most important factor is that the text is accessible, that the message is heard. The influence in other religions and in a secular society is always significant when it is studied. Another crucial factor is Christians who live out the SM – inside monasteries and more significantly, outside in the daily life in every nook and cranny of society. A counterproductive factor is too often the Church, when church leaders downplay its importance, when Christians neglect its message, when it is interpreted in a way that alienates people from its message, etc. The channels for the study of the SM have been the Sunday services/ sermons, the catechetical schools, the monasteries, the universities, but it might surprise us that the SM has been more strategically used in the Church. It has been part of the catechetical tradition, but the limited use of the SM in a catechetical context is indeed more surprising. In the Catholic churches the SM remains foundational in the monasteries, and less in the broader catechetical tradition. Luther replaced the SM with the Decalogue and Calvin did the same, and it has had lingering effects in Protestant churches. The first European schools were linked to the monasteries or governments, and served as preparation for the monasteries or the universities.512 The first general schools in the UK and elsewhere in Europe were inspired by Johann Amos Comenius (1592–1670), who came from the ‘Bohemian brethren’ with their emphasis on a literal understanding of the SM.513 The charity schools in the UK or the schools based on pietism should prepare for the confirmation/ catechetical teaching, and here also the Decalogue replaced the SM. In many countries the SM was part of the curriculum in upper secondary schools, but we note the decline as secularisation/communism came to play a more significant role. 2) The universal influence and the exegetical interpretation. Even thinkers outside the churches have influenced the interpretation of the SM. Tolstoy, Gandhi, and many philosophers and Jewish interpreters have influenced the scholarly debates about the right interpretation. 512 These schools and the schools in the cities in the middle ages, were teaching the seven artes liberales (trivium: grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, and quadrivium: geometry, arithmetic, music and astronomy). Latin was the basic language, but in the wake of nationalism, the vernacular language and traditions took over. 513 Comenius worked at many places, and accepted invitations to the UK and Sweden. Cf. Walter Eykmann, Friedensverkündigung und Friedenserziehung: Ein Versuch ihrer wechselseitigen Zuordnung, Würzburg: Echter 1991, 190, 209; Johann Amos Comenius, Kurzgefaßte Kirchen-Historie (1605/1739), in Erich Beyreuther (ed.), Quellen zur Geschichtsschreibung der Böhmischen Brüder, Hildesheim/New York: Olms 1980, 11f.

120

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

The philosophical-ethical reflection has often debated principles from the SM. Not only the ‘Golden Rule’, the enemy-love commandment and the judgment-saying (Matt 7,1), but also the issue of poverty versus prosperity, the role of benefactor and gift, the notion of ‘intramission’ versus ‘extra-mission’ (6,22f) and the issue of hypocrisy, have engaged philosophers such as Lessing, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Marx, Schopenhauer, Bergson, Ricœur, et al. The influence of the SM on Christian theology and ethics was immense at least until the breakthrough of historical criticism/historicism. One can ask: how strong has the influence on the ethical and theological thinking been in the last century? The influence is not completely overwhelming if we are looking into the dogmatical and ethical handbooks. Few ‘dogmatics’514 and some ‘ethics’515 devote a separate paragraph to the SM, or use the SM actively in their argumentation. To a certain extent this lack of influence can be explained through the specialised character of theological studies. The SM has increasingly been a discipline for New Testament scholars. The broad influence has indirectly impacted the interpretation. The interpretation should keep the dialogue with other religious traditions and with philosophers open. Specialisation in theology is necessary, but can be an obstacle for the broader dialogue. 1.3.10.2 Factors Affecting the Interpretation Three other factors have had an enormous impact on the interpretation. 1) The dialogue with Jewish interpreters. The dialogue with Jews has to run differently from the dialogue with other religions, because Jesus was a Jew, and talked like a Jew to a mainly Jewish audience. Nearly every saying has a Jewish parallel, but it was still perceived as something unusual and Jews reacted against it from the very beginning. ‘Trypho’ found it too radical, and after Constantine the polemics against the SM became increasingly sharp. After the Enlightenment Jews could see the SM in a universal perspective, and with Moses Mendelssohn an intensive dialogue took place. A far-reaching wave of conversions took place, and from Neander to Billerbeck/Fiebig516 Jews became biblical scholars. The exegesis is still profiting from their works. Research on the SM changed significantly through their works with the Jewish parallels. The article on the SM in the Jewish Encyclopedia 1927 included the SM among Jewish ethical writings. 514

K. Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik, vol. III/2, Zürich: TVZ 1948, 766–782. Thielicke, Theologische Ethik I (1981), 559–609; Honecker, Einführung (above, p. 105, n. 452), etc. 516 M. Dibelius in his review of P. Fiebig’s book underlined the Jewish roots of the SM (in TLZ 1925). 515

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

121

In spite of the anti-Jewish resentment and the exegetes – not only in Germany – who interpreted the SM as a protest against Judaism,517 Jewish interpreters – both before (Klausner, Baeck, Buber, Bergson, et al.) and after the Holocaust – continued to argue that the Jewish background is decisive for the interpretation of the SM. More recently P. Lapide, G. Vermes and M. Hengel, K. Wengst together with E.P. Sanders’ ‘new perspective’ or the ‘within Judaism perspective’ have focused on the Jewishness of the SM in new ways. The preunderstanding of ‘Judaism’ and of the Jewish questions behind the SM have proved to be a decisive factor for the understanding of the SM. 2) The impact of confessional biases and theological schools. Geography and culture have proved to be a factor in exegesis. In Europe there are still certain differences between England, Scandinavia, German-speaking countries, France, and the Italian/Spanish-oriented scholarship. Greek scholars or scholars living in Israel/the Middle East see the text through their lenses. Scholarship in the US has its rich diversity, and in recent years Latin America, Africa and Asia have also contributed to the exegesis of the SM. Some of them are written within the framework of post-colonial exegesis. The Middle East and North Africa have the longest history of interpretation of the SM, but this perspective has so far mostly been studied through the lenses of Europeans (J. Jeremias, K. Bailey, et al.). Christian denominations have had an enormous impact and formed certain types of interpretation of the SM. There is a variety of positions within most denominations, but many Protestants still use the label ‘Catholic’ for the monastic interpretation of the radical demands. Similarly, Catholic scholars have a tendency to attach the ‘the two-realms theory’ or the ‘repentanceeffect’ position to Lutherans. The variety of positions in Lutheran churches is perhaps greater than among Catholics, and there is rather a lack of solidarity between the two ‘Lutheran’ aspects. The same would be the case among ‘Anglican’ or ‘Reformed’ exegetes, while the solidarity among Anabaptists is perhaps stronger. We see the same among exegetes that define themselves as Dispensationalists. The denominations have had less impact in the globalised and ecumenical climate. Sometimes forms of piety like ‘monastic’, ‘pietistic’, ‘evangelical’, ‘ascetic’, belonging to ‘grassroots churches’, etc. play a bigger role. Theological schools have more impact, as we see in the approaches of Liberal Theology, Social Gospel, Dialectical Theology, Existential Theology, Evangelical Theology, Liberation Theology, etc. 517

In liberal exegesis, partly in the Bultmann-school, and among ‘conservatives’ (G. Kittel, et al.), all emphasising Jesus’ protest against particularism and theocracy, against the Torah, the ritual laws and its halachic interpretation, etc. The general attitude towards the Jewishness of the SM varies from philo-Semitism and continuity thinking, to an antiSemitic ideology, rhetoric (and even supporting actions) and emphasis of discontinuity.

122

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

3) The formulated methods and historiographical awareness. Looking back on the history of research three observations should be highlighted: (a) Exegetes who have made schools (F.C. Baur and the Tübingen-school, or R. Bultmann and the Bultmann-school) or have not made schools in the exegesis of the SM. (b) No specific type of interpretation is based on approaches such as religion-history,518 form-criticism, redaction-criticism or literary approaches. Redaction-criticism has been the most significant, but it placed the focus more on Matthew than on the SM. Scholars within the different schools in fact hold diverse opinions about the SM. (c) How big a difference do the methods make on influence and interpretation? Have source-, form-, or redaction-criticism made the most impact, or have other methods made a greater impact? Some literary methods can easily be applied to the SM, particularly rhetorical criticism, audience-criticism/reception-theories. Theories from social anthropology should also be applied: the concepts of honour and shame, purity, gift, benefactor, are certainly helpful. These concepts lead to a better understanding of the general ‘religious’, ‘theological’, ‘ethical’ or ‘philosophical’ meaning of the SM – perspectives which traditional exegetical methods (source-, form-, redaction-criticism, etc.) do not easily work out. On the other hand, modern textual theories (Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, Gérard Genette, Paul De Man, Cleanth Brooks, et al.) are not helpful in the exegesis of the SM. The SM has not been a training ground for new methods and experimental exegesis. The narratives in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and John give more room for this kind of testing and have been the subjects of innovative approaches. 1.3.10.3 Historical Interpretation and Actual Influence Understanding and interpretation are not always the same. The notion of historical meaning has to do with the understanding of phenomena in the past. Interpretation illuminates their actual and potential meaning. Interpretation cannot be restricted to the historical meaning. The meaning today is equally important. The actual meaning of the SM for a person or a church is one thing. Its (potential) theological and the philosophical meaning must also be considered. The notion of ‘historical’ or historic meaning is ambiguous. The historic meaning can mean the history one reconstructs – through the best methods. It also means the setting of the SM: geographically, sociologically, socio-anthro518 Söderblom, Jesu bergspredikan (see above, p. 64, n. 272); cf. René Kieffer, “Bergspredikan enligt Nathan Söderblom: Presentation och kommentar”, SEÅ 65 (2000), 215–226: Dietz Lange, Nathan Söderblom und seine Zeit, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2011.

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

123

pologically, religiously, primarily its Jewishness. Thirdly historical meaning can have the notion of making history, the positive impact of an historical event and in this case the SM. An actual interpretation that applies the SM to our society must be accompanied by profound hermeneutical reflection. 1) Reflection on the limitations of the SM. There are certainly (at least five) limitations in the SM itself: Historical

Forms

Ethical

Theological

Philosophical

Galilee, groups in first century CE Jewish context

Imageries Rhetoric Contemporary tools of interpretation

Selection of ethical issues Realism Underlying issues

Selection of theological themes519 Something precedes

Selection of problems Realism Underlying issues

The typical way to characterise these limitations is to use the reductional ‘only’ or ‘not’; the SM was only for a peculiar group in first-century Galilee and not for us. The SM is only exaggerations and not norms. The ethics is only for ascetics, only for private matters and not social ethics, not for society as a whole. The theological themes are only situational and not theological propositions and do not make explicit what preceded. The SM does not offer philosophical reflection, but is only eschatological preaching. I will argue that nearly all ‘onlys’ and ‘nots’ are misleading and some are false. 2) The ethical and theological-philosophical meaning. Representatives of all religions, from every generation and from all kinds of people have acknowledged the SM as a relevant text in the time they/we live in. The SM has the unique potential to be perceived as a universal philosophy of life. Bultmann saw clearly that a theological exegesis must have an open dialogue with philosophy. The basic understanding of history, language, etc. is always part of the process towards a deeper understanding. Long before hermeneutics became a discipline, interpretation included a second step, which can be named differently, but always looks for the general and actual meaning: The commands of the SM must be seen within a broader, ethical, theological and philosophical framework. They must be connected to general problems, and it is always a question of how comprehensive they are. The ethical, theological and philosophical meanings broaden the horizon for the meaning of the SM. The historical meaning must come first and is basic. To distil an eternal meaning, an unchangeable meaning, does not lead us to the goal. This hermeneutical process in the interpretation of the SM is more vital for interpreters than in other texts.

519

E.g. the problem of evil is only referred to (Matt 5,37; 6,13)

124

§ 1 Remarks on the History of Research

3) Intrinsic meaning – extended meanings. What is the meaning of the SM when confronted with actual problems? The difference between then and now, between the first addressees (Jesus’ audience), Matthew’s audience and later audiences, the differences in ethical, theological and philosophical context, must be considered when asking: does the SM offer guidelines for churches today? Can the SM be applied directly to political situations? The range of this extended meaning will always challenge interpreters. The extended meaning will be exactly the same as the intrinsic meaning. But the later interpretations (application/extension of meaning) should be congruent with the historic meaning. 1.3.10.4 From History of Research to Nine Crucial Problems and Four Questions The history of research has prepared for the following study of the SM. Basically two problems are at stake, which here should be differentiated in more detail: Historical questions, but often implying systematic questions

Historical, but more or less systematic questions

reconstruction: – Is it Jesus’ words? (authenticity) – Do we have an inaugural speech? – Matthew’s contribution its Jewishness or Hellenistic Setting genre and composition

audience radicalism ethics philosophy/theology historical & actual meaning

The ten problems have different weight, are understood differently, are treated with different methods and are intertwined with some or many of the other problems. The following scheme gives an overview of the nine or ten problems: Basically historical historical decisive Influences: Jewishness composition audience radicalism philosophy ethics Problems: historical Jesus sources/IS Matthew

Historical and actual meaning

Jewishness composition important limited role

audience radicalism philosophy ethics

audience theology philosophy ethics

parallels? historicity norms patterns motivation transmission

audience for some

radicalism for many

philosophy ethics for many decisive

Jewishness Jewishness

Jewishness Jewishness

audience radicalism philosophy philosophy ethics ethics

audience audience radicalism radicalism philosophy ethics

frame Matthew?

Antitheses Kingdom Jewish? of God?

Antitheses

1.3 Interpretation (and Influence) of the SM through History

125

All the questions do not deal only with the historical questions, but have straightforward implications for the actual meaning of the SM. The questions of composition, Jewishness, audience, radicalism, ethics and theology, must be rooted in historical analysis. The questions of audience and radicalism are closely intertwined, and the same is the case for the evaluation of ethics and theology and also of ethics and radicalism. All questions have some influence, but not all of them necessarily have substantial influence on the interpretation. – What problem is given most weight; why is one problem emphasised more than others? – The ten problems are always intertwined with some of the other problems. – Some problems include many aspects or sub-problems, and we have to choose the focus. – The methods applied to the nine problems are not always the same, and a variety of methods must be used; the methods linked to source-criticism (form-, redaction-criticism, etc.) will quickly be a limitation for exegesis. E.g. ‘rhetorical method’, ‘comparison’ used in religious history, sociological and socio-anthropological methods will be used as well as a number of tools for analysing theological, ethical and philosophical questions. The SM is a fascinating text: easy to understand and yet with an enormous complexity.

§ 2 The Historical Quest: Sources, Orality and Authenticity Exegetical scholars and historians should respond to the lessons from the history of research. – An overwhelming majority of interpreters see the speech cum grano salis as teaching of the historical Jesus. How reliable is this evaluation? – The most critical voices are exegetes working with ‘source-criticism’, form- and especially redaction-criticism. One branch of redaction-criticism denounces the SM as simply a product in the mind of ‘Matthew’, even though the hyper-critical form-historical approach is somewhat reticent in its evaluation of the SM. One should ask: are the majority of interpreters too mild, gentle and sympathetic in their evaluation of the sources? Or do some exegetes tend to be hyper-critical out of all proportion? Scholarship cannot be content with this unresolved situation, or present renewed arguments for one position or the other. It takes the exegetes into the basic problems of historiography and methodology1 and raises questions like: Is the past what it really was,2 should we still say ‘No documents, no history’? Or is the oldest source, the oral history, still in some ways the newest? What is the relation between the facts3 (what happened) and the actual narration of the events? Can we find general laws,4 or how far can we reconstruct motives in history?5 1 Alphons Lhotsky, Aufsätze und Vorträge, vol. III: Historiographie, Quellenkunde, Wissenschaftsgeschichte, München: Oldenbourg 1972. 2 Edward H. Carr, What is History?, London: Macmillan 1961; Jörn Rüsen, Kann gestern besser werden? Essays zum Bedenken der Geschichte (Kulturwissenschaftliche Interventionen), Berlin: Kadmos 2003; Knut Kjeldstadli, Fortida er ikke hva den en gang var (“The past is not what it once was”): En innføring i historiefaget, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 1999. 3 Arndt Brendecke, “Tatsache”, in Stephan Jordan (ed.), Lexikon Geschichtswissenschaft, Stuttgart: Reclam 2002, 282–285. 4 Carl Hempel, “The Function of General Laws in History”, Journal of Philosophy 39 (1942), 35–48. 5 Robin G. Collingwood, The ldea of History, London: Oxford University Press 31970, 9, 217ff; cf. Carol Collier Kuhlthau, Seeking Meaning: The Subject Approach to Information, Westport: Libraries Unlimited 2004.

128

§ 2 The Historical Quest

A hundred years ago, the books on historiography and methodology flourished. These books summed up the debates from 1820–1920.6 Recently there came a new wave, summing up the debates since the 1970s.7 These books illuminate many of the problems in exegesis. These complicated issues must here be boiled down into two main questions: how should the SM be handled as source? How do the debates on authenticity relate to the current debates on historiography and methodology? 1) What does historical reconstruction of the SM mean? Interpretation and historical reconstruction must go hand in hand. The historical reconstruction implies an interpretation, and the interpretation entails historical reconstruction. As procedure the historical-critical questions must come first, and in the historical analysis we have now to deal with two or three questions: (a) The source problem: Can we reconstruct an ‘Inaugural Speech’ (IS) behind the SM? Is this speech more like the SP or the SM? Is the SM basically Matthew’s own work? I have recently analysed rather extensively the question of a possible reconstruction of the ‘Inaugural Speech’ and the question of Matthew’s specific contribution.8 We can therefore (in § 2.1.3–4) concentrate on the question: How do we explain the common traditions and the differences in the SM/SP? This means an analysis of the linguistic features and style of argumentation in the IS/Q, in the ‘Marcan’ parts of the SM and in Matthew’s ‘Sondergut’. (b) This analysis must to a large extent be made within the framework of literacy, assuming that the pre-text are literary sources. However, the role of orality should not be overlooked: How far are solutions within literacy

6 Charles-Victor Langlois/Charles Seignobos, Introduction aux études historiques, Paris: Hachette 1898. In Germany Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie (31903, 11889), cf. Droysen, Grundriss der Historik (1868; critical edition 1977), based on Barthold Niebuhr’s and Leopold von Ranke’s methodology. Arthur Rosenberg, Einleitung und Quellenkunde zur römischen Geschichte, Berlin: Weidmann 1921 (repr., Hildesheim: Weidmann 2004). In Scandinavia Kristian Erslev, Historisk teknik, København: J. Erslev 1911; Lauritz Weibull, Historisk-kritisk metod och nordisk medeltidsforskning, Lund: Gleerup 1913. 7 Jerzy Topolski, Methodology of History, Dordrecht: Reidel 1976; Jörn Rüsen, Für eine erneuerte Historik: Studien zur Theorie der Geschichtswissenschaft, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog 1976; idem, Rekonstruktion der Vergangenheit: Die Prinzipien der historischen Forschung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1986. Hans-Jürgen Goertz, Umgang mit Geschichte: Eine Einführung in die Geschichtstheorie (Rowohlts Enzyklopädie 555), Hamburg: Rowohlt 1995; Stefan Jordan, Theorien und Methoden der Geschichtswissenschaft: Orientierung Geschichte (UTB), Paderborn: Schöningh 2008; Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen, Til kilderne! Introduktion til historisk kildekritik, København: Gad 2007; Torsten Thurén, Källkritik, Stockholm: Liber 2005. 8 Baasland, “Auf der Spur einer ‘Grundsatzrede’ vor der Bergpredigt” (2019) and “Matthew’s Elaborations of the ‘Inaugural Speech’” (2020).

§ 2 The Historical Quest

129

possible and fruitful? An analysis of the role of orality is a bridge to the question(s) of authenticity (§ 2.5). (c) The historical-critical work cannot avoid the question of authenticity: Is the setting of the ‘Inaugural Speech’, and most parts of the sayings in the SM, authentic? (§ 2.6–8) As historians we have to ask for the best and oldest sources and explain the variety of sources. Source-criticism must come first in order to find the oldest source. This is seemingly the procedure of the so-called ‘hypothetic-deductive method’ (HDM). The basis is that the hypothesis should be proved to be false or the conjecture is proved to be true. Applied as a method in the field of history, the first step is the consideration of the sources, which is claimed to be objective and ideologically neutral. This step is isolated from the explanation of the sources. The second step has more ideological components, but it is an ideal in HDM thinking that even at this step ideology should be avoided as much as possible. The naivety of these claims is often documented in recent historiography, and will be widened here. The procedure of consideration of the sources comes first, and the further historiographical question be will investigated in a dialogue with the consideration of the sources.

Few scholars operate with the term ‘historical-critical’ as one type of interpretation.9 It is rather perceived as a dogmatic statement. We have a variety of methods, a variety in the usage of certain methods (e.g. source-, form-, redaction-criticism) and scholars are well aware of conflicting methods. 2) Historiography – an urgent matter in scholarship. Normal historical methods and tools are used in many ways in studies of the New Testament. However, it can be very confusing when we compare books on methodology in historical science with current influential books on New Testament methods. A historian approaching New Testament scholarship walks into a foreign landscape, with a number of specialised methods. On the other hand, New Testament scholars make little use of the tools in normal historical methodology,10 which mostly consist of three parts:

9

Davies/Allison, “Reflections” (1991). For an extensive argumentation, see my Theologie und Methode (1992), 183–196, 230(255)–262. Recently especially Jens Schröter has faced this challenge, “Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Historiographie und Hermeneutik in der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft”, in Petr Pokorný/Jan Roskovec, Philosophical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis (WUNT 153), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2002, 191–203 (and “Einleitung”, ibid., IX–XVI); Jens Schröter/Antje Eddelbüttel (eds.), Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit: Beiträge aus geschichtstheoretischer, philosophischer und theologischer Perspektive (TBT 137), Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter 2004. He applies it on the question of authenticity in: “The Criteria of Authenticity in Jesus Research and Historiographical Method”, in Chris Keith/Anthony Le Donne (eds.), Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity, New York: T&T Clark 2012, 49–70. 10

130

§ 2 The Historical Quest

(a) Source-study (German: ‘Quellenkunde’) contemplates, evaluates the sources (when, where, who, original form, genre, credibility). The differentiation between and reflection on ‘source’ versus ‘relic’ are fundamental in historiography. Even this established terminology is hardly used or debated in exegetical literature. (b) The theory of history (German: ‘Geschichtstheorie’) opens for the wider historiographical questions. One aspect of the theory of history, the explanations, should be much more central in Jesus research. The actual debate on criteria should not be isolated from general historiographic theory. (c) The third dimension must at least be mentioned because much historical research consists of presenting reconstructed history. The British historian Hayden White has shown11 that this narrative often is highly influenced by the historians’ political and ideological perceptions. The way historical facts are put together in narratives is not objective in the sense of being ideologically neutral.

2.1 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) I: The SM as ‘Source’ or ‘Relic’ In 1824 Leopold von Ranke formulated his famous dictum about the task of a historian: it is “bloß sagen, wie es eigentlich gewesen” (= merely tell how it really was).12 The dictum expressed a criticism of a subjective and idealistic (Hegelian) understanding of history, and also a criticism of oral traditions. Only written sources have historical value.13 Hegelian historians considered every source as ‘relics’, reflecting the ‘spirit’ (German: Geist) of the community behind the sources. Ranke’s ideal was different: One should firstly reconstruct the reliable contemporary ‘sources’, because they reflect the historical reality. Later sources, oral traditions and non-verbal sources are

11

H. White, Metahistory (1973), 29ff; idem, Tropics of Discourse (1986), 66ff. Literature and not science (German: ‘Naturwissenschaft’) gives the models. 12 Leopold von Ranke, Sämtliche Werke, vol. 33/34: Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1514, Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot 31885, 7: “Man hat der Historie das Amt, die Vergangenheit zu richten, die Mitwelt zum Nutzen zukünftiger Jahre zu belehren, beigemessen; so hoher Ämter unterwindet sich gegenwärtiger Versuch nicht: er will bloß sagen, wie es eigentlich gewesen” (italics mine). In his preface (and Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber, Leipzig: Reimer 1824) he quoted Thucydides (I,22, cf. II,48,3) and referred to Aristotle’s differentiation between poetry and history in Ars poetica 9, Plutarch, Pericles 17, and Lucian, Quomodo 39. 13 On the interpretation of Ranke’s saying, cf. Walther Peter Fuchs, “Was heißt das: ‘bloß zeigen, wie es eigentlich gewesen’?”, in Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 30 (1979), 655–667, and Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 340–342.

2.1 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) I

131

‘relics’, or if we use the terms from the historiography about 1900–1930: images, oral tradition and literary sources.14 Literary sources were considered as the most reliable, and the differentiation between ‘source’ and ‘relic’ became therefore fundamental in historiography. ‘Source’ is in this sense a report that is close to the historical event, and it thus has more credibility. ‘Relic’, on the other hand, reflects the use of a historical event at a later stage. According to Charles-Victor Langlois/ Charles Seignobos, “l’histoire se fait avec les documents”, the sources are traces left by human thoughts and needs in the past (d’autre fois).15 Reports on historical-critical Jesus-research tend – since Albert Schweitzer’s monumental work – to start with David Friedrich Strauss (and not Ranke).16 Strauss came from a Hegelian tradition, and he did not put too much confidence in these source-critical studies. The Gospels expressed a ‘reflective history’ a long time after the historical events, and Strauss was therefore hyper-critical of the Gospel tradition. The parables and the SM were for Strauss the exceptions: He considered them as predominantly authentic.17 Schweitzer – whose interest in source-criticism was limited – summed up his arguments in a brilliant way: “either purely historical or purely supernatural”, “either Synoptic or Johannine”, and he added: “either eschatological or uneschatological”.18 Strauss still saw the SM as (mostly) an authentic Jesus speech – in spite of the general methodology and in spite of Bruno Bauer’s harsh criticism. The Baur-school (Adolf Hilgenfeld, Otto Pfleiderer, et al.) changed the perspective more in accordance with Baur’s principles, and the SM was seen rather as Matthew’s freely composed speech, in which he reflects the challenges of his own time.19 The SM has since then often been seen as a ‘relic’ for certain communities, reflecting the existence and theology of the earliest Palestinian Church or the late Q community.

14

Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie ( 1903), 104ff: “bildliche (historische Gemälde, topographische Darstellungen, historische Skulpturen); mündliche (Erzählungen, Sagen, Anekdoten, Sprichwörter, historische Lieder); schriftliche (historische Inschriften, Genealogien, Kalender, Annalen, Chroniken, Biographien, Memoiren)” etc. Cf. Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 184. 15 Langlois/Seignobos, Introduction aux études historiques (above, n. 6), 1. 16 Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (21913), ET: The Quest of the Historical Jesus (51962). The first edition in 1906 had the title Von Reimarus zu Wrede. 17 Strauss, Leben Jesu (1835/2010), 334–342. 18 Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (21913), 232 (“entweder rein geschichtlich oder rein übernatürlich”, “entweder synoptisch oder johanneisch”, “entweder eschatologisch oder uneschatologisch”) = Quest (51962), 238. 19 For Pfleiderer, see above, p. 61, n. 254. 3

132

§ 2 The Historical Quest

2.1.1 The SM as ‘Source’ for the Historical Jesus Many scholars were eager to rescue the Gospels and the SM from the hypercriticism of Strauss/B. Bauer. Due to Ranke’s criticism of oral traditions, source-criticism became the most important task for many exegetes. Ranke’s colleagues in Berlin, Christian Hermann Weisse and Karl Lachmann, responded to Ranke’s challenge. Lachmann (and Christian Gottlob Wilke) offered more than sufficient arguments for Marcan priority and Weisse (and Wilke) added the Q theory a few years later (in 1838).20 Two written sources should be the starting point, and this ‘Two-document hypothesis’ (2DH) became the pillar for much of the research into the historical Jesus. We see an enthusiasm for the reconstruction of Q, a source prior to Mark. It was perceived as a source contemporary to Jesus, reflecting Jesus as the only teacher. Q was not ‘relic’, rather ‘source’ for the historical Jesus, and the precise reconstruction of Q provided ‘historical facts’.21 Liberal Theology, the front-runners of the ‘Old Quest’ in Jesus-research, argued vigorously against the position of the Tübingen-school and their ‘Tendenz-criticism’: The SM is basically Jesus’ teaching. The role of the evangelists is limited. They are ‘conservative redactors’, and the sources behind the SM/SP convey authentic sayings. According to the group behind the recent Q-project (see above, p. 109), Q is as source older and more valuable than Mark. The common material in the SM/SP (= ‘Inaugural Speech’) consists of a genuine Jesus tradition (perhaps except Luke 6,46–49 = Matt 7,24–27).22 The significance of the Gospel of Thomas as a parallel source imparted new credibility according to the criteria of multiple attestation. 2.1.2 The SM as ‘Relic’ (for the Q-community/‘Matthew’) This renewal of Q as source is surprising, because already one hundred years ago the enthusiasm for Q as ‘source’ became weaker. The SM was increasingly understood as ‘relic’, reflecting the Palestinian community in Jerusalem/ Palestine, or the Matthean community, somewhere outside Palestine.

20 K. Lachmann, “De ordine narrationum in evangeliis synopticis”, TSK 8 (1835), 570– 590, and C.G. Wilke, Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftsverhältniß der drei ersten Evangelien, Dresden: Fleischer 1838, 443, which appeared in the same year as Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte (1838). 21 The Palestinian Church has no voice – at least prior to James. The problem was differences between Q in Matthew and Luke. Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu (1907), evaluated Matthew more highly, whereas Heinrich Julius Holtzmann found the best text in Luke. Both found the voice of Jesus in Q. 22 Robinson et al., The Critical Edition of Q (2000), 44–101.

2.1 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) I

133

1) Q as ‘relic’ reflecting the Jerusalem community. In the ‘Religionhistory school’ after 1900 the SM was partly ‘source’ for the historical Jesus, and partly ‘relic’ for the religion of the Palestinian community. The sayings in the SM that do not derive from Jesus, are as ‘relic’ a substantial source for this community. In Wilhelm Bousset’s article on the SM in RGG1 this double perspective is brilliantly exposed:23 The SM conveys authentic sayings of Jesus, but also later (mis)interpretations. The SM is in fact the catechism of the Palestinian Church.24 At the same time, in an article on the early Palestinian community in RGG1, the 29-year-old Rudolf Bultmann took one step forward.25 He used Q primarily as a ‘relic’, as source for the piety, theology and ethics of the Jerusalem Church (‘Urgemeinde’) before 62 CE. Bousset thought Jesus had a consistent theology and ethics and that the Palestinian community demonstrates an ambivalence: Matt 5,17–20 (7,6) reflects Jewish particularism, but it conveys sayings like the Beatitudes, Matt 5,20, the Antitheses, which implies the shoot of something new. Matt 5,11f shows that the new conviction causes persecutions like those of Acts 6. Bultmann assumed that many sayings in the SM were taken from Q and reflect the Palestinian community.26 He paid little attention to the Matthean community. 2) Q as ‘relic’ reflecting a radical community outside Palestine. More recently the optimism about using Q as relic for the Palestinian community has waned. Hans Dieter Betz assumes that only parts of the SM, particularly Matt 6,1–18, derive from the early church in Palestine,27 and very few see Q as source for the earliest community in Jerusalem. The SM is rather a product of later communities of Q, most likely located outside Palestine. In the revival of the Q-theory, in the wake of redaction-criticism after 1970, many scholars dated Q later and located it outside Palestine. Q was perceived as a special community (‘Sondergemeinde’). The studies by Dieter Lührmann, Athanasius Polag, Paul Hofmann, Siegfried Schulz, et al. see similarities with Jesus’ original teaching, but Q as a later and particular interpretation. Syria or Egypt were increasingly seen as its place of origin. Its closeness to the Gospel of Thomas points especially to Egypt.

23

Bousset, “Bergpredigt” , RGG1 1 (1909), 1037–1041. Ibid., 1038. 25 Bultmann, “Was läßt die Spruchquelle über die Urgemeinde erkennen?” (1913). 26 R. Bultmann, “Urgemeinde”, RGG1 5 (1913), 1514–1523, and even clearer in “Was läßt die Spruchquelle über die Urgemeinde erkennen?” (1913), 35: Matt 5,21ff; (16,17– 19); 18,16–18; 23,3.23b. In idem, GST, 146, he mentions Matt 5,17–19; cf. also Luke 6,24–26; 12,35–38 (ibid., 117, 124). 27 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 327–349; idem, Essays (1985), 55–69. 24

134

§ 2 The Historical Quest

3) Q as a ‘relic’ for Matthew/Luke and their communities. The Tübingenschool with its inspirational figure, Ferdinand Christian Baur, moved their interest from individuals to groups/communities, from genius revelation to the factors that caused development, from ‘religious’ to ‘philosophical’ issues. The SM is thus a relic of the conflict between communities in about 100 CE. It is no urgent matter to reconstruct the available sources. The redactors were authors, and the end-product is decisive. ‘Form-criticism’ after 1920 disagreed on this point: the redactors, Matthew and Luke, had no strong voice. They were compilers and transmitters, not creative authors. Redaction-criticism in its first stage in the 1950s basically agreed and restricted the achievements of the evangelists; they used sources and isolated sayings, but their theological interests were visible through the frames and their selection of sources.28 However, in their additions and elaborations of the tradition they found a certain theological profile. After 1980 a new development took place within the ‘school of redactioncriticism’, that confirmed the views of Baur. The more intensively and the more isolated ‘redaction-criticism’ was carried out, the greater grew the image of the ‘creative redactors’. Hans Conzelmann was ambivalent, but for him the SM was basically a creation of Matthew and by no means identical with the teaching of Jesus.29 Another pioneer of redaction-criticism, Willi Marxsen, formulated his position even more sharply in the debate about the SM in the 1980s: The SM is a creation by Matthew. Marxsen and many scholars today think the starting point must therefore be the end of the first century and Matthew’s community, and not the period 30–50 CE and Jesus’ original teaching.30 The SM is part of Matthew’s redactional activity. Many scholars today see the SM as a product of an author, ‘Matthew’, or the Matthean community. New methods appeared in the 1980s: ‘literary, narrative, rhetorical analysis’ or reception-history or various socio-historical approaches. They tend to see the Gospels as products from the end of the first century CE. They also tend to see the SM as a literary composition or as fiction. Everything in Matthew must be seen from the perspective of Matthew

28 The works of H.D. Betz show that this type of ‘redaction-criticism’ has not been able to replace form-critical theories and older source-criticism. 29 Conzelmann/Lindemann, Arbeitsbuch (61982), 258: “… von Mt selbst gestaltet, und keineswegs mit der Lehre Jesu identisch” (italics original); cf. 357: the SM entails sayings “die auf Jesus zurückgeführt werden können”, but also sayings that are later elaborated (“Weiterarbeit der Gemeinde”) or derive from the evangelist. 30 So Marxsen, “Streit am falschen Ort” (1982), 508: “Wir haben es nicht mit einer Rede Jesu zu tun, sondern mit einer Schöpfung des Matthäus, etwa in den achtziger Jahren des ersten Jahrhunderts.” He follows up his first argument: The first thing is to clarify “was Matthäus seinen damaligen Lesern sagen wollte”. He confirmed his position in “Streit um die Bergpredigt” (1986) and ‘Christliche’ und christliche Ethik (1989), 213–217.

2.1 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) I

135

and his community after 80 CE. The task is to reconstruct the historical setting of Matthew’s community within post-70 Judaism. The literary-synchronic and socio-historical methods concentrated on the final text.31 A comprehensive reconstruction of the pre-text is impossible. There are, however, many indications of sources, and in the case of the Inaugural Speech we have considerable certainty.32 4) Criticism of this perspective. One cannot deny as one important perspective: the SM was heard in the community of the evangelist. However, many arguments speak against monopolising this perspective: – the existence of the SP leads in another direction; – different summaries of this speech existed, but there is a memory of an ‘Inaugural Speech’; – Matthew is conservative in his treatment of Mark, and of the great number of Q-sayings. – Matthew had many limitations and is not a creative author, such that a comparison with Luke’s contribution is necessary. – The IS is different from the first interpretations by Matthew and Luke. – Many themes in the SM are not repeated or further elaborated in Matthew. – The radical demands are inconsistent with Matthew’s narrative. – Most of Matthew’s Sondergut (MattS) picks up crucial topics in Jesus’ teaching. Should the SM be seen through the lens of the Matthean community? Are the communities behind Q or Matthew/his community the creator of the SM? It is difficult to assume both at the same time. This ‘either/or’ is problematic. E.g. Matt 5,17–20(48) and 6,1–18 must have functioned differently in the two contexts.33 Every source is a ‘relic’ and the problem – or sharper: the naivety – becomes apparent if a historian clearly divides the ‘source’ = real events and ‘relics’ = secondary interpretation. To sum up: The choice between three different conceptions has huge implications for the SM. In the first case the SM is a real speech of Jesus in his early career in Galilee. In the second case the SM is a cluster of the tradition that the Early Church transmitted. In the third case the SM is just fiction, the speech more or less arbitrarily put together by an author in the 80s CE. As a later source, it is a ‘relic’, reflecting the ideas of persons/communities, who had limited contact with the real historical events.34 31 Cf. the short treatment in Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 35–42, and more focused in idem, Theologie und Methode (1992), 385f. The ʻlayer-theories’ are reminiscent of theories in archaeology, but is here like “Archaeology without Dates”. 32 Konradt, Evangelium nach Matthäus (2015), 64, speaks of “Grundrede”. 33 That we clearly see redactional features in e.g. Matthew’s Antitheses (or Luke’s ‘Woes’), does not necessarily mean that the SM is primarily a product of the 80s CE. 34 Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 184–192.

136

§ 2 The Historical Quest

2.2 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) II: The SM between Orality and Literacy Was the SM a written source or an oral tradition? Can we look behind the SM and reconstruct the development of the tradition? Should the process be seen in the framework of literacy or orality? Orality and literacy are sometimes alternatives and sometimes additional explanations, and we often see a sort of thesis-antithesis dynamic; if literacy is emphasised the more strenuous are the efforts in favour of orality, and vice versa. A brief history of research after Johann Jakob Griesbach’s first ‘Synopsis’35 demonstrates this. 2.2.1 Orality as Dominating Perspective Before Griesbach the theory of a reliable oral tradition had been the dominating hypothesis. From Papias until the Enlightenment the argument was mostly accepted: literary sources can more easily be changed than orally transmitted texts. Orally transmitted narratives, going from one reliable person to the next, had credibility. After the canonisation of the four Gospels, the relation between them had to be solved. Augustine who launched the debates about utilisation, argued in favour of Matthean priority. Matthew was the first witness who transmitted the reliable oral tradition. Oral transmission and the ‘tradition’-hypotheses. Critical scholars in the Enlightenment period, like Johann Carl Ludwig Gieseler with his so-called ‘tradition-hypothesis’ (in 1818), were still influenced by this assumption.36 Herder was more critical of the Augustinian hypothesis of the priority of Matthew.37 For Herder it was a basic statement that there was oral preaching by Christ and the apostles before any of our Gospels were written, consisting of individual oral units: narratives, parables and sayings. Combined with the analysis of current folk literature he still argued that oral tradition was more reliable than the literary products from authors. This theory of a reliable oral 35

J.J. Griesbach, Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthaei, Marci et Lucae, una cum iis Joannis pericopis …, Halle: Curtius 21797. Cf. Bernard Orchard/Thomas R.W. Longstaff, J.J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 1776–1976 (SNTSMS 34), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1978. 36 J.C.L. Gieseler, Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die Entstehung und die frühsten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien, Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann 1818. 37 Johann Gottfried von Herder, Vom Erlöser der Menschen: Nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien, Riga: Hartknoch 1796; idem, Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland: Nach Johannes Evangelium; nebst einer Regel der Zusammenstimmung unserer Evangelien …, Riga: Hartknoch 1797. Cf. Heinrich Baarlink, “Herders These eines schriftlichen Urevangeliums: Revision einer gängigen Darstellung”, ZNW 91 (2000), 274–278. The idea of the evangelists as scribes gathering, enlarging, improving, collating and comparing documents is foreign to everything that ancient writers tell of their activities.

2.2 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) II

137

tradition was still lingering in the works of ‘conservative’ scholars such as Tholuck about 1850.38 2.2.2 Literacy as Dominating Perspective Leopold von Ranke’s criticism of oral traditions and his thesis that written sources have more historical value, had effect. Source-criticism became the most important task for historians. 2.2.2.1 The Rise of 2DH and the Role of the SM Before 1835 the ‘“Ur”-Gospel’ theory by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1778) and Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1794) had high credibility. An alternative was Schleiermacher’s ‘Diegesen-’ (διηγήσεις) theory, that certain fragments (e.g. Logia) were the beginning of the Gospel tradition.39 The ‘Two-document-hypothesis’ (2DH) of Lachmann/Weisse (and Wilke) gave the best response within the framework of Ranke’s historiography. Behind Matthew and Luke, we have two older sources, Mark and Q. A common source, an ‘Inaugural Speech’ (IS), is prior to the SM and SP. The theory of an ‘Inaugural Speech’ was both the origin and foundational argument in favour of 2DH. The Q-theory is therefore dependent on the reconstruction of the IS (the SM/SP).40 Within the framework of historicism one could argue: The two oldest sources, Mark and Q, behind Matthew and Luke, are more important than the theology of the later evangelists. The success of 2DH was immediate, and prominent scholars (Harnack, Holtzmann, William Sanday, et al.) strongly defended the theory. Liberal Theology more easily found an undogmatic gospel in Mark and Q than in Matthew/Luke or in John. As utilisation theory it was the simplest theory that could explain most facts/problems. Not least the works of Heinrich Julius

38

Cf. August Tholuck, Die Glaubwürdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, Hamburg: Perthes 1837, 259f. 39 Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, Über die Schriften des Lukas, ein kritischer Versuch, Berlin: Reimer 1817; he argued that one of these διηγήσεις/‘records’ was really a performed saying-source. Cf. idem, “Ueber die Zeugnisse des Papias von unseren beiden ersten Evangelien”, TSK 5 (1832), 735–768, and later in his Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Berlin: Reimer 1845. De Wette, Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi (1836, 21838), offered the most profound explanation of the SM, cf. H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 22f. 40 Multiple-source theories will be the result as soon as one moves away from a relatively strict Q/two-document theory. The reconstruction of certain sources (Proto-Luke, Jewish sources, etc.) or theories of a complicated ʻtradition history’, turn the ʻtwodocument hypothesis’ (2DH) into ‘plurality-of-sources theories’.

138

§ 2 The Historical Quest

Holtzmann made 2DH the dominating theory in the heyday of Liberal Theology.41 From about 1850 until the recent Q-project (IQP), the Q-theory has been commonplace in scholarship.42 The IS was perceived as the programmatic speech, surrounded by narratives (temptation – Matt 4; Luke 4) and the healing narratives in Capernaum (Matt 8; Luke 7). Both Matthew and Luke could easily put the Inaugural Speech in its right place. 2.2.2.2 Improvements of 2DH: The Struggle for Comprehensive Theories The 2DH could indeed explain most questions in a simple way, but the theory had some weak points. One of them, the long lists of major agreements (‘overlaps’) and minor agreements between Luke and Matthew against Mark,43 did not affect the SM. Two others come to the fore in the SM: the remarkable differences between the SM and the SP, and the significant element of MattS (and LukeS). The efforts to improve – or replace – 2DH with comprehensive, ‘wall to wall covering’ theories, were immediately visible. Three of them must be mentioned: 1) Refinement of literacy I: more than two sources. 2DH is in fact a foursource theory: Matthew and Luke had copies of Mark and Q available, and they had their own sources in addition. This theory could be developed further. Burnett H. Streeter operated with a two plus five theory (M, L, ProtoLuke, plus an Antiochian and an Infancy source).44 He also included a historical dimension, seeing a Jerusalem, Galilean, Caesarean and Antiochian influence on the sources. Bultmann operated with development from the Palestinian, to a pre-Hellenistic to a Hellenistic-catholic influence on the sources. Alternative source-hypotheses did not start with Mark or neglected Q, but could still offer comprehensive and gapless literary explanations. Griesbach, Farrer, Hengel and others, who think Luke knew Matthew or Matthew knew Luke, operated with fewer sources and did not need any Q-hypothesis. 41

H.J. Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter, Leipzig: Engelmann 1863. It was supported and given new arguments outside the camp of the Liberals, e.g. by Bernhard Weiß and outside Germany, cf. John C. Hawkins, Horae synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem, Oxford: Clarendon 1909; William Sanday (ed.), Studies in the Synoptic Problem, Oxford: Clarendon 1911. 42 Bergemann, Q auf dem Prüfstand (1993), therefore developed the theory of a substantially shorter ‘Grundrede’ behind both Matthew and Luke. 43 Frans Neirynck, The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark: With a Cumulative List (BETL 37), Leuven/Gembloux: Leuven University Press 1974; Thomas R.W. Longstaff, “The Minor Agreements: An Examination of the Basic Argument”, CBQ 37 (1975), 184–192. 44 B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, and Dates, London: Macmillan 1924.

2.2 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) II

139

Other multiple source and utilisation theories (Griesbach, Wilke, Farrer, Goulder, Jerusalem-school, etc.) have been promoted. They mostly reduced the importance of Q, but have little impact on the exegesis of the SM. 2) Refinement of literacy II: Proto-/‘Ur’-theories (before 1920). In order to refine 2DH, scholars tried to go behind Mark and Q, and reconstructed protoMark and forms of proto-Q. The reason for this is clear: one has to discuss whether the SP or the SM has the best Q-text. The debate culminated in the works of Harnack,45 who argued in favour of Matthew, and of Holtzmann,46 who found the best text in Luke. Carl Heinrich von Weizsäcker pursued a third way by reconstructing two different Q-sources, QMatt and QLuke.47 C.F.G. Heinrici proposed a fourth way, seeing small fragments, isolated sayings as the origin of the SM/SP.48 This theory came to dominate the ‘formhistory school’. 3) Lingering solutions based on orality: Logia as reliable oral tradition. The ‘form-history school’ renewed and modified Herder’s and Gieseler’s views on oral tradition. Paul Fiebig and Thaddäus Soiron turned the theory of an oral transmission into an overall explanation, and applied their results to the SM.49 Sources or redactional activity were hardly considered. Q is just a form of oral tradition, and this provided a comprehensive solution. Even critical scholars evaluated the SM, most of Q and the oral tradition behind the Gospel positively. Form-criticism returned to Ranke’s scepticism of oral tradition. 4) Improvements of 2DH based on form-history. The argument in favour of the historicity of the SM became weaker about 1920. It started with the influence of form-criticism, and the criticism of the frameworks for the sayings.50 45

Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu (1907), 38–54. Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien (above, n. 41), 130: “Was ist an sich wahrscheinlicher: daß Lucas die größten Bauten mutwillig zerschlagen und die Trümmer nach allen vier Winden auseinandergesprengt, oder daß Matthäus jene Mauern aus den Steinhaufen des Lucas erbaut habe”. The IQP with its Critical Edition of Q (2000), comes closer to Holtzmann’s position. IQP is claimed as a majority-position, and it has undoubtedly influenced many scholars slightly more in its direction. 47 C.(H. von) Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte, ihre Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung, Gotha: Besser 1864, 81ff, 130ff. The theory was accepted by Paul Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, Freiburg i.Br. etc.: Mohr 1899, 231ff, but rejected by Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu (1907), 80, and Wellhausen, Einleitung (1905), 68. 48 Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1900); idem, Bergpredigt II (1905). 49 Paul Fiebig, “Die mündliche Überlieferung als Quelle der Synoptiker”, in Adolf Deißmann et al. (eds.), Neutestamentliche Studien: Georg Heinrici zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, Leipzig: Hinrich 1914, 79–91, here 79–82; Soiron, Logia Jesu (1916). 50 Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, Berlin: Trowitzsch 1919, 113f. 46

140

§ 2 The Historical Quest

Based on this assumption of the small units as the origin of the tradition, the earliest form-history school offered a comprehensive explanation as the alternative to the classical Q-theory. (a) M. Dibelius’ form-history, based on orality. Dibelius followed Hermann Gunkel’s concept of form-history quite closely and emphasised oral tradition more than Bultmann. The genres were created in an oral environment and source-criticism played a secondary role. The oral setting for the genres, including for the paraenesis, was the starting point. According to Dibelius, Q was ‘layer’ (‘Schicht’) more than source.51 He agreed with Wellhausen, who presupposed that the oral tradition influenced the text.52 He assumed that Luke was the most original source. In the heyday of ‘form-criticism’ Q was primarily and often exclusively seen through the perspective of orality. Bultmann’s reconstruction of the history of tradition reduced the importance of Q, and his reconstruction of the growth of the tradition was basically a literary approach. (b) Bultmann’s ‘History of tradition’, based on literacy. Few made a clearer comprehensive, ‘wall to wall covering’ analysis of the synoptic tradition than Bultmann. According to him the growth of the tradition developed according to certain laws, from the smallest units to the literary Gospels – and beyond. He reduced the importance of the 2DH and in fact of the written sources in general, and argued that oral transmission followed a different pattern. Bultmann’s so-called form-criticism made little use of sources, but worked to the extreme with literacy, in spite of his references to orality. His so-called form- (better: tradition-)criticism wanted to explain every change and extension of the Synoptic tradition. The same laws can be seen at a redactional level,53 and in the usage of the Jesus tradition in the Early Church. According to Bultmann, ‘oral tradition’ denotes the period before the literarily fixed Gospels,54 and the Sitz im Leben was for him the different stages in Early Christian history.55 Q was seen as one of many ‘sayings collections’ (‘Spruchsammlungen’).56 Bultmann reconstructed the whole process from the 51

M. Dibelius, Formgeschichte (1919), 243ff. Wellhausen, Einleitung (1905), 65–73. H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 258–265, offers the best review. 53 Bultmann’s chapter on the redaction of the oral traditions, GST, 348–400. Cf.: the need for literacy arose “je mehr der Reichtum der mündlichen Tradition versiegte”, GST, 395. 54 Bultmann, GST, 7, 10, 50, 58, 64, 91, 253f, 347. He operated with “Verschriftlichung”, “vorliterarisch”, “vorredaktionell”, “ohne literarischen Rahmen” and said: “Auf die Frage der Mündlichkeit bzw. Schriftlichkeit kommt es nicht an”. Documented in Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 175f. 55 The usage and why it comes up relatively late, in Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 176f. 56 Bultmann, GST, esp. 349f, 354f, 358, 378. 52

2.2 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) II

141

original sayings to the final redaction, presupposing that Matthew and Luke were rather editors of given traditions. Bultmann had the intention of showing precisely the stages in this process, which in fact lead to a multiple-source theory.57 Bultmann’s ‘form-history’ constructed laws of transmission that never existed in Israel, in rabbinic culture or in other oral communities. It was perceived within a framework of literacy alone. His historic-genetic model explains the growth of the tradition from small units to larger collections to four Gospels and beyond them – into the Early Christian literature. 5) Beyond form-criticism (after 1950/1980). The criticism of form-history had an impact on the exegesis of the SM. We see it clearly after 1950, but after 1980 the criticism has been even more commonplace.58 When it comes to alternatives to the source-theories, we see a refinement of the previous paths. (a) The SM and refined source-criticism. A number of source-critical studies (both before and after 1920) modified the importance of Q as such. 2DH presupposes that Q was a relatively extensive, was one, written source we can reconstruct. However, the exact similarity between Matthew’s SM and Luke’s SP is not much more than 30%. As such, can we still recognise a common source behind the SM/SP? Thomas Bergemann operated therefore with a kind of proto-Q behind the SM,59 whereas H.D. Betz and U. Luz60 picked up Carl Heinrich von Weizsäcker’s theory, that we have two different editions of Q (QMatt and QLuke). H.D. Betz has a multiple-source theory: he sees the Lord’s Prayer as original, conveyed through Matthew’s edition of Q. Other traditions, like Matt 6,1–18 (7,6) derive from a Jewish-Christian community about 50 CE, which is quite close to the theology of Matthew and his community.61 (b) The SM and alternatives to form-criticism based on orality. Formcriticism was sceptical to the notion of a written Q. Q was rather called just a layer (‘Schicht’),62 or a fluent oral tradition, which can be understood as 57 Bultmann, GST, ended up here. It is, according to Syreeni, The Making of the Sermon on the Mount (1987), a process in three steps, and he thought strictly in terms of sourcecriticism. 58 Erhardt Güttgemanns, Offene Fragen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (BEvT 54), München: Kaiser 1970; Berger, Formgeschichte (1984); Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 163–183. 59 Bergemann, Q auf dem Prüfstand (1993), 56ff, 229ff; ibid., 202–228, on vocabulary. 60 Luz, Matthäus I (52002), 256–259, cf. idem, “Matthäus und Q” (1998), in idem, Exegetische Aufsätze (2016), 179–194. 61 H.D. Betz, “The Sermon on the Mount and Q” (1990) = idem, Synoptische Studien (1992), here 266–269, and idem, Sermon (1995), 38–44. Critical of Betz are, e.g., Carlston, “Betz on the Mount: A Critique” (1988), Hoffmann, “Betz and Q” (1997), and Deines, Gerechtigkeit (2004), 32–39. 62 M. Dibelius, Formgeschichte (1919/31959), 243.

142

§ 2 The Historical Quest

arbitrary or with conscious transmission. In both cases it is impossible to reconstruct the source Q.63 Along the same lines Joachim Jeremias suggested that Q was a flexible oral tradition by analogy to rabbinic sources.64 Jeremias’ student, Hans-Theo Wrege,65 then took the theory of a flexible oral tradition to the extreme, which H.D. Betz correctly characterized as a blind alley.66 Inspired by the Old Testament scholar, Ivan Engnell, and his ‘traditiohistorical method’,67 Harald Riesenfeld emphasised oral tradition as the most important factor in synoptic studies.68 Riesenfeld protested specifically against the constructions of the form-history school and suggested that the Jesus-tradition follows its own rules, a process sui generis. Riesenfeld’s student, Birger Gerhardsson, embedded this oral tradition into a context of rabbinic transmission.69 Based on the tradition- and formhistorical concept their interest was to show that orality does not mean unreliability and that early Christian transmission must be seen in the framework of orality, using rabbinic transmission as analogy. After 1970, Gerhardsson added a number of observations that extended his argumentation. The rabbinic analogy became less important than the analytical observation of the material, institutional, behavioural and verbal traditions in the Early Church.70 This approach is more ‘synthetical’ whereas Heinz Schürmann and Rainer Riesner worked more analytically, trying to find indications for oral transmission in the synoptic texts.71 Recently exegetes have sug63 On one hand, Soiron, Logia Jesu (1916) and Bergpredigt (1941), whereas Wrege, Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt (1968), denied explicitly that Q is a written source. 64 Wrege, Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt (1968). Also Soiron, Logia Jesu (1916), had similar ideas, and he was also a forerunner of the form-history school. 65 Wrege, ibid., 2(–5): Q is not the key, the oral tradition had the character of a catechism. 66 H.D. Betz, Synoptische Studien (1992), 254f, with his harsh criticism of Wrege (see above, p. 111, n. 475). 67 Ivan Engnell, “Methodological Aspects of Old Testament Study”, in Congress Volume One: Oxford (VTSup 7), Leiden: Brill 1960, 13–30, esp. 17–21. Cf. Harris Birkeland, Zum hebräischen Traditionswesen (Avhandlinger: Norske Videnskaps-Akademie: Historisk-Filosofisk Klasse 1938,1), Oslo: Dybwad 1938, and Eduard Nielsen, Oral Tradition (Studies in Biblical Theology 11), London: SCM 1953, 11–17. 68 Riesenfeld, Gospel Tradition (1957). Q is perceived as a broad oral tradition. 69 Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (21964). 70 First Evangeliarnas förhistoria, Lund 1977 = The Origins of the Gospel Tradition, London: SCM 1979, then “Der Weg der Evangelientradition”, in Peter Stuhlmacher (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (WUNT 28), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1983, 79–102, and finally The Gospel Tradition, Lund: Gleerup 1986, all collected in idem, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (2001) – with preface, pp. 17–24. 71 H. Schürmann, “Die vorösterlichen Anfänge der Logientradition: Versuch eines formgeschichtlichen Zugangs zum Leben Jesu”, in idem, Traditionsgeschichtliche Unter-

2.2 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) II

143

gested a synthetical approach; based on the works on ‘social memory’ by Maurice Halbwachs, Chris Keith in particular has analysed the orality of the SM.72 (c) 2DH and additional perspectives. Redaction-criticism, at least in its first period (1954–1980s), returned to a literary model and this implied a revival of source-criticism founded on the 2DH. On this basis the additions of the ‘redactor’ could be studied. Similarly, the recent Q-project (IQP) studied the growth of the Q-tradition and its theological development in Q.73 The new textual orientation after 1980 launched the second period of redaction-criticism. Sources, literary models are no longer the interest. The focus is on the communities behind Luke and Matthew, and Matthew and Luke as creative redactors. In the reconstruction of the ‘narrative world of the First Gospel’ even the SM is just a tool in Matthew’s argumentation in his first-century Jewish context. Matthew as a whole is the Jewish-Christian response to the gospel of Paul, and one has to “place the reader in a Jewish world” and see how Matthew communicates the meaning of Jesus in this context.74 To sum up: The search for the oldest source behind the SM has shown that neither entirely literary nor oral approaches will ever succeed. Orality and literacy should not be alternatives. The balance between orality and literacy is in fact a key issue in synoptic scholarship. Orality alone is not the solution as e.g. H.-T. Wrege or Alan Kirk75 suggested in their approach to the SM. Solutions within the framework of literacy alone will always lead to unfruitful reconstructions of sources, and speculations about ‘layers’, and of the growth of the tradition. The question of reliability should not come first, rather the balanced analysis of possible sources, elements of orality and of genre.

suchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien (KBANT), Düsseldorf: Patmos 1968, 39–65. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer (1981/31988). 72 Keith, Jesus’ Literacy (2011). 73 Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q (1987) and Excavating Q (2000), finds two strata: the sapiential and the later apocalyptic stratum. 74 Runesson, Divine Wrath and Salvation in Matthew (2016), XV. Cf. David C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Studies of the New Testament and its World), Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1998. 75 Kirk, Q in Matthew (2016), 184–224.

144

§ 2 The Historical Quest

2.2.2.3 The Two-document Hypothesis as Foundation and Frame: The SM Based on Literacy, Openness for Orality One should, however, always have orality in mind and not start with theories about sources and the transmission process based on literacy. Instead of a synthetic approach, one should choose an analytical one. This definitely provides fresh insights if one differentiates between three or four groups of traditions in the SM and analyses them separately.76 How did Matthew and Luke treat them? 1) the common traditions in Matthew/Luke in the SM/SP (more than 30 verses – almost certainly parts of the Inaugural Speech) 2) the common tradition from Q, which Matthew locates in the SM and Luke in other speeches (nearly 40 verses) 3) This common tradition has some interesting overlaps with Mark (nine verses). 4) the sayings peculiar to Matthew in the SM (more than 30 verses) and to Luke in the SP (eight verses) How many of these sayings were part of the Inaugural Speech? How did Matthew and Luke elaborate this tradition? Did Luke and Matthew elaborate the four groups of material in the same way? The common sources must be the starting point. We then have to ask: What impact do the subtractions have? What impact do the changes have? What impact do the additions have? 1) From the perspective of quantity, word-statistics. The Nestle-text does not provide an accurate basis. It is, however, the best we have, and it provides approximately correct figures. The SM with its 1,938 words (107 verses) amounts to nearly half of the roughly 4,000 words in Q. – The reconstructed Inaugural Speech has about 580 words – if we add the 477 words in the SP and 464 in the SM. The Inaugural Speech amounts to about 85% of the SP and nearly 25% of the SM if we take the sum of peculiar words among the 477 words in the SP and 464 in the SM. – Together with other double traditions we have 1,125 words in the SM (1,047 words in parallel texts in Luke). This amounts to about 55% of the SM. – The triple tradition with its 117 words in the SM represents less than 6% of the SM. The parallels to Mark and Luke are not significantly less. – Luke (LukeS) adds in the SP only 70 words, whereas MattS with its 831 words is about 41% of the SM.

76

Cf. Baasland, “Auf der Spur einer ‘Grundsatzrede’ vor der Bergpredigt” (2019).

145

2.2 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) II

This can be visualised in the following way: Q (about 1,125 words)

Mark (194 words)

Sondergut (901 words)

MattS IS 422–465

Q 567–589

Q (MattS/ LukeS) 58–63

about 900

Mark nearly 200 LukeS about 70

2) The Inaugural Speech and the two-document theory (2DH). This figure presupposes the so-called ‘two-document theory’ (2DH). This dominating theory is in fact a very imprecise term. The 2DH is mostly designed – as the figure above indicates – as a four-document hypothesis. The two-document hypothesis was based on six premises:77 – the priority of Mark and that Matthew and Luke used the same edition – The Q-material originates from only one source and Matthew/Luke used the same edition.78 – Matthew and Luke used their sources independently. Luke was not influenced by Matthew or vice versa.79 77 Linton, “Das Dilemma der synoptischen Forschung” (1976); idem, “The Q-Problem reconsidered” (1972); cf. Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 216–219. 78 It is not necessary to summarize the history of research and it is somewhat complicated due to the lack of a consensus. Bergemann, Q auf dem Prüfstand (1993), 14–47, made a rather arbitrary analysis of the history of research. He did not mention several important contributions (Heinrici, Bultmann, M. Dibelius, Larfeld, et al.). Christopher M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies in Q, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1996, 47–75 and Robinson et al., The Critical Edition of Q (2000), 19–71, offer some good remarks, but Robinson wants to openly prepare for his “Critical edition”. 79 Few (e.g. Hengel) have supported or worked out the theory of Matthew’s dependency on Luke.

146

§ 2 The Historical Quest

– Mark did not know Q as source. – Mark and Q were transmitted in Greek. Aramaic texts might have influenced Mark and particularly Q. An Aramaic text is impossible to reconstruct. – This classical source-theory assumed that the sources were written. The basic theory is undermined if oral transmission was a dominating factor. Some modifications are possible, but to deny the first two premises – the priority of Mark and Q – leads to the collapse of the two-document theory. Certain additional premises often undermine the theory. A number of older and more recent approaches claim to be based on the two-document theory, but in fact undermine its basic principles.80 2.2.2.4 The SM and a Modified Two-document Hypothesis A solution of the synoptic problem will always be tentative. Efforts to establish a 100% solution on the basis of source-theories – presupposing written documents – or the basis of form-history, cannot be successful. The goal must be to explain as much as possible in a simple way, and this has been the success of the two-document theory. About two thirds of Matthew and Luke are adequately explained by this theory. The ‘Sondergut’ of Matthew and Luke and the different usage/editions of Q by Matthew and Luke, must be given an additional explanation. Problematic aspects and the explanation of this remaining third of Luke and Matthew will always lead to alternative solutions or to a modification of the simple theory. A minor modification of the 2DH can start with the following overview: Passion-narrative

Q Mark Luke Matthew

Memory-culture, performed orally Oral/written; not edited (ἀν-έκδοτα) Written; edited (ἔκδοτα)

Matthew and Luke can occasionally change the order in Mark. They change the order due to different principles and intentions, but they have the same principles when changing the order in the Q-material. 1) Q precedes Mark. This is a most difficult and decisive question. Bultmann gave three different answers. He presupposed in GST1 that Mark did know Q. In 1925 he had doubts, and finally he denied this fact ‒ apparently after reading the arguments of Burton H. Throckmorton jr.81

80

The theory that Mark knew Q – so the IQP-group, and many others, e.g. Harry Fleddermann who thinks that Q is the oldest source and was known by Mark, and that Matthew and Luke used both Q and Mark (in idem, Q [2005], 75ff). 81 Bultmann argued in Die Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien (Aus der Welt der Religionen 4), Gießen: Töpelmann 1925 (repr., Berlin: De Gruyter 2013), 9, that Mark did not know/use the source Q, and then in Ergänzungsheft zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1962), 53 (Nr. 373): “Die einst von B. Weiß bejahte Frage, ob Mk Q kannte (und benutzte), ist z.B. von Burton H. Throckmorton jr. mit Recht verneint worden”. He

2.2 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) II

147

From the founders of the 2DH (esp. B. Weiß) to Harry Fleddermann and Frans Neirynck, the theory of the general priority of Q is seen as a minor modification of the theory.82 The main argument is that Mark in the double tradition always has a more elaborated text. Of the 20–30 overlaps between Mark and Q, six or seven overlaps occur in the SM-material. The list here is based on the Marcan order: Matthew

Mark

Luke

5,15 7,2 (5,29f) 5,13 5,32 7,8 5,18

4,21 4,24 (9,42) 9,50 10,11f 11,24 13,31

11,33 6,38 (17,1) 14,34f 16,18 11,10 16,17

These sayings are linguistically more elaborated in Mark in order to fit into Mark’s context. Luke also elaborates on them, but Mark and Luke never agree when it comes to context. The authoritative sayings fit into (or were used in) different contexts, and Matthew could easily integrate them into the SM. The sayings existed before the narrative and indicate that Q precedes Mark. 2) The genre of Q: Q as epitome. Is Q really a source?83 Q seems to be structured in blocks, and they seem to have narrative elements as introduction, and Mark has all the speeches, except for the Inaugural Speech: Matt 5–7; Luke 6,20–49 Matt 5,1f; 7,28f

Matt 10 Luke 10 Mark 3 Election of apostles

Matt 13 Luke 8 Mark 4 Jesus and the crowd

Matt 18 (Luke 17) Mark 9 A new people?

Matt 23; 24–26 Luke 11,39–51; 21 Mark 13 Towards the last days

There is a certain structure, and the structure is based on a biographical framework – between the earliest sayings/‘Inaugural Speech’ and the last sayings, the eschatological discourse. The order is not strict, but still not arbitrary, even though both Mark and Q were performed orally and are not edited (ἀν-έκδοτα). Why is Mark and not Q considered as source? The main answer might be the genre. Q has the character of an ‘epitome’.84 It is a collection of sayings, which is open for use and reuse: If it is replaced completely, it vanishes, referred to the influential article by Throckmorton jr., “Did Mark Know Q?”, JBL 67 (1948), 319–329. 82 Fleddermann, Mark and Q (1995). 83 Robinson thought Q belongs to the genre of ‘λόγοι σοφῶν’, first in “ΛΟΓΟΙ ΣΟΦΩΝ” (1964); idem, “Jewish Wisdom Literature and the Gattung, LOGOI SOPHON” (1971), in Kloppenborg (ed.), The Shape of Q (1994), 51–58. 84 Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 596–598(–604), offers more arguments.

148

§ 2 The Historical Quest

receding from view. If everything in the epitome is adopted by other sources, the epitome no longer has any function. Q was most likely a collection of orally transmitted sayings, mostly wisdom-sayings, which circulated as epitome,85 probably in different forms and different languages: Aramaic, Greek, perhaps Hebrew or even other languages. We simply do not know what form and language(s) Matthew used and elaborated. The notion of ‘epitome’ can yield new insights into the synoptic problem.86 An epitome is a collection of sayings or narratives, with modest literary ambitions. They have a more temporary character and they are after a while replaced by better documents with higher literary ambitions.87 Mark was perhaps perceived as epitome, but has higher literary ambitions than many collections of ‘apophthegmata’ (or ὑποµνήµατα, pronouncement stories) or the first passion-narrative stories. Mark did not vanish, due to its literary and theological qualities and its links to the apostle Peter. 3) The ‘Inaugural Speech’ within Q. In an epitome the total is less elaborated than its parts, and some parts can be sophistically elaborated. The IS within Q almost has literary ambitions, and both the SM and the SP reflect this. On the other hand, the two editions of the IS, the SP and the SM, have a different character: the composition, rhetoric, ethical-theological argumentation, audience, purpose are different in spite of their basic agreement. It is impossible to reconstruct one or two originals of the IS. The IS was most likely longer than the SP, and was briefer than the SM. Neither Luke nor Matthew reproduces the original speech. Both have specific literary techniques and theological interests, and both have a conservative attitude towards the Inaugural Speech. They treated Mark differently and they also had different strategies in their usage of Q.88

85

M. Dibelius observed a catechetical structure, but this cannot be the genre, cf. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q (1987), 171ff (on the ‘Inaugural Speech’). Also Radl, Evangelium nach Lukas I (2003), 366. 86 Hans Armin Gärtner/Ulrich Eigler, “Epitome als Genre”, Der Neue Pauly 3 (1997), 1175–1177. Diogenes Laertius and Arrian’s Excerpts from Epictetus are examples, but they are edited. 87 H.D. Betz thinks the SM is an epitome, in “The Sermon on the Mount: Its literary Genre and Function” (= idem, Essays [1985], esp. 11–16); idem, “The Sermon on the Mount: In Defence of a Hypothesis” (1991), 74–80 and in idem, Sermon (1995), 70–80. 88 We know Q only through Matthew and Luke. After 1970 research on Q (S. Schulz, P. Hoffmann, et al.) intended to discover the redactional activity of the author(s) of Q. Lührmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (1969), 56, was early on sceptical; he found “keine Anzeichen einer wirklichen Redaktion”.

2.3 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) III

149

2.3 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) III: The Four Strata in the SM/SP I have in two previous articles analysed the four strata from two different perspectives: Is it possible to find a stratum (‘Grundsatzrede’) behind the SM/SP,89 and how far do we see Matthew’s redactional hand in the SM? Here we will compare the SM and the SP: the character of their similarities and differences when it comes to vocabulary, types of sentences, use of verbs, pronouns, particles, etc. The overviews and results are compressed in § 2.4 and in an Appendix to § 2 (below, pp. 237ff). 2.3.1 The ‘Inaugural Speech’ If Matthew knew Luke or Luke knew Matthew, there is a definite need for explanation as to why Matthew and Luke changed the ‘original’ edition of the Inaugural Speech. A theory of an ‘Inaugural Speech’ which both Matthew and Luke used independently is easier to handle, but the theory and its premises must still be debated.90 Because of the two parallels it is in this case possible to go behind the text and reconstruct an earlier stage of this tradition. The SP is not necessarily identical with the historical Inaugural Speech, and parts of the present SM could originate from the more original speech. The theme here is the character of the SM and SP as sources, and the impact of sources in the historical reconstruction. A number of sayings are very similar. Even the order of the sayings is nearly identical. The Golden Rule is the only saying that does not follow the common order, which is natural: such a general saying can function in various places. It functions perfectly as a summary in Matt 7,12, and some scholars think that the saying functions well in Luke 6,32, and some think it is misplaced.91 This consistent structure indicates that the Inaugural Speech had a conscious, rhetorical structure from the very beginning.

89

Baasland, “Auf der Spur einer ‘Grundsatzrede’ vor der Bergpredigt” (2019); idem, “Matthew’s Elaborations of the ‘Inaugural Speech’” (2020). 90 All Synopses simply assume this – or argue that we have two different Inaugural Speeches. Cf. also Catchpole, Quest for Q (1993), 79–116, and W. Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbriefes (1986), 161, who stated correctly: the question of an ‘Inaugural Speech’ has “merkwürdigerweise relativ wenig Beachtung gefunden”. ‘Inaugural Speech’ (‘Grundsatzrede’) is more than the reconstruction of an ‘original speech’ (‘Grundrede’). It also somehow includes the historical setting. 91 De Wette, Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi (1836), 269: “es passt schlecht hierher”.

150

§ 2 The Historical Quest

When it comes to exact likeness we have the following figures (with rough percentages): Beatitudes Love for enemies Retaliation I Golden Rule Retaliation II (6,32–36) Judging Beam Tree – fruit κύριε-sayings House-parable

Luke: Total – similar words

Matthew: Total – similar words

73 – 29 23 – 9 34 – 13 11 – 7 92 – 21 37 – 8 69 – 51 34 – 10 11 – 2 83 – 21

107 – 29 14 – 9 51 – 13 23 – 7 69 – 21 18 – 8 64 – 51 60 – 10 25 – 2 95 – 21

= 40% = 39% = 38% = 64% = 23% = 22% = 74% = 30% = 18% = 25%

= 27% = 64% = 26% = 32% = 30% = 44% = 80% = 17% = 8% = 22%

In addition, we have a very similar introduction and conclusion: Introduction Concluding remarks

Matthew

Luke

5,1f 7,28f; 8,1

6,20a (6,17ff) 7,1

The gap between the total and the exact likeness must be explained: do they have different literary sources, different translations of a source, is it an oral tradition and do they follow laws of oral transmission, or do the changes reflect the literary style and theological interests of the two evangelists? 1) Comparison between the two sermons.92 The exordium is a clear case for the elaboration of the tradition. In Luke 6,20–23 and Matt 5,3–12 (minus his additions) the percentage of similarity is about 40% (Luke) versus 29% (Matthew), which is the lowest in the SP/SM. The literary style and theological interests of the two evangelists seem to be most visible here. Matthew enlarged the Beatitudes systematically to an eight-series, he stereotypes, he uses alliterations (with π), uses the 3rd person (αὐτοί, αὐτῶν), and terms he uses elsewhere in key-texts, he prefers his favourite vocabulary (βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, δικαιοσύνη, πραΰς, etc.), and shows interest in ‘spiritualising’ (οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύµατι, πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην, τῇ καρδίᾳ, etc.). Luke also works systematically with an eight-series (four beatitudes and four woes), he stereotypes, and consequently uses the 2nd person (ὑµετέρα), is more reluctant to use his favourite vocabulary,93 but pushes the present (νῦν) extremely strongly94 and emphasises the socio-political impact (οἱ πτωχοί, οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν).

92

The Appendix to § 2 demonstrates both the similarities and the differences. Luke has γελάω (6,21.24), σκιρτάω (6,23), παράκλησις (6,24, cf. 2,25), ἐµπίµπληµι (6,25, cf. 1,53), Matthew has some in the parallels to Luke’s Beatitudes (διψάω, δικαιοσύνη), but mostly in his ʻadditions’ (οἱ πραεῖς, οἱ ἐλεήµονες, οἱ καθαροί, οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί, θεὸν ὁράω, υἱοὶ θεοῦ). 94 Luke 6,21: οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν, οἱ κλαίοντες νῦν, and 6,24: οἱ ἐµπεπλησµένοι νῦν, οἱ γελῶντες νῦν. 93

2.3 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) III

151

Even in the transition to the next part (Matt 5,11f; 6,23.26) only 15 words (of 51 in Luke, 34 in Matthew) are exactly the same.95 The three Beatitudes are both identical (content, purpose, form) and very different. We highlight here the few shared features: Luke 6,20–22 (22 words)

6,23.26 (51 words)

ὑµετέρα, νῦν, τοῦ θεοῦ οἱ κλαίοντες νῦν, ὅτι γελάσετε µισήσωσιν καὶ ἐκβάλωσιν τὸ ὄνοµα ὑµῶν ὡς πονηρὸν ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κατὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίουν τοῖς προφήταις οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν

Matthew 5,3f.6 (28 words)

5,11f (34 words)

τῷ πνεύµατι, αὐτῶν, τῶν οὐρανῶν διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην οἱ πενθοῦντες, αὐτοὶ παρακληθήσονται διώξωσιν καὶ εἴπωσιν πᾶν πονηρὸν καθ᾿ ὑµῶν ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ οὕτως γὰρ ἐδίωξαν τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑµῶν

It is impossible to make a judgement about the best or the most original text. We see the redactional hand in both Matthew and Luke. The form in the Beatitudes is more similar than the content, and in the second part, the argumentation, the opposite is the case. In the central section96 (Luke 6,27–38 = Matt 5,38–48; 7,1f.7.12), when it comes to wording the exact likeness amounts to about 30% both in Luke and Matthew. However, the argumentation follows the same pattern. The content in Matt 5,38–48 and Luke 6,27–38 is nearly identical, but the form and the sequence are different: Luke

Matthew

6,27 (= Matt 5,39.44): Antithetical headline: ἀλλὰ ὑµῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν … 6,27f: four exhortations 6,29f: four contrasting examples 6,31: The Golden Rule 6,32–34: three examples 6,35: the reward 6,36: the key (be like God) 6,37a/b: two warnings + consequences 6,37c/38: two exhortations + metaphors

= 5,43f: 6th antithesis: two examples = 5,39–42: 5th antithesis: five examples = 7,12 = 5,46–47: two examples = 5,45 = 5,48 (be like God) = 7,1f (do not judge, do not condemn) (Matt 6,15; 7,2.7 – and Mark 4,24)

On the surface, the form is very different due to the stereotypical antithesisstructure in Matthew, but Luke also has an antithetical structure through the 95

The use of ἀφορίζω, ἐκβάλλω is strange in Luke. Conversely, the use of ἀγαλλιάω, ψεύδοµαι (text-critically disputed) in Matthew is strange. 96 Often seen as the core of the SM, cf. Hasler, “Das Herzstück der Bergpredigt” (1959); Krämer, Überlieferungsgeschichte (1994), 21ff (“Der Kristallisationskern der Bergpredigt”).

152

§ 2 The Historical Quest

headline Luke 6,27 (ἀλλὰ ὑµῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν), the seven or eight antithetical examples in 6,27–35, and the use of πλήν in 6,35.97 The most significant feature in Luke is the 14 imperatives in this short paragraph, repeating his favourite verbs ἀγαπᾶν (six times),98 δανίζειν (twice), δίδωµι and ἀγαθοποιεῖν (once). In addition to ten positive and two negative imperatives both key-sentences (Luke 6,31.36) have the imperative form. These imperatives give Luke’s SP a different character. Luke emphasises certain themes like giving and loaning (δίδωµι, δανίζειν, τὰ ἴσα) much more than Matthew and (probably) the Inaugural Speech. Luke’s particular wording/ vocabulary is often noticed, but it is often overlooked that Luke, more than Matthew, has the motif of reward.99 The structure, the key-sentence in Luke 6,35 and the many imperatives (6,36.37) emphasise the perspective of reward. Matt 5,38–48 comes from the Inaugural Speech (without the antithesisform?). There is no indication of Q-material in Matt 5,21–37 except for 5,25f. 31f (Luke 12,57ff; 16,18).100 Matt 5,21f.23f.33–37 is Matthean “Sondergut”.101 So in the Antitheses Matthew’s editorial hand is visible throughout. Luke 6,27–36 (= Matt 5,38–48 plus 7,12) is the very heart of the SP and was most likely also the central message of the Inaugural Speech. Even terminology, audience and rhetorical argumentation are similar. What requires an explanation is why the order is different. Order is the main argument for the existence of an ‘Inaugural Speech’ in Q. Luke is seemingly less rhetorically elaborated, but looking at the imperatives and the general sentences a different picture develops: Luke has 12, Matthew has only two positive imperatives. Both have “love your enemies” (Luke 6,27.33; Matt 5,44) and “pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6,28; Matt

97 Cf. Luke 6,24. The usage in the Q-tradition (Matt 11,22; Luke 10,14) is exactly the same. Cf. Frid, “A Brief note on πλήν in Roman Times” (1986/87). 98 Used six times. Luke’s repetitions in 6,28, 6,32 and 6,37 are obvious: 6,28: Love your enemies 6,32: Love your enemies, 6,37: If you love those who love you, Do good to those who do good to them, if you do good to those who …, hate you Bless those who curse you. lend to them … if you lend to those from whom … 99 Luke 6,35 has the word µισθός. Luke doubles it through χάρις. 100 The parables in Matt 5,25f and Luke 12,58f appear in totally different contexts, and the audience is also different. Luke 12,54–59 is said to the public (ὄχλοι), is polemic and blaming the ὑποκριταί, and is part of one of Luke’s eschatological speeches. The logion on (re)marriage in Matt 5,31f is framed differently. Only Matthew has the antithesis-form, and the context of Luke 16,14–18 indicates the disciples (and not the general public) as audience. This saying is, however, addressed to the Pharisees, and this particular issue is mentioned among other critical statements against the Pharisees. 101 Like the fourth antithesis, (Matt 5,33ff = Jas 5,12) Matt 5,21f is in contact with a broader tradition in early Christianity (1 John 3,15).

2.3 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) III

153

5,44). Luke has ten more.102 Matthew has two negative infinitives (functioning as imperatives): Matt 5,39: µὴ ἀντιστῆναι and 5,34: µὴ ὀµόσαι ὅλως.103 Due to the content of the sayings some unusual words are used. Both Matthew and Luke are reluctant to use their favourite vocabulary, but Matthew uses τέλειος and µισθός, whereas Luke prefers οἰκτίρµων and χάρις. Concluding part: Both Matthew and Luke have elaborated the peroratio. The parables (tree/fruit and house on the rock/sand) plus the key-sentence Luke 6,46 = Matt 7,21 are the basis. The parables dominate the last part: Luke 6,39–48 has five, Matt 7,13–27 has seven/eight. Luke has the beam-splinter parable in this part (= Matt 7,3– 5). The beam-splinter parable has nearly the same wording. Luke has therefore 43% exact likeness versus 29% in Matthew. Most surprising are the major differences in the concluding parable. The central saying (Luke 6,46: Τί δέ µε καλεῖτε· κύριε κύριε, καὶ οὐ ποιεῖτε ἃ λέγω; Matt 7,21: Οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων µοι· κύριε, κύριε, … ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ πατρός µου) has at its core the same key-terms (κύριε κύριε, ποιεῖν), but Matthew has much more. The wording is more different here than in other parts, not only in the particular traditions (Luke 6,38.44f; Matt 7,15). Luke 6,41f 6,43f 6,46 6,47–49

Matthew 69 words 34 words 11 words 85 words

7,3–5 7,15–19 7,21f 7,24–27

63 words 60 words 25 words 97 words

The first two are very different in the SM/SP. They have the same form, but the SM is far more extensive. Beam Tree – fruit House-parable

Luke: Total – similar words

Matthew: Total – similar words

69 – 51 = 74% 34 – 10 = 30% 83 – 21 = 25% Parables about 43%

64 – 51 = 80% 60 – 10 = 17% 95 – 21 = 22% Parables about 34%

One could consider that the saying on false prophets (Matt 7,15; Luke 6,26) was part of the speech, but close to 30 verses and nearly one third of the SM belong to this source. The Inaugural Speech itself is short, but entails a vari102

Do good to those who hate you (Luke 6,27.33), give to everyone who asks you (Luke 6,30.38), the Golden Rule (Do to others …, Luke 6,31 = Matt 7,12), bless those who curse you (Luke 6,28), lend to them without expecting to get anything back (Luke 6,35), be merciful, just as your Father is merciful (Luke 6,36) and forgive, and you will be forgiven (Luke 6,37). 103 Luke 6,37 has three statements: µὴ κρίνετε = Matt 7,1; µὴ καταδικάζετε; µὴ καταδικασθῆτε. Some words are used only here in the New Testament: δανίζω (Matt 5,42; Luke 6,34.35), and only in Luke (ἀπελπίζω, 6,35, τὰ σά, 6,30; 15,31) or Matthew (µίλιον, 5,41).

154

§ 2 The Historical Quest

ety of forms: beatitudes, antithetical sentences, exhortations and parables, and such a variety indicates a single source behind the two evangelists. Not only is the wording similar, but also the occurrence of strange words. Even in the use of particles like γάρ, οὖν, δέ, etc. they occur at exactly the same position. One must, however, not exaggerate the similarity. Bergemann calculates the similarity to an average of 30%,104 but in fact we have only 20% exactly identical sayings (Matt 7,1/Luke 6,37a and Matt 7,3–5/Luke 6,41f). The Beatitudes, the words on retaliation and the final parable have low percentages when it comes to style and vocabulary, but the content/message is identical. 2) What is the relation between the Inaugural Speech and Q? The SM in Matt 5–7 is the very origin of the Q-theory and consequently of the twodocument hypothesis (2DH). Some scholars assume that Q only had sayings. Many answers are possible, four are most important to consider: – Q is more extensive – IS more brief. – Q has narratives & sayings – IS just sayings. – Q has many purposes – IS has a programmatic, deliberative character. – Genre/composition of Q is not clear – IS has a clear genre and composition. Q was most likely an epitome with a certain content and structure. It was a written, but not edited source. It had a certain structure and entailed a programmatic speech. This fact must be explained. 2.3.2 The Double Tradition (Q) – Outside the SM The largest part of tradition in the SM consists of parallels found elsewhere in Luke, more specifically in Luke’s Travelogue (9,51–18,14). Did some of these traditions come from the Inaugural Speech? Or did Matthew add these sayings to the SM? It is remarkable that these sayings more often have exactly the same form and wording than they have in the undisputed Inaugural Speech. Light-saying Parable – on forgiveness On divorce Lord’s Prayer On treasures On light Master and servant On worrying On praying Gate and crossroad On confessing

104

Matthew

Luke

5,14f (24+18 = 42 words) 5,25f – 43 words 5,32 – 34 words 6,9–13 – 61 words 6,19 – 18 words 6,22f – 45 words 6,24 – 27 words 6,25–34 – 188 words 7,7–11 – 74 words 7,13 – 25 words 7,22f – (27+15 = 42 words)

8,17; 11,33 – 18+16/20 words 12,57–59 – 58 words 16,18 – 17 words 11,2–4 – 43 words 12,34 – 12 words 11,34–36 – 44 words 16,13 – 28 words 12,22–32 – 190 words 11,9–13 – 75 words 13,24 – 15 words 13,26f – 29 words

Cf. Bergemann, Q auf dem Prüfstand (1993), 67–235, who finds “massive Diskrepanzen”, pp. 231/230.

155

2.3 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) III

Particularly the long text (Matt 6,25–33) is nearly identical. In these Q parallels both the wording and the content are very similar. As long as Matthew and Luke had the Inaugural Speech in Q as a common source, the order is identical. Without this basis, the order is different. Luke keeps them, however, within the Travelogue. On the other hand, the order is quite different, we must see the saying both from the perspective of Matthew, and, like the IQP, from the perspective of Luke (bold print indicates identical sequence): Order in SM

Luke’s Travelogue

Luke’s order105

SM

5,15 5,25f 5,31f 6,9–13 6,19–21 6,22f 6,24 6,25–33 7,7f 7,9–11 7,13f 7,22f

(8,16); 11,33 12,58f 16,18 11,2–4 12,33f 11,34–36 16,13 12,22–31 11,9f 11,11–13 13,23f 13,26ff

(8,16) 11,2–4 11,9–13 11,33 11,34–36 12,22–31 12,33(f) 12,(57)58–59 13,23f 13,26f 14,34f 16,13 16,17 16,18

(5,15) 6,9–13 7,7–11 (5,15) 6,22f 6,25–33 6,19(–21) 5,25f 7,13f 7,22f 5,13 6,24 5,18 5,32

Only the last sayings in Matt 7 have the same order as Luke 13,23–27. Compared to the Inaugural Speech – with only one saying out of order – this is unexpected. The following thesis can be established: As long as they have the Inaugural Speech as basis, Matthew and Luke have the same order. Q conveys the sayings but is an epitome with few structural principles. In this case one should not ask too hastily: Is it Luke or Matthew who has the original order? It might be easier to decide whether Luke or Matthew preserved the original wording. It is possible that one of the evangelists preserved the order or the wording, or both, better. But one of them could have preserved the sayings better but changed the order according to his compositional plan. The presence of criteria to answer this question is a desideratum in scholarship.106 One should ask another question: Do parts of the SM in Matthew originate from the source Luke used? In this case Matthew preserved the order best, and there are at least some indications in favour of a larger Inaugural Speech than just the SP. Luke adds the Woes and some parables (Luke 6,24– 26.39f.45), and because he rarely adds, but rather replaces, sayings, they

105

Cf. IQP and Neirynck, Q-Parallels (2001). Denaux, “Criteria for Identifying Q-Passages” (1995), has the best reflection in his review of Th. Bergemann’s book, Q auf dem Prüfstand (1993). 106

156

§ 2 The Historical Quest

could have been part of the original Inaugural Speech.107 They fit perfectly into the scheme of ‘decision-making’ that characterises the Inaugural Speech and even the SM. Are the Q-sayings inserted into the SM or removed from the SP? Matthew’s habit of inserting new sayings into given speeches is also obvious in the SM. Some could be, but not all sayings were part of the original Inaugural Speech. The additions are of two kinds. (a) Most of the additions are parables and metaphorical sayings: the metaphors on salt (Matt 5,13 par.), on light (5,14 par.), on treasure (6,19–21 par.), on seeing (6,22f par.), on gate/way (7,13f par.) are all elaborated, but not into a diatribe (6,25–33 par.) or into parables like the one on forgiveness (5,25f par.), on giving (7,9–11 par.) and the judgment scene (7,22f par.). Matthew could distribute these sayings throughout the whole speech. Luke concentrated the parabolic sayings into the last part (Luke 6,39–48). He excluded parables in the first parts, and the last part would have been out of proportion if all parables had been used. He inserts them into other speeches. The saying in Matt 6,19–21 could be part of the Inaugural Speech, and both Matthew and Luke see it as a saying parallel to the Woes (Luke 6,24–26).108 (b) The second type of sayings are general statements about God and mammon (Matt 6,24 par.), on begging/giving and receiving (7,7f par.) and the Lord’s Prayer (6,9–13 par.). Luke has here probably the best order, or he locates all sayings on prayer together with the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11 (11,2–4.9f = Matt 6,9–13; 7,7f; 7,9–11).109 Matthew and Luke also have a general statement about the Torah (Matt 5,18 par.) and the application of the everlasting Torah to lifelong marriage (5,31f par.). These sayings are part of the Antitheses in Matthew, which he emphasises much more than Luke does. However, some parts of Luke have an antithetical structure, like Luke 16,13–18 (where he has both the God/mammon and the Torah sayings) and Luke 6,27–38; the ἀλλά in 6,27 gives the signal, and he follows up through a number of antithetical sentences and the Lucan signal, πλήν (6,24.35).110 These antithetical formulations fit perfectly in a delibera107 Cf. Wolter, Lukasevangelium (2008), 246. To be more precise one should also include Luke 6,21c.d; 6,27c.28a; 6,33a.b; 6,34.35a.b; 6,37b.c; 6,38a.b; 6,46b; 6,47b. 108 Matthew could therefore abandon the Woes, and Luke remove them to a context, in which they function perfectly (Luke 12). 109 Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu (1907), argued that the Lord’s Prayer was part of the Inaugural Speech, which discredited his thesis of Matthean priority. 110 Frid, “A Brief note on πλήν in Roman Times” (1986/87), observed the importance of this conjunction. Jeremias, Sprache (1980), 139f, thought the term was prior to Luke and that Luke has consciously used πλήν as a bridge: Luke 6,24 (after the propositio) and 6,35 (as the opposite to retaliation and as introduction to the theme of enemy-love). Πλήν occurs in Jesus-sayings with polemic tone (cf. Luke 10,11.14.20 and 11,41; 12,31; 13,33; 18,8; 19,27; 22,21f.42; 23,28).

2.3 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) III

157

tive speech, in which the choice between two options is fundamental. The sayings are so similar that few deny a common source, and the majority see Q as this source.111 To sum up: The Inaugural Speech was part of Q and still a particular part of Q. Matthew adds in the SM other sayings from Q, which fit well into the composition in style and theology. 2.3.3 The Triple-tradition in the SM/Matthew and the SP/Luke Marcan traditions seem to be lacking in the SM. This became a crucial argument in favour of the ʻtwo-document hypothesis’ (2DH), but the position was hard to defend.112 This is the place to test some of the weak points of the 2DH: the ‘minor agreements’ between Matthew and Luke in the Marcan material, and the overlaps between Mark and Q.113 The ʻoverlaps’ between Q und Mark can be found primarily in the narratives, but also in many of the sayings.114 The combination of narrative and Inaugural Speech in Matt 7,28/Luke 7,1 is an important ʻoverlap’,115 and the overlaps also occur in crucial passages in the two Inaugural Speeches:116 in Luke 6,38, the conclusion of the second part in the SP (6,27–38), and in the propositio of the SM. Matthew has more than half of the triple-tradition in the SM. The nine sayings are the following:117 Matthew

Mark

5,13 on salt (26 words) 9,49 5,15 on light 4,21 5,18 Word of God un- 13,30f til the end of world

Luke

Parallels elsewhere

14,34f (28 words) 11,33ff; 8,16 16,17 (21,31)

GTh 33,2 Did. 1,5

111 Luke distributed the material in minor speeches in his ‘Travelogue’, and according to certain themes, such as on prosperity (Luke 12) using material we have in Matt 6,19–33. 112 Fleddermann, Mark and Q (1995), 209ff. Luke has the saying on measurement (6,38) from Mark. The more overlaps between Mark and Q we have, the less can they be defended as independent sources. 113 Next to Fleddermann, Longstaff, “The Minor Agreements” (above, p. 138, n. 43); Linton, “Das Dilemma der synoptischen Forschung” (1976). 114 Cf. Ed P. Sanders, “The Overlaps of Mark and Q and the Synoptic Problem”, NTS 19 (1973), 453–465. 115 Francis Watson, “Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology”, NTS 55 (2009), 397– 415, here 399f, 409. 116 Fleddermann, Mark and Q (1995), 75ff, 87ff, 160ff, 171ff, 182ff, 201ff and in idem, Q (2005), 75. 117 All three evangelists – plus the Gospel of Thomas – have in addition the following sayings: Hidden Mark 4,22 Luke 12,2 Matt 10,26 GTh 5 Mustard seed Mark 4,30–32 Luke 13,18–19 Matt 13,31–32 GTh 20

158

§ 2 The Historical Quest

Matthew

Mark

Luke

Parallels elsewhere

5,32 on remarriage 5,29f on offence 6,14f on forgiveness 6,19 on treasures 7,2 on measure 7,8 ask – receive

10,11f 9,43.45.47 11,25 10,21 4,24a 11,24

16,18 (17,1f) Matt 18,6f 6,38; – Matt 18,35 12,33; – Matt 19,22 6,38; 8,18; 19,26 11,9f; – Matt 21,22

1 Cor 7,10; Herm. Mand. 4,6 (Did. 8,2) Eph 4,32; Col 3,15

Jas 1,6

In spite of all these ʻoverlaps’ both the SP and the SM support the theory of two independent sources. Mark has three short sayings parallel to the SM (Matt 5,13.15; 7,2) in different forms. Matthew has all the Marcan sayings in his five speeches (Matt 5–7; 10; 13; 18; 23–25). Luke has only two of these sayings in the SP (about 15%) whereas Matthew places most of them in the SM (nearly 90%). Most of them seem to be part of Q and only one saying derives from the Inaugural Speech: Mark 4,24 on measure

Matt 7,2

Luke 6,38; 8,18 (19,16)

ἐν ᾧ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε µετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν καὶ προστεθήσεται ὑµῖν.

ἐν ᾧ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε µετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν.

ᾧ γὰρ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε ἀντιµετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν. (Cf. 8,18: ὃς ἂν γὰρ ἔχῃ, δοθήσεται αὐτῷ)

Four more sayings are close parallels and have a catch-word in common:118 Cause to sin Prayer Forgiveness On the everlasting word

Mark

Matthew

Luke

9,43.45.47: σκάνδαλον 11,24: αἰτεῖσθε 11,25: ἀφίετε … ἀφῇ

5,29f (18,8): σκανδαλίζειν 7,7f: αἰτεῖτε 6,14f: ἀφῆτε … ἀφήσει 5,18: παρέλθῃ

17,1f: σκάνδαλον … σκανδαλίζειν 11,9: αἰτεῖτε 17,3f: ἄφες … ἀφήσεις

13,30: παρέλθῃ

16,17 (21,31): παρελθεῖν

We have the same two characteristics as in the Q-sayings: metaphorical sayings and Law-sayings. The sayings – when it comes to form ‒ are mostly statements and even maxims. Few of them are commands. The saying about remarriage is an exception. They are wisdom-sayings and such sayings are easiest to distribute in different contexts. Many of the themes they pick up are crucial topics in Jesus’ teaching: Mark Matthew Luke 118

reciprocity

ascetic

remarriage treasure

forgiveness everlasting Law

4,21.24a 5,15; 7,2 6,38

9,43–49 5,29f 17,1f

10,11f 5,32 16,18

11,24f 6,14f; 7,8 17,3f

10,21 6,19 12,33f

13,30 5,18 16,17

Perhaps Mark 9,41: ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι οὐ µὴ ἀπολέσῃ τὸν µισθὸν αὐτοῦ (cf. Matt 5,12.46) and Mark 10,21 (cf. Matt 19,22 = Matt 6,19/Luke 12,33) could be added.

2.3 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) III

159

Luke in the other parallels follows the sequence of Mark. He realigns the sayings and adjusts them to his structure: Mark 4,21 on light – 18 words Matt 5,15 – 20 words Luke 8,16 – 16 words Mark 9,49 on salt – 21 words Matt 5,13 – 17 words Luke 14,34f – 13+16 words Mark 10,11 on remarriage – 22 words Matt 5,32 – 18 words Luke 16,18 – 17 words

Matthew gives the sayings from Mark a crucial position: in the propositio (5,13.15.18), in the Antitheses (5,29f.32), in the explanation of the Lord’s Prayer (6,14f), right at the beginning of the paragraph 6,19–7,12 (6,19) and also 7,2.8, and reinforces the main sentences in 7,1.7. These sayings are integrated into the SM and into the SP/Travelogue of Luke in different ways: Matthew worked with ʻblocks’ and in the SM as a ʻblock’ he integrated the few sayings from Mark into a crucial text, primarily in the propositio, but also in the Antitheses, the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, the transition to 6,19–24, and the two key-sayings in 7,1–12. The few sayings in Mark are as important as Mark’s narratives. Matthew has half of the Marcan sayings outside the SM. Mark has three short sayings from the SM (Matt 5,13.14; 7,2) in a different form.119 It should be noticed, however, that Matthew has all these sayings in his five speeches (Matt 5–7; 10; 13; 18; 23–25), and he does not relocate them in narratives. 2.3.4 Matthew’s ‘Sondergut’ (MattS) The relation between the SM/SP and the Gospels of Matthew/Luke can be understood in four different ways: – SM/SP are relatively independent from the rest of Matthew/Luke. – SM/SP are particular texts, but still an integral part of Matthew/Luke. – Matthew/Luke have produced the SM/SP based on certain sources. – Matthew/Luke have created the SM/SP. The solution is not necessarily the same for Matthew/the SM and Luke/the SP. The differences between Matthew and Luke are in focus, independent from source-theories, and today it is not source-theories, but another issue, that is high on the agenda: Must Matthew be seen as the first step in the reception-history of the Inaugural Speech or did he invent it? Contrary to one branch in recent research that stresses Matthew as creative author, one has to recognise the impact of the Inaugural Speech. If Luke and Matthew are independent from one another, both are the first recipients and interpreters of the speech rather than its authors. 1) The preparation for the SM in Matt 1–4 – a prologue to the SM. The long prologue Matt 1,1–4,16 provided the setting for the whole of Matthew,

119

Fleddermann, Mark and Q (1995), 75, 209ff, esp. 214f. The closest parallel is Mark 4,21/Matt 5,14.

160

§ 2 The Historical Quest

but to a lesser degree also for the SM: the Moses-typology is perhaps deliberate, perhaps also the notice about the mountain. Only Matt 4,17–25 suits perfectly as a preparation for the SM: promises about a new era of light are given, the Kingdom of God is proclaimed, the disciples are asked to follow Jesus, etc. But Matt 4,17–25 also serves as introduction both to the teaching (the SM) and the healing narratives in Matt 8–9. Matt 3–10 mainly follows Mark 1,1–3,19, with Matthew’s characteristic elaborations of miracle-stories from Mark. 80% of the narrative texts come from Mark and 70% are similar to Luke, whereas in Matt 5–7 few sayings have (distant) parallels in Mark, and some (here also about 70%) have parallels in Luke. The SM in Matt 5–7 is the very origin of the Q-theory and consequently of the two-document hypothesis. Some scholars assume that Q only had sayings. From 1850 until the Q-project, most scholars thought Q had both sayings and narratives (see above).120 2) MattS and the SM. About 30 verses in the SM occur solely in Matthew which means that nearly one third of the SM must be labelled as MattS. These texts have few parallels in Mark. The phrase ἀφίετε εἴ τι ἔχετε κατά τινος is used in Mark 11,25 and Matt 5,23 in texts about forgiveness, but the best parallels are found elsewhere in Matthew. These common themes are treated slightly differently in other Matthean texts, however, and in fact texts in the Gospel of Thomas, the Epistle of James and the Didache are sometimes more similar. These are the following: SM

Matthew

5,4.7–10 5,14a 5,14b 5,16 (καλὰ ἔργα) 5,17.19f 5,22 5,23f 5,33–37 6,1 6,2–4 6,5–8 6,16–18 6,34 7,6

Matt 23,21f (23,3ff.26) (23,4.18ff.23f) (18,19; 23,5ff) (9,14 par.)

Parallels elsewhere Jas 3,17 ἄνωθεν σοφία, εἰρηνική, ἐπιεικής, ἔλεος POxy 655,24; Dial. Sav. 14b; 34b; John 8,12; 12,35f POxy 132; GTh 32 1 Pet 2,12; Jas 2,18 Jas 1,25; 2,10.12 Jas 1,9 (βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν); 5,9 Mark 11,25; Did. 14,2 Jas 5,12; Justin, 1 Apol. 16,5 Did. 8,1, cf. Jas 3,17 (ἀνυπόκριτος) GTh 62 (to Matt 6,3); 104 Did. 8,2; GTh 104 Did. 8,1 Jas 4,13–15; Dial. Sav. 53a GTh 93/Agrapha (Markschies/Schröter) 165; Did. 9,5

It is difficult to explain why there are more parallels to the Gospel of Thomas, the Epistle of James and the Didache. A too strong emphasis on a JewishChristian environment is problematic due to the parallels in the Gospel of Thomas. 120

Baasland, “Matthew’s Elaborations of the ‘Inaugural Speech’” (2020).

2.3 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) III

161

It is possible to see the SM entirely as an expression of Matthew’s theology and ethics,121 but there are arguments in favour of the position in formhistory, that Matthew is wholly a redactor of given traditions. A middle road is possible: Matthew is particularly concerned with the form, and often gives the additions a particular form. The SM is unique compared to the other speeches in Matthew. They all have their individual structure, based on the given traditions. Even more so the SM. 3) The literary techniques in the SM – similar to Matthew in general. Six techniques are typical for Matthew: (a) Like in Matthew’s treatment of Mark, he mostly integrated the given traditions from Q into thematic ‘blocks’.122 Q

5,3– 12

MattS

5,13f.18 5,25f.30f. 32.38–48 5,16–20 5,21–24. 6,1– 33–37 18

6,19– 7,1–5 7,7–12 33 6,34 7,6

7,21. 24–27 7,13– 7,22f 20

(b) He uses another technique both in Marcan and in the Q-material: He extends the given tradition with similar traditions/sayings. Many of them are additions of similar thematic sayings – like elsewhere (Matt 5,16.17.19f.21f. 23.27f.33–37; 6,1–18.34; 7,6.13f), but it is peculiar to Matthew/the SM that he gives the additions the same form, as we see in all the parts: – in the exordium: extension of the Beatitudes 5,4.7–10 (= 44 words – from four to eight beatitudes) – in the propositio 5,14.16 (two ὑµεῖς ἐστε-sentences) + 5,17.19f, two ἦλθον- and two λέγω ὑµῖν-sentences (35 + 74 = 109 words) – in the argumentation there is the Antitheses I: 5,21–24.27–30.33–37.45 (95 + 90 + 82 + 24 = 191 words): extension of ʻantitheses’ (from two to six) and with similar thematic additions (Matt 5,23f. 25f.29–31) Antitheses II: 6,1–8.14f.16–18 (= 283 words): extension with the Lord’s Prayer, plus the addition of the forgiveness-saying, 6,14f Admonition I: 6,19f (= 37 words), e.g. extension of the two worryingsayings with a third (6,34) Admonition II: extension of two more µή-sentences 7,6 (= 25 words) – in the peroratio 7,15 + 7,22f (16 + 42 words) The SM never disrupts a given pattern, Matthew is always extending a given form. (c) A third technique is the tendency to stereotype the tradition – as in the Marcan material (e.g. the teaching of John the Baptist, Matt 3,3, and Jesus, 121 122

So e.g. Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (1987), 457. Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (62007), 200f.

162

§ 2 The Historical Quest

4,17). The Beatitudes, the Antitheses and the worrying-sayings are, next to Matt 6,1–18, clear examples. The formulation of the four negative examples (in Matt 7,6 on the background of 6,19.25; 7,1) or the common introduction to Matt 5,13 and 5,14 (ὑµεῖς ἐστε) illustrate the same technique. (d) A fourth technique is the use of headlines (Matt 5,17.20; 6,1.25; 7,6.13f) or the use of concluding remarks (Matt 5,48; 7,12). We see the same technique elsewhere in Matthew (1,17; 10,16.26; 18,10.14.35; 24.3.36.42; 25,13). He can even use some favourite terms, like δικαιοσύνη in these texts (5,6.10.20; 6,1.33).123 (e) The use of inclusio occurs frequently in Graeco-Roman – and Jewish – literature, and also in Matthew. The conscious use of inclusion in Matt 5,17 and 7,12 plus 6,25 and 6,34, is notable.124 (f) Matthew often uses well-established vocabulary, such as καλός and ἔργον. 4) The SM and the rest of Matthew: similar themes and still unique. Davies/Allison give the following list of similarities between the SM and Matthew elsewhere:125 SM

Matthew

SM

Matthew

SM

Matthew

5,1f 5,3f 5,5 5,7 5,10 (22) 5,17 5,23f 5,29f 5,32

1–4 11,5 11,29; 21,5 9,27 10; 24 8,4 23 18,8f 19,3–9

5,33–37 5,39 5,40 5,48 6,1 6,1–18 6,7f 6,11 6,12.14f

23,16–22 26,67 27,39.35 19,21 23,5 23 (‘hypocrites’) 11,25–30; 26,26–46 26,42 18,23–35

6,16–18 6,19–21 6,24 7,6 7,13f 7,15 7,16–20 7,21–23 7,29

9,14–17 10,9–11; 19,16–26 10,24 13,36–52; 15,15–20 10,32–38; 16,24–28 24,24–27 12,33–37 21,30; 25,11f 11,25; 28,18

The list is not very precise. Some parallels should be considered; Matt 5,3.5.7.48; 6,11.12/14.19–21 reuse the vocabulary and content. However, some parallels are vague, like 5,17.23f.39; 6,1; 7,6.13f.15.29, or have a general character (5,10; 6,7f.24). Some reflect somewhat similar traditions in Q (5,10.29f.32; 7,16–20.21–23), or the theme of persecutions (5,11 and 10,17.23; 23,34–36).

123 Cf. Matt 3,15 and 21,32. How strongly Matthew changes the tradition depends on the interpretation of this term, cf. O. Betz, “Bergpredigt und Sinaitradition” (1987); Deines, Gerechtigkeit (2004); Thom, “Justice in the Sermon on the Mount” (2009). 124 Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 5–9, lists Matthew’s ‘structuring methods’ and these can easily be applied on the SM: Matthew gathers sayings with similar content or similar length, uses keywords, repetitions, inclusions, chiasms, triads and other numerical tools. 125 Davies/Allison, “Reflections” (1991), 299–302. In addition, they mention the combination of prayer – forgiveness, and (not) worrying – prayer. They mistype 7,21–23 instead of 7,16–20 on p. 302.

2.3 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) III

163

Against this background Davies/Allison criticise “the unfortunate habit of viewing the SM in isolation”, “the proper interpretation of the SM must be one with the proper interpretation of the First Gospel in its entirety”.126 However, the SM has its own significance due to its character as programmatic speech, and it is an overstatement to label the speech as ‘Matthew’s speech’.127 It is indeed more the techniques than particular material that Matthew has applied. Matthew is not changing and remodelling the tradition. He rather conflates, and in his narrative economy he picks up certain traditions and postpones them till later in his Gospel.128 The SM sometimes has almost contradicting perspectives (5,33–37; 6,16–18). The agreements between the SM and the rest of Matthew are limited to some key terms and to general similarities. How specific is the SM? Three observations illuminate this question: (a) Some themes in the SM are not followed up later in Matthew: The theme of anger, in the first antithesis (5,22) is not followed up, nor is the first antithesis in 6,1–18 (on alms, 6,2–4), nor the theme of worrying tomorrow (6,34), or the saying on pearls before swine (7,6). What is strange is that many of the Matthean ‘extensions’ are not followed up in the rest of Matthew. (b) Important themes in Matthew which are lacking in the SM: A number of important themes in Matthew we do not find in the SM: We have no quotations from the Old Testament with the formula of reflection (1,22; 2,5.15; 4,14; 8,17, etc.),129 and we have no defence against accusations like in Matt 1,18–25; 27,64f; 28,11–15. Christological titles like ὁ χριστός or ὁ υἱός τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (cf. Luke 6,23)130 are lacking, and there is no ecclesiology in the SM like in Matt 18. Matthew does not even distinguish disciples and multitude (such as in Matt 13).131 The term ‘conversion’ in Matt 4,17 (µετανοεῖτε), which would have been more than appropriate, is not used in the SM. The SM uses the terms ὀφειλήµατα and παραπτώµατα, but not Matthew’s otherwise favourite term, ἁµαρτία (1,21; 3,6; 9,2–5; 12,31). 126 Ibid., 283/284. Syreeni, The Making of the Sermon on the Mount (1987), 81ff, agreed that the SM is an integral part of Matthew’s Gospel and cannot be isolated. 127 Eichholz, Auslegung der Bergpredigt (1965), 35, 46ff (“Bergpredigt des Matthäus”). 128 Schweizer, “Aufnahme und Gestaltung von Q bei Matthäus” (1991). 129 Matthew quotes only two – universally relevant – commandments. The formula ‘Law and Prophets’ in spite of Matt 5,17; 7,12; 22,40 is not a phrase of Matthew. It derives from Q (Luke 16,16). 130 Christology is visible in the expressions ἕνεκεν (5,10f, elsewhere only in 10,18.39 and 16,25; 19,39), ἦλθον (5,17, etc.), λέγω ὑµῖν/ἀµὴν λέγω σοι (5,21ff) and in judgmentsayings (7,21ff, cf. 16,27; 19,28; 25,31ff). 131 Matt 5,1f does not distinguish people and disciples sharply. This comes (after Matt 10) in Matt 13,2 (ὄχλοι πολλοί) and 13,10 (διὰ τί ἐν παραβολαῖς λαλεῖς αὐτοῖς;); 13,13 (διὰ τοῦτο ἐν παραβολαῖς αὐτοῖς λαλῶ). ‘The people’ is more distant and Matthew uses λαός and not ὄχλος in the quotation from Isa 6,9f (ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου).

164

§ 2 The Historical Quest

Pagans and publicans have a more negative connotation in Matt 5,46f; 6,7.32 (and 18,17), whereas they function primarily positively later in Matthew (8–9; 28,18–20), and we have no particular limitations in 5,13–16 etc. such as in 10,5.23; 15,24–28. On the other hand, the image of the Pharisees in Matt 5,20 is totally different from the confrontation in Matt 23. The SM does not prepare for the sharp woes against the Pharisees and Scribes in Matt 23.132 The sharp condemnation γεννήµατα ἐχιδνῶν (Matt 3,7; 12,34; 23,29–33) does not occur in the SM. Here ʻhypocritesʼ is used (οἱ ὑποκριταί, 6,2.5.16; 7,5), a term Matthew uses rarely – except for the accusations in Matt 23.133 What about the ethical terms in the SM – are they reused later in Matthew? ∆ικαιοσύνη is not used that often (five times in key-sayings, elsewhere Matt 3,15; 21,32) and the key word τέλειος (5,48) only in 19,21. Ἀγάπη is not used as in 24,12, and the verb ‘to love’ (ἀγαπᾶν), is more clearly used in the ethical sense in 19,19; 22,37.39 than in the quotation from Lev 19 in Matt 5,43–46. Θέληµα (12,50; 18,14; 21,31; 26,42) is used in the SM (6,10; 7,21), but not ἔλεος (9,13; 12,7; 23,23: ἔλεος, κρίσις, πίστις as the content of the Law) or the term τηρεῖν (19,17; 23,3; 28,20).134 The SM is certainly sui generis, even in the framework of Matthew. The SM is never referred to in Matthew’s narratives. It is a sermon on its own. (c) Some conflicting motifs that cannot be overlooked: There are conflicting motifs with all the speeches in Matthew.135 The tension with Matt 10 can be seen on many levels. The seven parables in Matt 13 have some similarities with the SM, but in the end, they also take us to a somewhat different world; in the SM there is no ‘mystery of the Kingdom’ and the parables have a different character. Colin Hickling has already formulated the conflicting motifs within Matt 18.136 The most obvious tension is between the SM and Matt 23(–25).137 The conflicting motifs between the SM and the rest of Matthew should not be overplayed. All five speeches in Matthew have a specific terminology and key-terms.138 132

Cf. Weinfeld, “The Charge of Hypocrisy in Matthew 23 and in Jewish Sources” (1990). 133 Used six times in Matt 23. Matt 15,7 repeats Mark 7,6 and Luke has the term three times (5,43; 12,56; 13,13) and Matt 24,51 has rather pagans in mind. Only Matt 6 and 23 entail the discrepancy external versus internal. 134 Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (1987), 447, argues that Matthew provides a “Lehrbuch der christlichen Ethik für die Kirche aller Zeiten” based on baptism. Yet baptism plays no role in the SM (contrary to Matt 3,13–18; 28,18–20. 135 Davies/Allison, “Reflections” (1991), 302, state too strongly: “any valid interpretation of Matt 5–7 must apply equally to the rest of Jesus’ words (and deeds) in Matthew”. 136 Hickling, “Conflicting Motives in the Redaction of Matthew” (1982). 137 Weinfeld, “The Charge of Hypocrisy in Matthew 23 and in Jewish Sources” (1990). 138 E.g. δικαιοσύνη in 3,15; βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν in 4,17; or ἐκκλησία in 16,18.

2.3 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) III

165

The conflicting motives are already indicated: the connotations of publicans, pagans and Pharisees are different. The term ‘disciples’ is not used in the SM. The saying in Matt 7,22f undervalues the task of healing. The extremely negative attitude towards oaths in Matt 5,33–37 even contradicts the practices that Jesus has (26,63f) and the saying in Matt 23,16–22. Some of the themes in the SM (Matt 5,22.33–37; 6,1–8.16–18; 7,6.22f) have no parallels in any other canonical Gospel either. More importantly, in the whole of Matthew there is a progression, and the five speeches clearly show this aspect. The SM is foundational. Matt 10 presupposes the SM, as does the parable speech, Matt 13. Matt 18 specifically addresses the disciples. Matt 23 sharpens the SM – even more than Matt 13 and 18. The eschatological speech in Matt 24–25 extends the perspective of Matt 7,12–27.139 To sum up: The relation between the SM and the rest of Matthew is ambiguous. The SM is a separate source for the teaching of Jesus. The similarity with the SP is considerably bigger than the similarity with the rest of Matthew. We see Matthean style in the SM, but these are superficial features compared to the given tradition in his source, in Mark and primarily in the Inaugural Speech/Q. 2.3.5 Comparison: Luke’s ‘Sondergut’ in the SP The SP is both typical and atypical for Luke.140 1) Preparations for the SP in Luke 1,1–6,19. The preparation in Luke 6,12–19 is obvious, starting with the information that Jesus in these days (ἐν ταῖς ἡµέραις ταύταις)141 went up the mountain (ἐξελθεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ ὄρος) in order to pray and select the Twelve. Then he went to the plain (καταβὰς µετ᾿ αὐτῶν ἔστη ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ). The ‘plain’ is necessary as a site for the huge audience (ὄχλος πολύς – πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Ἰερουσαλὴµ καὶ τῆς παραλίου Τύρου καὶ Σιδῶνος – πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος). The information in 6,19 about Jesus’ healing activity (ἰᾶτο πάντας) is a preparation for the Beatitudes, and the huge mixed audience consisting of ‘enemies’ also prepared for the message in Luke 6,27–39. The most important preparation, however, is the Nazareth speech.

139

Stanton, A Gospel for a New People (1992), 318–325, has both perspectives: the SM has particular features, but is still “an integral part of Matthew’s gospel” (318). 140 Cf. Bacon, “The Order of the Lukan Interpolation” (1917); Grundmann, “Die Bergpredigt nach der Lukasfassung” (1959); Ronald D. Worden, “A Philological Analysis of Luke 6:20b–49 and Parallels”, PhD Diss., Princeton Theological Seminary 1973, who lists 210 differences; Topel, Children of a Compassionate God (2001). 141 The formulation only in Luke (1,39; 19,42; 24,18; Acts 1,15), cf. 2,1; 4,2 even closer to the very frequent Septuagint phrase (Gen 6,4; 15,18; 26,32, etc.).

166

§ 2 The Historical Quest

2) References to the SP in Luke. The connection between the three speeches (Luke 4,21[–27]; 6,20–29; 8,1–18) is close, and it is hardly any coincidence that the parable of the sower closely follows the Inaugural Speech. However, few phrases from the SP are used later in Luke. The Beatitudes might be the background for the new µακάριος-sentences in Luke 7,23; 10,23; 11,28; 14,14. But the µακάριος-sentences and enemy-love commands or judging, etc. are more like the counterpoint in a piece of music. Particularly the beatitudes of the poor in Luke 4,18 and 6,20 also resonate with 1,53; 7,22; 14,13.21; 16,20.22; 18,22; 19,8; 21,13. The contrast, the woes on the rich (πλουσίοι), is more dominant. It makes sense with the harsh criticism of rich people, 12,18–21; 14,12; 16,1.19.22f; 18,23.25; 19,2; 21,1. Most of the vocabulary and many themes in the SP stand on their own. The SP is the foundation on which the other speeches are built, but the foundation itself is only visible in part. 3) The SP and the following speeches in Luke; literary techniques.142 There is a progression in the speeches, as in Matthew’s, in five blocks of speeches or collections of sayings. One can, however, easily overlook the fact that Luke’s much briefer collections of sayings in his ‘Travelogue’, Luke 9,51– 18,14, function similarly. Luke generally shortens the larger collections and extends some of the brief speeches. He uses the narrative in Mark as much as possible: 6,20–49 (3 parts) Matt 5–7

8,4–18

10,1–24 11,1–13 12,1–21 12,22– 14,15–34 17,20–37 21,8–36 (3 parts) 59 + 15,1ff + 18,1ff Mark 4 Mark 6 Mark 12 (Mark 9) Mark 13 Matt 13 Matt 10 Matt 23 Matt 18 Matt 24f

Next to the SM/SP, the mission speech, and the eschatological speech, have a particular position.143 Luke keeps the speeches shorter than in Acts (Acts 2, Peter; Acts 7, Stephen; and Acts 13; 17,16ff, Paul). Luke shortens the speeches – even the fundamental speeches (Luke 4,16ff; 6,20ff; 8,4ff; 10,1ff; 21,8ff) – in the Gospel in order to emphasise the character of the dialogue 142

Cadbury, Style (1919), e.g. change of order, 76–78; change of order within the sources, 78; abbreviations and omissions, 79–83; avoidance of repetitions, 83–90; structure of sentences and the use of conjunctions, 131–152; change in the order of words, 152–154; use of verbs, 158–185; use of pronouns, 191–195; use of adjectives and articles, 195–199; use of adverbs, 199–202; use of prepositions, 202–205. Later in a number of “Lexical Notes” in JBL 48 (1929), 412–425, both prior to The Making of Luke-Acts, London: Macmillan 1927, and after, e.g. “Some Lukan Expressions of Time”, JBL 82 (1963), 272–278. At the same time Sophia Antoniadis (L’Évangile de Luc: Esquisse de grammaire et de style, Paris: Les belles lettres 1930) and after 1945, esp. Schürmann, Lukasevangelium I (41990); Jeremias, Sprache (1980). 143 The Nazareth speech prepares perfectly for the SP. The circle of audience expands through Luke 6,20ff (the disciples), 6,27ff (broader audience) and 6,39ff (the multitude, 7,1). Fleddermann, Mark and Q (1995), 266ff, finds only one sermon in Q (‘The Sermon’).

2.3 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) III

167

(10,25–37; 11,14–36; 13,20–35; 18,15–30). This explains why Luke shortens the Inaugural Speech and removes some sayings to other speeches (on prayer/ giving, 11,1–13; treasure/worrying/forgiveness; light, 11,33ff; 12,22–59; gate/ judgment, 13,23–30; salt, 14,33f).144 The dialogue-character opens for Luke’s emphasis on the addressees.145 The SM has the people (and the disciples, Matt 5,1) as addressee, whereas Luke differentiates carefully: crowd (Luke 11,34–36; 13,23f; 14,34f), crowd and disciples (8,16; 11,33), disciples (11,1– 4; 11,9–13; 12,22–31; 12,33f; 16,13), Pharisees (12,58f; 16,17; 16,18). Luke has to differentiate because he distributes the sayings in longer speeches like the Inaugural Speech among briefer speeches. 4) The Lukan ‘Sondergut’ – why so few additions to Q? Luke has few additions to Q. One can therefore not exclude that Luke’s Sondergut was part of the original Inaugural Speech. This is more probable the more it fits into the pattern of thought and style of the Inaugural Speech, and less probable if we can see Lucan interests in the text. Luke has relatively few additions. In general, he shortens, and elaborates the style in many ways. Luke integrates the extras cautiously, following the given genres. Q (Matt) LukeS

6,20–23 (5,3– 12)

6,27–36 (5,39– 48) 6,24–26

6,37f (7,1f) (6,38)

6,39f 6,41f (7,3– 5) (6,40)

6,43–45 6,46 6,47–49 (7,16– (7,21) (7,24– 20) 27) (6,45)

The peculiar Lucan language like ἀγαθοποιέω (6,33.35; 6,9) or ὁ ἴσος/τὰ ἴσα in 6,34 (cf. Acts 11,17) is not used in the ‘Sondergut’. 5) The four Woes. The only addition to Q and its Inaugural Speech is the four woes in Luke 6,24–26 (44 words). This text has parallels in Matt 5,4 (and in Matt 6,19–21), but the parallels in Luke 12 etc. and in Jas 5,1–4 are much closer.146 The Woes can be part of the original speech, but many scholars here see Luke’s interests.147 Some label it as polemics against the Pharisees or as ʻpauperism’, etc.148 The links to Jas 5,1 have given rise to the theory of an Ebionite group behind these texts. On the other hand, for a long period of 144

Not in the polemical speech, Luke 11,46–12,12 – the parallel to Matt 23. Luke expanded the crowd of listeners. He follows the so-called ‘parable-theory’ and Jesus tells parables to the outermost circle: 6,20 (εἰς τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ); 6,27 (τοῖς ἀκούουσιν); 6,39 (εἶπεν παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς). This implies that Luke 6,27–38 does not have a parable-character. The introduction to 6,20–26 nearly contradicts the Woes, 6,23–25. 146 Matt 5,4f (οἱ πενθοῦντες ... παρακληθήσονται) corresponds with the Woes (οὐαὶ ὑµῖν) in Luke 6,25 (ἀπέχετε τὴν παράκλησιν, πεινάσετε … πενθήσετε). Jas 5,1 (οἱ πλούσιοι, κλαύσατε) has the same woe as Luke 6,25 (οὐαὶ … ὅτι … κλαύσετε). 147 Pfleiderer, Urchristentum I (21902), 569. Cf. de Wette, Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi (21838), 270; Petzke, Das Sondergut des Lukas (1990), 88–90. 148 Wolter, Lukasevangelium (2008), 254. 145

168

§ 2 The Historical Quest

time ‘Luke’ was seen as representative of ‘Early Catholicism’, due to the lack of eschatology.149 Four other possible additions to the Inaugural Speech with great certainty come from Q: Luke’s Sondergut

Matthew

GTh, James, Didache, etc.

6,38 (ὑπερεκχυννόµενον) 6,39 blind leaders 6,40 disciple and teacher 6,45 the good man’s words

13,12a; 25,29a 15,14b 10,24 12,34f

(1 Clem. 13,2; Pol. Phil. 2,3) GTh 34 John 13,16; 15,20; Jas 3,1; Dial. Sav. 53c GTh 45

The last three fit well into the pattern of thought in the Inaugural Speech and all these sayings are appropriate in a deliberative speech about decisionmaking, and the exaggeration in Luke 6,38 is along the same lines as other sayings in the second part of the SP. The first is framed by material from the Inaugural Speech and Luke elaborates them rhetorically. Luke 6,38 concludes the argumentatio, and has a key-function in the SP altogether as speech. The first two sayings in the peroratio come from Q, but they are not part of the SM. They are introduced as parables (εἶπεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς, Luke 6,39f). The focus on leaders/teacher and his words in the SM is slightly more ʻdemocratic’ than Luke. The fourth saying (Luke 6,45) has in the setting of the theme the danger of the ‘tongue’ (Matt 12,35f) To sum up: For Luke the Inaugural Speech is a special source, and he treats the source as an extremely conservative redactor. He is therefore reticent to make changes and to add from his ‘Sondergut’. It is a more open question whether he uses material from the Inaugural Speech in other speeches. 2.3.6 Source-critical, Historical and Rhetorical Explanation Matthew has 107 verses/1,938 words versus Luke’s 30 verses/580 words. The SM and SP still have a similar structure and order of the sayings. 1) Source-critical explanation. Both similarities and differences must be explained simultaneously. The explanation through oral transmission can at its best explain both, but often ends up without any explanation at all.150 The similarities and the same order in the SM/SP must presuppose a stable – most 149

Hans Conzelmann, Die Mitte der Zeit: Studien zur Theologie des Lukas, Tübingen: Mohr 1954, 89–127, etc. Bartsch, “Feldrede und Bergpredigt” (1960), already had a different view: “… die Redaktionsarbeit des Matthäus der frühchristlichen Paränese näher steht” (ibid., 18). 150 Cf. J.D.G. Dunn, “Q and the Oral Tradition” (2005), 47–53 (ibid., 53: “better known in oral form; the grouping could still be regular and form a standard repertoire for teachers”). Cf. Carter, What Are They Saying about Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount? (1994), 11–34; Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 39f, 589–591.

2.3 The Study of Sources (‘Quellenkunde’) III

169

likely a written – tradition, but the differences between the evangelists are so big that the only alternative to a ‘redaction-critical’ explanation is the assumption of two different sources.151 These could be two different translations of the same source, in which Luke improves the Greek and has a Hellenistic awareness, whereas Matthew translates from Aramaic and has a Jewish awareness.152 The evidence from word-statistics is not clear. We see a number of rare words and special constructions, but few words are used exclusively in the SM. Some observations must be considered: (a) Both Matthew and Luke see the Inaugural Speech as something special. One thing is its character as programmatic speech. They also preserve its character so that nobody will doubt that this is the same speech. It remains so in the two Gospels: Matthew refers indirectly to the speech (11,27–30; 23,15– 22; 28,18ff), but he never repeats any of the sayings in the SM. Luke does so occasionally, but mostly where there is a similar Q-saying available. (b) Only one of the sayings in the SM occurs in the triple-tradition (Matt 7,2/Luke 6,38 = Mark 4,24).153 (c) The fact that the order is the same only in this part of the Q-tradition, indicates that the Inaugural Speech was part of Q, framed by the narratives Matt 4,1–11/Luke 4,1–13 and Matt 8,5–13/Luke 7,1–10. (d) The undisputed Inaugural Speech represents only 28% of the (Matthew’s) SM, and – within these 28% – we have seen that exact parallels amount to almost exactly 30%. This fact could lead to scepticism regarding the whole concept of an Inaugural Speech. On the other hand, this fact also leads us to the very origin of the Jesus-tradition, to the stages behind Q, and to the assumption that some parts of the epitome Q had a firm structure. 2) Historical explanation? According to Ranke’s source-theory (‘the absolute source-theory’, see below) the oldest source, in this case the Inaugural Speech /Q, has the highest value, and the additions and redactional comments of a later editor/author have less value. The task was to reconstruct the place of origin of the author and his addressees. Exegetes work therefore more with the ‘place’, addressees, situation, time, purpose of the evangelists. 151

H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 30–44, passim; idem, “The Sermon on the Mount and Q” ([1990/]1992), esp. 268f; idem, “The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Interpretation” ([1991/]1992), esp. 273ff. 152 Sources were early translated from Aramaic to Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, etc. It is possible, but difficult, to prove that Matthew had an Aramaic source available. That most communication in Jesus’ lifetime was in Aramaic and the bilingual situation in Palestine in the period of oral transmission dominated, makes the too literary scissor-paste assumptions too naïve. 153 Luke 6,37 on forgiveness (= Matt 6,14f; Mark 11,25) could also be mentioned. Matt 7,15/Luke 6,26 resembles the eschatological saying in Mark 13,22 (Matt 24,11).

170

§ 2 The Historical Quest

On this point the source-critical studies converged with the efforts of the Tübingen-school (F.C. Baur’s Tendenz-criticism). The results were often similar: Matthew was embedded in a Judeo-Christian theology. Even conservative scholars like Paul Feine came to similar conclusions, but emphasised more the sources Matthew used.154 The themes in these texts reflect Jewish Christianity (Matt 5,17.19f.21ff.33ff; 6,1.2–8.16–18), and some scholars assume a Judeo-Christian group behind some of the texts.155 However, many of the same texts reflect simultaneously a rather distant attitude to Judaism as lived out in Jewish groups and customs. It is remarkable that these texts are not reused later in Matthew’s Gospel. The themes of swearing, alms-giving, prayer, fasting, are not specifically Jewish, and the radicalism is somewhat alien for a Jew. Sayings like Matt 6,19–21.25–33.34 or 5,16, etc. scarcely have references to Judaism. Compared to Luke, in the SM there is more emphasis on the Law, but there are far more antithetical formulations. The sayings from LukeS are few, and do not have a clear character. The SP is not polemical, does not reflect Jewish debates, and Luke seems to omit traditions which are hard for a non-Jew to follow. The Woes might have Jewish pre-texts, e.g. in the prophetic charges against wealthy oppressors. The saying about the good man also has analogies in Jewish texts. The Hellenistic parallels are of course much closer here.156 The evidences are not strong enough to draw the conclusion that “the SM originally addressed Jewish Christians … SP was originally written for gentile Christians”.157 To conclude: The SM/SP is part of Matthew/Luke’s strategy and Matthew/ Luke edited the various traditions into one compositional unit. But it is an imprecise exaggeration to see Matthew and Luke as ‘authors’ of the SM/SP. 3) Rhetorical explanation. Source-critical and historical explanations can never establish an adequate theory, on their own and together as part of a socalled absolute source-theory. One should rather examine the genre, style, grammatical and rhetorical features and the biases, purpose and perspective in the traditions behind the SM/SP. Source-critical analysis is necessary and in the case of the SM the possibilities are greater than in most other New Testament texts. The same must be said about historical explanations. Rhetorical explanation should entail both explanations, and still be the key to a cohesive explanation. Observations on the style and ideas, rhetorical and argumentative features in the text are without doubt the cohesive factor in historical work. 154 Feine, “Matthäus als Verfasser und Vermittler einer judenchristlichen Theologie” (1886). 155 Cf. H.D. Betz, “The Sermon on the Mount and Q” (1992), esp. 268f, and idem, “The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Interpretation” (1991/1992), here (1992), 273f. 156 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 630–632. 157 H.D. Betz, “Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain” (1985), 343 = (1992), 219.

2.4 Analysis of Linguistic and Argumentative Features in the SM/SP

171

2.4 Analysis of Linguistic and Argumentative Features in the SM/SP The most accurate description of sources examines vocabulary, forms and grammatical features, particularly the use of verbs (tenses – moods – participles) and conjunctions (subordinate clauses – type of sentences). The use of prepositions, pronouns (personal, possessive, relative, demonstrative, interrogative) and adjectives/adverbs must also be studied. 2.4.1 Comparison of Vocabulary etc. in the Two Speeches An analysis of the vocabulary in ancient documents is generally complicated, even in the case of Matthew and Luke,158 because of limited sources, influence from genre and purpose of writing, etc. A comparison between the vocabulary in the SM versus the SP can at most provide some indication of the character of the two speeches. We must search for linguistic features that occur or do not occur in Matthew, and compare them with Matthew and Luke in general. 1) Peculiar Vocabulary (a) Vocabulary common to the SM/SP – and not elsewhere in Matthew/Luke: Matthew

Luke

πενθέω (5,4 + eight times in NT) δανείζω (5,4) θέλετε ἵνα (7,12) µετρέω (7,2.2 = Mark 4,24.24 + 2 Cor 10,12; five times in Revelation) διαβλέπω (7,5 + Mark 8,25) καρπός + ἐπιγινώσκω (7,16)

πενθέω (6,25 + eight times in NT) δανείζω (6,34.35) θέλετε ἵνα (6,31) µετρέω (6,24, cf. Mark 4,24.24 + 2 Cor 10,12; five times in Revelation) διαβλέπω (6,42 + Mark 8,25) καρπός + γινώσκω (6,44)

(b) Vocabulary peculiar to the SM and vocabulary peculiar to the SP:159 Matthew

Luke

καθαρός + καρδία (5,8) θεός + ὁράω (5,8) εἰρηνοποιός (5,9) καλὰ ἔργα (5,16 + Mark 14,6)

γελάω (6,21.24) ἐκβάλλω τὸ ὄνοµα (6,22) ἀπελπίζω (6,35) ὑπερεκχύννω (6,38) ἀντιµετρέω (6,38)

158 Most comprehensive for Luke, Jeremias, Sprache (1980), and for Matthew: Johannes H. Friedrich, “Wortstatistik als Methode im Matthäusevangelium am Beispiel der Frage einer Sonderquelle im Matthäusevangelium”, ZNW 76 (1985), 29–42. Cf. the list of terms peculiar to Matthew by Morgenthaler, Statistik (1968), 151, which shows few particular Matthean words in the SM. 159 Cf. κατὰ τὰ αὐτά – Luke 6,26 and 17,30; Acts 14,1 + 1 Cor 12,8; Tit 3,5; Heb 2,4; οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν – Luke 6,23.26 + Acts 13,36 + John 8,44; Heb 8,9.

172

§ 2 The Historical Quest

(c) Vocabulary that rarely occurs in Matthew/Luke: Matthew

Luke

χορτάζω (5,6) ὀνειδίζω (5,11) πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (5,12)

χορτάζω (6,21), ἀφορίζω (6,22) ὀνειδίζω (6,22) πολὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (6,23) ἐµπίµπληµι (6,25; Luke 1,53 + 3 times in NT) ἀπέχω (6,24) καλῶς λέγω (6,25, cf. καλῶς ποιεῖτε, 6,27) κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ (6,26) καταράοµαι (6,28) ἐπηρεάζω (6,28, only 1 Pet 3,16) τύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ + σιαγόνα (6,29) τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν (6,33 + Eph 6,9) (ἀπολαµβάνω, 6,34) ἀχάριστος (6,35 + 2 Tim 3,2) οἰκτίρµων (6,36.36 + Jas 5,11) καταδικάζω (6,37; Matt 12,7.37; Jas 5,6) σαλεύω (6,38.48; Luke 7,24; 21,26 + 10 times in NT) εἰς βόθυνον (6,39; + Matt 12,11; 15,14) καρπὸς καλός (6,43: Luke 3,9; Matt 3,10) σῦκον (6,44 + Mark 11,13; Jas 3,12) περίσσευµα (6,45 + Matt 12,34 + twice in NT) θεµέλιος (6,48.49 + Luke 14,29)

ἀπέχω (6,2.5.16)

εἰς τὴν δεξιάν + σιαγών (5,39) τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν (5,44.47) ἐθνικός (5,47; 6,7 + 18,7; 3 John 7) µέτρον (7,2 = Luke 6,38; Mark 4,24; Matt 23,32; John 3,34; + 7 times in NT)

καρπὸς καλός (7,17.18; Matt 3,10; Luke 3,9) σῦκον (7,16 + Mark 11,13; Jas 3,12)

(d) Particular vocabulary, due to specific subjects: Some unusual words must not be given a sophisticated explanation. The particular issue, the object, the specific imagery causes the particular language: Matthew

Luke

ἁλίζω (5,13 + Mark 9,49) µόδιος (5,15 = Mark 4,21; Luke 11,33) ἰῶτα (5,18)/κεραία (5,18 = Luke 16,17) ἀγγαρεύω (5,41) µίλιον (5,41) σαπρός (7,17.18; 12,33; 13,48 + Eph 4,29) κάρφος (7,3.4) δοκός (7,3.4.5)

κάρφος (6,41.42) δοκός (6,41.42) σαπρός (6,43 + Eph 4,29) βαθύνω (6,48) τίθηµι θεµέλιον (6,48f, cf. 14,29) πλήµµυρα (6,48) προσρήσσω (6,48.49) συµπίπτω (6,49) ῥῆγµα (6,49)

2) ‘Favourite vocabulary’ in Luke/SP and Matthew/SM Matthew and Luke seem to restrict the use of some of their favourite terms to the SM/SP.160 160

E.g. τότε (Matt 5,24; 7,5 = Luke 6,42), not the typical Matthean usage of 4,17; 16,21 (ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς); cf. (ἀπὸ) ἕως.

2.4 Analysis of Linguistic and Argumentative Features in the SM/SP

173

(a) Vocabulary in the SM and Matthew and in the SP and Luke (Acts): Matthew

Luke

διψάω (5,6 + three times in Matthew + six times in John + 5 times in NT) πραΰς (5,5; 11,29; 21,5 + 1 Pet 3,4) ἐλεήµων (5,7 + Heb 2,17) ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων (5,16; 6,1; 10,32f; 23,13 + Luke 12,8) µὴ νοµίσητε ὅτι (5,17; 10,34) γραµµατεύς καί Φαρισαῖος (5,20 + 7 times in Matthew) ταχύ (5,25) ἐθνικός (5,47; 6,7 and 18,17 + 3 John 7) τέλειος (5,48.48; 19,21 + 16 times in NT epistles) ἔνδυµα (6,25.28; 7,15 + 3 times in Matthew/Luke 12,23) ὀλιγόπιστος (6,30; 8,26; 14,31; 16,8; Luke 12,28) σαπρός (7,17.18; 12,33; 13,48 + Eph 4,29)

σκιρτάω (6,23; 1,41.44) παράκλησις (6,24; 2,25 + 4 times in Acts + 22 times in NT) ἀπαιτέω (6,30; 12,20) (χάρις, 6,32.33.34; 1,30; 2,40.52; 17,9) (ἀγαθοποιέω, 6,33.35; 6,9 + 5 times in NT) ὁ ἴσος/τὰ ἴσα (6,34; Acts 11,17) υἱὸς ὑψίστου (6,35; 1,52) (οἰκτίρµων, 6,36.36 + Jas 5,11) µέτρον καλόν (6,38) σαλεύω (6,38.48; 7,24; 21,26 + four times in Acts + 6 times in NT) πιέζω (6,38) εἰς τὸν κόλπον (6,38; 16,22f + John 1,18) βάτος (6,44; 16,6; 20,37 + twice in Acts; Mark 12,26) σκάπτω (6,48; 13,8; 16,3)

(b) Favourite vocabulary in the SP: The vocabulary in LukeS is particular: πλήν, ἀπέχετε τὴν παράκλησιν ὑµῶν, οἱ ἐµπεπλησµένοι, νῦν, οἱ γελῶντες, κατὰ αὐτά, (σαλεύω,) ὑπερεκχυννόµενον, ἀντιµετρέω, προφέρω. However, we do not have a so-called Lucan vocabulary. Joachim Jeremias stated correctly that Luke is reticent and transmits the vocabulary of the Inaugural Speech carefully.161 Matthew is more inclined to use his favourite vocabulary, or he stereotypes more, whereas Luke has more variation and is more concerned to use common Greek phrases. Luke rarely uses his favourite language in the SP. Perhaps the use of καλῶς is an example (Luke 6,26.27.48 and 20,39). Many words still occur only in this Lucan text, which indicates that the Inaugural Speech indeed is a particular tradition.162 The SM indicates the same, but the SM is a somewhat more complicated case than the SP. (c) Favourite vocabulary in the SM. Matthew has a more distinct theological vocabulary than Luke. Matthew’s theological vocabulary can partly be found in the SM, more than we see Luke’s theological vocabulary in the SP (underlining indicates where SM and SP go together):

161 Jeremias, Sprache (1980), 151: “Lukas hat in den Wortlaut der Feldrede nur ganz geringfügig eingegriffen, ganz offensichtlich aus Ehrfurcht vor dem Worte Jesu.” 162 Ibid., 149–151.

174

§ 2 The Historical Quest Matthew

δικαιοσύνη ποιεῖν µισθός τέλειος163 ἔργα164 ἀγαθός

5,6.10.20; 6,1.33 5,19.32.36.46.47; 6,1.2.3; 7,12.17.18.19.22.24.26 5,12.46; 6,1.2.5.16 5,48 5,16 5,45; 7,11.17.18

Luke 6,23.26.27.31.33.43.46.47.49 6,23.35 (cf. χάρις, 6,32.33.34)

6,45 (= Matt 12,34); 11,13

It is not necessary to give a complete list of Matthew’s favourite terms.165 Many theological (πίστις, etc.) and characteristic (κλαυθµὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγµὸς τῶν ὀδόντων, etc.) terms or particular grammatical features (ὥστε, etc.) in Matthew do not occur in the SM. Preferred terms like Φαρισαῖος occur only once (5,20). 3) The use of prepositions as illustration: The use of prepositions (favourite prepositions and the variety166) discloses the individual style. Matthew/the SM uses prepositions (of 1,938 words 103 are prepositions) more frequently than Luke/SP (of 580 words 23 are prepositions – occasionally in parallels to the SM): Matthew (SM) ἀντί ἀπό διά εἰς

ἐκ ἔµπροσθεν 163

5,38.38 5,18.29.30.42; 6,13; 7,15.16.20.23 = 9 occurrences 6,25; 7,13 5,13.18.20.22.25.30.35.39.41 6,6.13.26.30.34; 7,13.14.19.21 = 18 occurrences 5,37; 6,27; 7,4.5.9 = 5 occurrences 5,16; 6,1

Luke (SP)

Luke (outside of SP)

6,48 6,38.39167

11,11 12,58; 13,27; 16,18 13,24.26 11,4.33

6,42.44.45

11,11

6,29.30

Τέλειος in Matt 19,21, elsewhere only in New Testament epistles. Luke’s term in the parallel (οἰκτίρµων, 6,36) is not used in Luke elsewhere (only Jas 5,11 in the New Testament). Τέλειος is used 14 times in New Testament epistles plus τελειόω seven times. 164 ἔργα in a general sense Matt 11,2.19; 26,10 = Mark 14,6; cf. Mark 13,34; Luke 11,48; 24,19, and as ‘good works’ (καλὰ ἔργα) versus hypocritical performances or not acting at all, Matt 23,3.5, cf. καλὰ ἔργα – Mark 14,6; John 10,33, five times in the Pastoral Epistles + Heb 1,24; 1 Pet 2,12. John uses ἔργα 21 times and in a specific, more Christological sense. It is used ten times in Acts. 165 From the list by Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 25–39, we could mention as examples: ἅγιος, 7,6; ἀκούω, 7,24.26 and the formula in 5,21.27.33.38.43; ἀµήν, in formulas, 5,18.26; 6,2.5.16; ἀνοµία, 7,23; ἀπόλλυµι, 5,29f; ἀφίηµι, 5,24.40; 6,12.14f; 7,4, etc. 166 None of them use σύν. 167 Luke has in the introduction ‘disciples’ (εἰς τοὺς µαθητάς) as addressees.

2.4 Analysis of Linguistic and Argumentative Features in the SM/SP

ἐν

ἐπί

κατά µετά παρά περί πρός πρό ὑπέρ ὑπό

175

Matthew (SM)

Luke (SP)

Luke (outside of SP)

5,12.13.15.16.19.19.25.28.36.45 6,1.2.2.4.4.5.5.6.7.9.10.18.20.23.20.29 7,2.3.3.3.4.6.11.15.21.22.36 5,15.23.45.45; 6,10.19.27; 7,24.25.26,28 = 11 occurrences 5,11.23 5,25.41 6,1 6,28 5,28; 6,1; 7,15 5,12; 6,6 5,44 5,13.15; 6,2.8

6,23.41.41.42.42 = 5 occurrences

12,58

6,29.35.46.49

6,23.26

11,3

6,34 6,28 6,47

12,26

6,40 11,33

Matthew/the SM embellishes the text more than Luke/the SP in this respect. Luke prefers different constructions compared to the usage of ἐν, εἰς, ἐπί in Matthew, and especially in MattS. It can be explained through pre-texts, influence from Hebrew/Aramaic, etc. In the end it is coined by the SM/Matthew. 4) Acting persons – as illustrations Matthew marks times and places in a characteristic way, but the use of pronouns leads to the theological ideas in the SM. (a) Personal pronouns (first, second, third person). Jesus is the only speaker. The use of the first person singular (I-sayings) is a peculiar feature in the SM. Personal pronouns are used much more than in the SP, partly due to the Antitheses, where Matthew uses three formulas (underlining indicates agreement between SM and SP): ἐγὼ (δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν): Matt 5,11.22.28.32.34.39.44; 6,9.11.11.12.12.12.12. 13.13; 7,21.21.22.23.24.26 – 22 times in the SM versus three in the SP (ten altogether in parallels: Luke 6,46.47.47 plus 11,3.3.4.4.4.9; 12,34. λέγω ὑµῖν (ὅτι): Matt 5,18.20.22.26.28.32.34.39.44; 6,2.5.16.25.29. This authoritative feature dominates in the SM. Luke has parallels outside the SP (11,8; 12,22.27.59; 13,24f.27). ἀµὴν (γὰρ) λέγω ὑµῖν/σοι: Matt 5,18.26; 6,2.5.16. Luke has only the parallel to Matt 5,26 (Luke 12,37) and elsewhere in 4,24; 18,17.29; 21,32. It is somewhat strange that Matthew/the SM uses genitive or dative, when Christology is the theme (Matt 5,11; 7,21.21.22.23.26). Luke uses the accusative (6,46: τί δέ µε καλεῖτε and 6,47 πρός µε).168 168

Matthew does not have this pronoun in the parallels to Luke 11,9; 12,38.

176

§ 2 The Historical Quest

(b) The use of pronouns σου (σε – σοί) is strange in the SM, both as an isolated linguistic feature and compared to the use of ὑµῶν (ὑµᾶς, ὑµῖν). It is used partly to include the audience and partly to distance them. Luke uses this pronoun nine times in the SP (6,29.29.30.41.42.42.42.42.42), and 21 times in exact parallels to the SM-texts (Matt 5,39–42; 7,3–5 – plus 6,22f; 5,25f).169 The SM uses it 72 times, – substantially more than in Matthew elsewhere.170 Matthew has in fact one fifth of all occurrences of σύ (σε, σου, σοι) in the New Testament.171 This feature occurs 30 times in the parables and examples in the Antitheses, Matt 5,21–48: Matt 5,23f: six times (σου – σου – σου – σου – σου – σου) Matt 5,25f: three times (σου – σε – σοί) Matt 5,29f: 12 times (σου – σε – σου – σοι – σου – σου – σου – σε – σου – σοι – σου – σου) Matt 5,33.36: twice (σου – σου), changed to ὑµῶν in 5,37 Matt 5,39–42 has six/seven times (σε – [σου] – σοί – σου – σε – σε – σοί) Matt 6,2–4: seven times (σου – σου – σου – σου – σου – σου – σοί) Matt 6,6f: six times (σύ – σου – σου – σου – σου – σοί) Matt 6,16–18: six times (σύ – σου – σου – σου – σου – σοί)

Σύ occurs later in the SM 13 times: Matt 6,19–21: twice in 6,21 (σου – σου) Matt 6,22f: five times (σου – σου – σου – σου – σοί) Matt 7,3–5: six times (σου – σῷ – σου – σου – σου – σου)

The driving force for this paraenetic usage in Matthew seems to be the Decalogue, the Shema, and the commandment “love your neighbour” (Lev 19,18). That is why the use of σου is most frequent in the SM and especially connected to two images: “your eye” (Matt 5,29f; 6,22; 7,3–5) and “your heart” (5,28; 6,21). The theme in this parable is that ‘you’ (σύ) should have brothers and not adversaries. The SM and the SP use the pronouns differently. Luke avoids τῷ σῷ in the parallel to Matt 7,3, and, more surprisingly, in the Christological statements in Matt 7,22 (κύριε κύριε, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι ἐπροφητεύσαµεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι δαιµόνια ἐξεβάλοµεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι δυνάµεις πολλὰς ἐποιήσαµεν;). Luke on the other hand has the particular usage of τὰ σά in Luke 6,30 (cf. Luke 15,31). 169

Luke 11,34.34.34.34.34.35.36.36; 12,58.58.58.58.59. More than 100 occurrences outside the SM, including the nine times it is used in Matt 18, a parallel to Matt 5,29f. The usage of οὐαί σοι, Χοραζίν, οὐαί σοι, Βηθσαϊδά is odd, both in Matt 11,21 and Luke 10,13. Luke’s Woes in the SP and the woes against the Scribes and Pharisees have the form οὐαὶ ὑµῖν. 171 Matthew has 209 of the 1,066 occurrences. Luke/Acts has 365, John 140, Mark 85. Paul does not use the 2nd person singular very often, except in Romans (47 times) and mostly in texts with diatribe-style. The σύ in relation to God or Jesus is essential, as is the use of σύ in exhortations. 170

2.4 Analysis of Linguistic and Argumentative Features in the SM/SP

177

The following features in the SM are also peculiar: – reflexive pronoun: ἑαυτός. This is used only once, in Matt 6,34: ἡ γὰρ αὔριον µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς. The meaning of ἑαυτῆς in this case is far from clear and will be analysed in § 8.5.8.172 – the use of ἄνθρωπος and ἀδελφός (underlining indicates agreement between SM and SP): ἄνθρωπος ἀδελφός

Matthew

Luke

5,13.16.19; 6,1.2.5.14.15.16.18; 7,9.12 5,22.22.23.24.47; 7,3.4.5

6,22.26.31.46.48.49 6,41.42.42.42

Except for the usage of ἀδελφός in the parable (Matt 7,3–5/Luke 6,41f) and ἄνθρωπος in the ‘Golden Rule’, the two terms have a different function and the usage in SM is far more conscious. Ἄνθρωπος underlines the general character of the SM, and the specific usage of ἀδελφός in Matt 5,22–24 (47) is a distinct feature in the SM.173 MattS has a very specific language. It is based on the language in Q and Matthew also uses here the technique of stereotyping the language. The purpose is to highlight the Christology and to give the sayings a general (wisdom) character. 2.4.2 The Forms in the SM/SP – an Overview and the Major Differences The SM uses many forms and the categorisation and analysis of forms is significant. The classification of the sayings into one category (aphoristic sayings,174 ‘Mahnsprüche’ (admonitions),175 wisdom-sayings, etc., or into two categories (wisdom-sayings and prophetic sayings or wisdom-sayings and parables) is not very helpful. The categories of 172

Demonstrative pronoun: ἐκεῖνος is used similarly in Luke 6,48f and Matt 7,25.27 (τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ/τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης). The Marcan phrase, ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ, occurs in Matt 7,22 and Luke 6,23. 173 Friedlander, Jewish Sources (1911), 47, and Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 154f, argue against restricting the meaning to a ‘Christian group’. 174 Crossan, In Fragments (1983), 330ff, counts 36 of 133 sayings in the SM as “aphoristic statements”. Scholars in the ‘Jesus-Seminar’ (or the ‘Third wave’ scholars) showed great interest in the aphorisms, following William 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; and Charles E. Carlston, “Proverbs, Maxims, and the Historical Jesus”, JBL 99 (1980), 87–105, who identified 102 aphorisms (ibid., 91). 175 Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche (1977), 21f, concentrates on only one form and about one third of the SM comes into this category. Zeller analyses other categories besides wisdom-sayings (“prophetische Worte, apokalyptische Paränese, Gesetzesentscheidungen”), ibid., 53, and in idem, “Jesu weisheitliche Ethik” (2004), 195, he is closer to Fiebig’s categories. Klaus Berger has a similar approach in “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament” (1984), 1056–1077; idem, Formgeschichte (1984), 92–94, 224–226, 226–245, 253f, 276.

178

§ 2 The Historical Quest

M. Dibelius176 and Bultmann177 previously had enormous influence in scholarship, whereas Fiebig’s contribution178 was overlooked. More recent proposals by Detlef Dormeyer179 and David Aune’s eight categories (macarism, whoever-sayings, synonymous couplets, antithetical/paradoxical, admonitions, sentences, statements of reciprocity)180 are reminiscent of Fiebig’s categories.181

Here we operate with the following forms: Beatitudes – Woes I-sayings, etc. parables

Matt 5,3–12 Matt 5,17–20.21–48; 6,1–18.25.29; 7,21–26 Matt 5,23–26; 7,3–5.9–11.13–27

Luke 6,20–26 Luke 6.45–49 Luke 6,39–49

In the following other sentences must be analysed: Maxims, gnomai, general sentences – conditional/unconditional sentences – questions – comparisons – antithetical sentences and parallelisms – exhortations/admonitions. The obvious differences in the Beatitudes/Woes and I-sayings are often analysed. The length (Beatitudes: 73 versus 29 words – 40% similarity; and οὐαί-sayings: 42 words in Luke) and the frequency (I-sayings: 107 versus 29 words – 27% similarity) demonstrate clearly the profile in the two speeches. Here the other sentences must be analysed. 2.4.3 General/Conditional Sentences, Questions, Parallelism/Antithetical Statements, etc. 1) Maxim/γνώµη. Aristotle and Quintilian showed much interest in the function of the sententiae,182 and the Tanach has many sayings in wisdom literature, which in the Hellenistic world were perceived as sententiae.183 These sentences (maxims, γνώµαι) express a principle or general truth or a rule of 176 M. Dibelius, Formgeschichte (1919/31959), 247, under the general category of ‘Paraenesis’: sentences, similes, parables, prophetic sayings, shorter and longer precepts (“Weisheitswort …, Bildwort, Gleichniserzählung, prophetischer Ruf …, kurzes Gebot, ausgeführtes Gebot”). 177 Bultmann GST, 73ff on “Wortüberlieferung”: “wisdom-sayings”, Matt 5,13– 16(.25f.34).39–42.43–48; 6,19–21.22f.24.25–34; 7,1–5.6.7–12.13f); prophetic sayings, 5,3ff; 7,15.21–23; instructions, legal sayings and church rules, 5,17–19.21–34, even 5,23f and 5,29f; “antitheses” like 5,26; 6,2.5.16.25; headlines like 5,20; 6,1, and 6,2–18; Isayings (“Ich-Worte”), 5,17; similes, figures (“Bildworte”), 5,13f.25f; 6,24; 7,9ff; a few similitudes (7,24ff), but no parables. 178 Fiebig, Erzählungsstil (1925), 2–29: conditional and unconditional sayings, sayings with imperatives, πᾶς- and ἴσθι-sentences, and ‘a minore ad maius’ texts, etc. 179 Dormeyer, Das Neue Testament im Rahmen der antiken Literaturgeschichte (1993), 67ff (“indikativische, interrogativische, imperativische Weisheitsworte”). 180 Aune, “Oral Tradition and the Aphorisms of Jesus” (1991), 227–236. 181 Fiebig, Erzählungsstil (1925), 3–31. 182 Aristotle, Rhet. II,21 (1394a19ff); Quintilian, Inst. VIII,5. 183 Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche (1977), 22f, 110f, based on Richter’s analysis of Prov 22,17–24,22 in Recht und Ethos (1966), 144–146; Perdue, “The Wisdom Sayings of Jesus” (1986).

2.4 Analysis of Linguistic and Argumentative Features in the SM/SP

179

conduct in an aphoristic form,184 and we can list the following maxims in the SM. Sometimes they establish a premise (Matt 5,13b.14b.c; 6,19.24.34; 7,2.17), and sometimes they present a conclusion/rule of conduct (Matt 5,37.45; 6,21.33.34; 7,12). Half of the maxims derive from Q and the other half is part of MattS. Matthew has more sentences than Luke, and this indicates that Matthew emphasises philosophical wisdom. 2) General statements, using relative pronouns.185 Some general statements are used in order to underline basic teaching. In the Tanach πᾶς ὁ-sentences186 and ὃς δ᾿ ἄν-sentences187 are frequently used and provide clear parallels to the Jesus-sayings in the SM. They are important in the SM. ὅστις ὅς πᾶς (ὁ) οὐδείς, οὐ

Matthew

Luke

Luke (outside of SP)

5,39.41; 7,15.24.26 5,19.21.22.31.32; 6,8; 7,9 5,18.22.28.32; 7,8.17.19.21.24 6,24 – 5,14; 6,24; 7,18

6,34.38.46.48.49 6,26.30.40.47 6,39 (µήτι)

11,4.10; 16,18 16,13; 11,33

The wisdom literature has abundant sayings about the possible consequences for the acts of a wicked/foolish or a righteous/wise person. The SM speaks more about what everybody/nobody does and about the unavoidable consequences. The ὅς/ὅστις-sentences have a conditional formulation, but are in fact as unconditional as the apodeictic sayings. The universal address is even clearer in the πᾶς-sentences.188 The SM as a collection of universal sayings scarcely provides any reasons for the statements, because right behaviour should be evident for all humans. Some πᾶς-sentences convey a divine commandment (Matt 5,32), and some sound like casuistic rules (5,22.39.41, etc.). They still have a general and 184 Berger, “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament” (1982), 1049–1074, esp. 1056. Idem, Formgeschichte (1984), 157, and idem, Einführung in die Formgeschichte (UTB 1444), Tübingen: Francke 1987, 144. Both are pithy sayings. Maxims have more often self-evident premises and clear instructions. The sentences provide often conclusions, that convey general wisdom. 185 In addition, ὅς 6,9; 7,2.2; πᾶς 5,11.15.18; 6,29.32f; 7,12. 186 Gen 4,24f; Lev 11,24–27.31.41; frequently in Numbers and in Deuteronomy in the curses in Deut 27 (11 times πᾶς ὁ λαὸς γένοιτο) and ending similarly to Matt 7,26 in Deut 27,26: ἐµµενεῖ ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόµου τούτου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτούς. The formula πᾶς ὁ/πάντες οἱ does not occur in the Psalms, but is often found in wisdom-sayings. The SM avoids the typical Septuagint-formula πᾶς ὁ λαός (used many hundred times), whereas Matt 28,20 uses the frequent (about 200 times) formula πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. 187 The Septuagint uses less frequently ὃς ἐάν-sentences, even in Law-sentences, except for ὃς ἄν-sentences in Leviticus and especially the ὃς (δ᾿ ἄν) in Proverbs. They are a close model for Jesus’ ὅστις-sayings. Ἥτις/οἵτινες-sentences do not occur so often, but the wisdom literature frequently has οὐδείς/οὐδέν-sentences. Deut 18,19 might have been the background for the SM: ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐὰν µὴ ἀκούσῃ ὅσα ἐὰν λαλήσῃ ὁ προφήτης ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόµατί µου, ἐγὼ ἐκδικήσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ. 188 Πᾶς as totality in Matt 5,15; 6,33 or greatness in 6,29.33 or as goal in 5,18; 7,12.

180

§ 2 The Historical Quest

universal character and the formulations in Matt 5,19 and the final πᾶςsentences in 7,24.26 give them a status as main guidelines. The formulation in the ‘Golden Rule’ comes close (πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε …). They formulate a characteristic feature of the ethos in the SM. Altogether 21 πᾶς/ὅς/ὅστις-sayings clearly represent a particular feature of the SM, and not only compared to the SP. The πᾶς-sentences189 are often combined with ὅς-sentences190 (5,19.19.21.22.22.31.32) and the six ὅστιςsentences are also significant.191 Positive expression dominates, and is accompanied by four negatively formulated οὐδείς- (and οὐ δύναται-)sentences.192 The negatively formulated sentences mainly have the function of making clear, illuminating, confirming. The majority of these sentences derive from Q. The sayings in MattS are adjusted to the sayings from Q. 3) Conditional sentences. These sentences are often subordinated to the general sentences, indicating conditions, causes, reasons, purpose, or they are interrogative. ἐάν193 ἐὰν γάρ εἰ ὅπου … ἐκεῖ194 ὅσος

Matthew

Luke

Luke (outside of SP)

5,13.19.20.23.32.46.47 6,14.15.22.23; 7,12 5,46; 6,14 (only here in the Synoptics) 5,13.29.30; 6,1.23.30; 7,11 6,19.20.21 7,12

6,33.34

14,34

6,32

12,28 12,33.34

189 Matt 5,22: πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόµενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ; 5,28: πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυµῆσαι αὐτήν; 5,32: πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ; 7,8: πᾶς γὰρ ὁ αἰτῶν λαµβάνει; 7,17: πᾶν δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖ; 7,19: πᾶν δένδρον µὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται; 7,21: οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων µοι, … ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ πατρός µου; 7,24: πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς; 7,26: πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ µὴ ποιῶν αὐτούς. 190 Matt 5,22: ὃς δ᾿ ἂν φονεύσῃ. ὃς δ᾿ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ· ῥακά … ὃς δ᾿ ἂν εἴπῃ· µωρέ; 5,32: ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυµένην γαµήσῃ; 5,19: ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ µίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων καὶ διδάξῃ οὕτως. 191 Matt 5,39: ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει …; 5,41: ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει µίλιον ἕν; 7,24: πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς, … ὅστις ᾠκοδόµησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν; 7,26: ὅστις ᾠκοδόµησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄµµον; cf. 7,15: προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες ἔρχονται πρὸς ὑµᾶς ἐν ἐνδύµασιν προβάτων. Next to parallels in Proverbs m.Abot 3,17 provides a close parallel (“Anyone whose wisdom is greater than his deeds … anyone whose deeds are greater than his wisdom”). 192 The SM has οὐδείς only once: Matt 6,24: οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν (= Luke 16,13 and 11,33: οὐδεὶς λύχνον ἅψας εἰς κρύπτην τίθησιν … ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ …) and three οὐ/µή δύναται-sentences: Matt 5,14: οὐ δύναται πόλις κρυβῆναι ἐπάνω ὄρους κειµένη; 6,24: οὐ δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ µαµωνᾷ; 7,18: οὐ δύναται δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖν. Cf. Luke 6,39 which similarly has: µήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν. 193 Cf. the use of ἄν in Matt 5,21f and 5,28.31. 194 Ἐκεῖ also in Matt 5,23.24.

2.4 Analysis of Linguistic and Argumentative Features in the SM/SP

181

This overview indicates that these sentences are partly rooted in Q, and that the majority can be found in MattS. The ὅπου … ἐκεῖ-sentences are conditional sayings, but in fact come close to the maxims/general sayings. They come definitely from Q. The sayings mostly present the premise for the maxims and general statements. The ἐάν-sentences sometimes,195 and the εἰ-sentences196 often, present the premise for the general sentences, but most of the ἐάν-197 and the εἰsentences198 give conclusions and formulate general principles. The last category of ἐάν- and εἰ-sentences formulate ethical principles. 4) Comparisons, correlative pronouns and questions. The SM and the SP use the conjunctions differently in comparisons: ὡς

Matthew (SM)

Luke (SP)

Luke (outside of SP)

5,48; 6,10 (good example); cf. 6,12.29 6,5.16 (negative)

6,22.40

12,27.58

6,31.36 6,31 6,47.48.49

καθώς ὁµοίως ὅµοιος

We find similar differences in the use of correlative pronouns (quantity/quality or time): Matthew (SM) πόσος ποῖος199 ὅπου … ὅσος

195

Luke (SP)

6,23; 7,11

Luke (outside of SP) 11,13

6,32.33.34 6,19.19.20.20.21

12,34

Matt 5,13: ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας µωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται (= Luke 14,34); 5,23: ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς τὸ δῶρόν σου ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον; 6,22: ἐὰν οὖν ᾖ ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου ἁπλοῦς; 6,23: ἐὰν δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου πονηρός … 196 Matt 5,13: εἰ µὴ βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων; 5,29: εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔξελε αὐτόν; 5,30: εἰ ἡ δεξιά σου χεὶρ σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔκκοψον αὐτήν; 6,23: εἰ οὖν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν, τὸ σκότος πόσον (cf. Luke 11,36); 6,30: εἰ δὲ τὸν χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ σήµερον ὄντα …. οὐ πολλῷ µᾶλλον …; 197 Matt 5,20: ἐὰν µὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑµῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραµµατέων καὶ Φαρισαίων; 5,46: ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς/5,47: ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑµῶν µόνον (= Luke 6,33f – Luke 6,32 has εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς); 6,14: ἐὰν γὰρ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παραπτώµατα αὐτῶν … ἐὰν δὲ µὴ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ἀφήσει; 7,12: (πάντα οὖν ὅσα) ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ … 198 Matt 6,1: εἰ δὲ µή γε, µισθὸν οὐκ ἔχετε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὑµῶν τῷ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς; 7,11: εἰ οὖν ὑµεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες οἴδατε δόµατα ἀγαθὰ … πόσῳ µᾶλλον … Cf. Luke 6,32: εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς. 199 The SM does not use ποῖος, but Matthew uses it otherwise in crucial commandments (19,18; 22,36), crucial time (22,42f), and in the expression ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ (21,23f.27).

182

§ 2 The Historical Quest

References to time can be mentioned here. Time is not the focus in the SM and even less so in the SP. ὅταν ἕως (ἄν)

Matthew (SM)

Luke (SP)

Luke (outside of SP)

5,11; 6,2.5.6.16 5,18.18.25.26

6,22.26

11,2.34.36 12,59

The SM has ἕως in two sayings, one of them derives from Q and one from Mark. Luke uses it hesitantly; 12,58f has ἕως only once and Luke avoids it in the saying Matt 5,18 (= Luke 16,17). On the other hand, Luke has ὅταν in 11,34.36 whereas the SM has ἐάν (Matt 6,22f). 5) Interrogative pronouns. The SM is also overrepresented here. The SM wants to challenge the audience: τί/τίς

µήτι πῶς ποία

Matthew (SM)

Luke (SP)

Luke (outside of SP)

5,13.45.47; 6,25.25.25.26.27.31.31.31; 7,3.9.11.14 7,16 6,28; 7,4

6,41.46.47

11,11; 12,25

6,39 6,42 6,32.33.34

12,27

It is somewhat strange that the SM with its great number of parables and metaphorical sayings rarely uses the term ὁµοιόω (only Matt 6,8; 7,24.26, not in the SP). Matthew avoids ὁµοίως, ὅµοιος, καθώς, and uses ὡς only in theological sentences when comparing men with God (5,48, cf. 6,10.12) or with men (hypocrites, 6,5.16, and Solomon, 6,29). Luke has the more appropriate καθώς or ὅµοιος. Even when the SM and the SP have the same pre-text, they use the conjunction in accordance with the language in the rest of their speech.200 A clear example is the question ποία ὑµῖν χάρις ἐστίν in Luke 6,32–34 versus τίνα µισθὸν ἔχετε in Matt 5,46f. Comparisons and questions play an important role in the SM/SP. They both have the characteristic τίς ἐξ ὑµῶν-sentence (Matt 6,27; 7,9 = Luke 12,25; 11,11), which gives the speech a universal addressee. The SM has more comparisons/parables and questions, and Matthew stereotypes the language in the speech more than Luke. 6) Parallelisms and antithetical sentences (καί, ἤ, or contrast, ἀλλά, δέ). In sentences, not least in wisdom-sayings, parallelism and antithetical sentences dominate. 200 The use of πῶς as interrogative is identical in Matthew and Luke (Matt 6,28; 7,4 = Luke 12,27; 6,42). On the other hand, only Matthew uses τίς as a pronoun (Matt 5,23; 6,3). Matt 6,24 = Luke 16,13 uses οὐδείς as a pronoun, and Matthew also has οὐδέν in 5,13. For quantity Matt 7,11 = Luke 11,13 have πόσῳ µᾶλλον, and Matthew also has πόσος in 6,23 and ὅσος in 7,12. Matt 6,21 = Luke 12,34 has ὅπου as adverb, which Matthew also uses in 6,19.19.20.

2.4 Analysis of Linguistic and Argumentative Features in the SM/SP

183

Neither the SM nor the SP is an exception. They structure nearly the whole speech, and demonstrate its character as protreptic speech (see § 3). The more than 150 occurrences of these conjunctions indicate this more clearly than any explanation: καί ἤ

Matthew (SM)

Luke (SP)

Luke (outside of SP)

(about 90 occurrences) 5,18.36; 6,24.24.31.31; 7,4.9.10.16

38 occurrences (none)

(about 15) 16,13.13.17

ἀλλά 5,15.17.39; 6,13.18; 7,21 6,27 δέ 5,13.21.22.22.28.29.31.32.33.34.37.39.44 6,39.40.41.46.49 6,1.3.6.7.15.16.17.20.23.27.29.30.33 7,3.15.17 πλήν 6,24.35

8,16/11,33 12,25.27.28.30 11,11 (not in SM)

Only Luke uses the better Greek πλήν, whereas the SM uses ἤ and δέ much more than the SP. Of the many occurrences with δέ, only one is identical. Matthew prefers δέ, but lacks it in the parallels to Luke 6,46.49, he avoids it. The surprising exception is the text on worrying: the particles are nearly identical in this text, including the use of δέ. In general, the linguistic preferences/habits are clearly visible at work in many details in the texts. Do admonitions or exhortations dominate? The use of οὐ and µή gives some indication: µή

οὐ

οὐ + µή

Matthew (SM)

Luke (SP)

Luke (outside of SP)

5,13.18.20.20.26.29.30.34.39.42 6,1.2.3.7.8.13.15.16.18.19.25.31.34 7,1.1.6.9.10.19.26 5,14.17.18.20.26.36(.37.37) 6,1.20.26.30 7,3.21.22.25 5,18.20.26

6,29.30.37. 37.49

11,35.36; 12,22.27.29.32.33.59

6,37.37.40.41.42. 12,24.27; 16,13 43.44.46.48 6,37.37

12,59

The affirmative οὐ is used more often in the SM. Self-evident facts are the premises or sometimes the conclusion of an argument. The SP uses µή, expecting a negative answer, less. To sum up: The SM emphasises the universal wisdom-ethos more than the SP. We see no significant differences between the Inaugural Speech/Q and MattS, but both have their linguistic preferences and the SM/Matthew stereotypes the language substantially more than the SP/Luke. We see therefore in this analysis of the language that source-critical and historical explanations fall short.

184

§ 2 The Historical Quest

2.4.4 Exhortations and Prohibitions: Use of Imperative Imperatives: (Imperative) Aorist conj. 0–1–0 Future tense 6–1–0 Present tense 20–12–8

Matthew (SM)

Luke (SP)

SM = Q

6,29 5,21.27.33.43.48; 6,5

6,35 (47)

5,12.24.24.37.41.44 6,1.9.16.19.20.25.33 7,1.7.7.7.12.15.23

6,27.27.28.28.2 9.30.31 (6,30 has δίδου) 6,36.37.37.37.38 6,23.23

11,9.10 αἰτεῖτε, ζητεῖτε (12,31 also), κρούετε; 12,29 µὴ µετεωρίζεσθε, 12,32 µὴ φοβοῦ 11,3 µὴ εἰσενέγκῃς, ἄφες 12,22.24.27 µὴ µεριµνᾶτε, κατανοήσατε, κατανοήσατε 11,2 ἁγιασθήτω, ἐλθέτω

18

11

Aorist 39–4–5

5,16.17.24.29.30.36.39.40.42 6,2.6.7.8.9.18.19.20.26.28.31.34 7,3.4.5.6.13 6,42.42

3rd person 6–0–2 Other Total

5,16.37; 6,3 (µὴ γνώτω).9.10 ἁγιασθήτω, ἐλθέτω, γενηθήτω 5,25: ἴσθι, εὐνοῶν; 7,4: ἰδού 76

If we highlight the prohibitions, we find more of them in the SM: µὴ + imperative οὐ + impv.

Matthew (SM) 5,17.34.39.42; 6,2.3.7.8.16.19.25.31.34; 7,1.6 5,21.27.33; 6,5

Luke (SP) 6,29.30.37.37

Luke (outside of SP) 12,22.29.29.32

The uses of present versus aorist imperative must be presented and analysed in somewhat more detail: Matthew – present imperative Matthew – aorist imperative

Luke: present & aorist

χαίρετε ἀγαλλιᾶσθε

χάρητε (aor.) σκιρτήσατε (aor.) ἀγαπᾶτε καλῶς ποιεῖτε εὐλογεῖτε προσεύχεσθε πάρεχε γίνεσθε

ὕπαγε – πρόσφερε ἴσθι (εὐνοῶν) ἔστω ὕπαγε ἀγαπᾶτε – προσεύχεσθε προσέχετε προσεύχεσθε µὴ γίνεσθε

λαµψάτω µὴ νοµίσητε ἔξελε – βάλε – ἔκκοψον – βάλε µήτε … ὀµόσῃς µὴ ἀντιστῆναι – στρέψον – ἄφες – δός – µὴ ἀποστραφῇς µὴ σαλπίσῃς –µὴ γνώτω εἴσελθε – πρόσευξαι µὴ βατταλογήσητε – µὴ ὁµοιωθῆτε ἁγιασθήτω – ἐλθέτω – γενηθήτω – δός – ἄφες – µὴ εἰσενέγκῃς – ῥῦσαι ἄλειψαι – νίψαι

2.4 Analysis of Linguistic and Argumentative Features in the SM/SP Matthew – present imperative Matthew – aorist imperative µὴ θησαυρίζετε – θησαυρίζετε µὴ µεριµνᾶτε ζητεῖτε µὴ κρίνετε αἰτεῖτε – ζητεῖτε – κρούετε ποιεῖτε

= 7,12 ποιῶσιν … ποιεῖτε προσέχετε ἀποχωρεῖτε

185

Luke: present & aorist

ἐµβλέψατε – καταµάθετε µὴ µεριµνήσητε – µὴ µεριµνήσητε ἄφες ἔκβαλε µὴ δῶτε µηδὲ βάλητε

µὴ κρίνετε µὴ καταδικάζετε ἀπολύετε δίδοτε ποιεῖτε ἄφες (aor.). ἔκβαλε (aor.) 6,31 ποιῶσιν … ποιεῖτε

εἰσέλθατε

The aorist imperative normally has ‘punctiliar’ and ‘ingressive’ meaning.201 Its force is the action as a whole, whereas the present tense imperative indicates a durative and iterative aspect, the action as an ongoing process. The present tense form generally has a more theological significance.202 The ‘punctiliar’ and ‘ingressive’ meaning of the aorist imperatives indicates spontaneous action in particular situations. Nearly 20 of them are used in parables or as exclamations. The use of tenses seems to be very considered: How it should be is described in aorist form (γένησθε, ἀγαπήσητε, ἀσπάσησθε, plus ἔσεσθε in future tense) and Matt 5,45ff describes in present tense how it is (ἀνατέλλει, βρέχει, ἀγαπῶντας, ἔχετε, ποιοῦσιν, ποιεῖτε, ποιοῦσιν). The parables describe how it is, what is normal and what are the consequences. The exhortations look for a change in the future.

The usage of plural versus singular ‘you’ seems arbitrary, but ‘you’ has the same rhetorical function both in singular and plural, aorist singular ‘you’ together with imperative versus plural ‘you’ together with present tense imperative indicates a difference.203 The former gives peculiar examples and application of a general state. The latter expresses a general statement and direction. Rhetorically there is certainly a difference between Matt 5,21f.27f; 6,19f (plural plus present tense imperative) and 5,23ff.29f; 6,22f. (singular plus aorist imperative). The usage in three paragraphs (Matt 6,1–18; 6,25–34; 7,1–5) is not consistent. The use of imperatives is thus carefully chosen: In the SM the plural ‘you’ together with present tense imperative dominate, which well suits wisdomsentences. 201 BDR, 335–337; Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (1990), 325–388, has the most thorough treatment. 202 The use of the 3rd person aorist in prayers to God, and in Matt 5,16, are exceptions. 203 Buth, “Singular and Plural Forms” (1993).

186

§ 2 The Historical Quest

2.4.5 Reasons for Exhortations and Admonitions Motivations/explanations are extremely important in wisdom-sayings.204 We have already listed the conditional sentence. The causal-explanatory and the consecutive explanations are even more used in the SM and partly also in the SP: (a) causal-explanatory: γάρ

ὅτι

οὖν

Matthew (SM)

Luke (SP)

Luke (outside of SP)

5,12.18.20.29.30.46 6,7.8.14.16.21.24.32.32.34 7,2.8.12.25 5,3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.12.17.20.21.22.23. 27.28.32.33.34.35.35.36.38.43.45; 6,5.7.26.29; 7,13.23 5,12.16.19; 6,2.8.9.22.23.31.34; 7,11.12.24

6,23.23.26.32.33. 34.38. 43.45

11,4.10; 12,23.30.34 16,13

6,20.21.21.24.25. 25.35

12,24; 13,24

11,35.36; 12,26 (14,34 = Matt 5,13 without οὖν

Matthew is much more concerned about the explanations of the ethical sayings. Οὖν is statistically used more often in the SM than in John, who uses οὖν more than 200 times. Elsewhere Matthew stereotypes his teaching, but his use of οὖν is at the same time both flexible and conscious. His use of ὅτι, particularly in the Beatitudes (5,3–10) is more stereotyped, and in formulas like λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι, in the Antitheses and elsewhere. (b) Consecutive, consequential ἵνα, ὅπως, µήποτε (underlined is identical usage in Matthew and Luke): ἵνα οὕτως ὅπως καθώς µήποτε

Matthew (SM)

Luke (SP)

Luke (outside of SP)

5,29.30; 7,1.12 5,12.16.19; 6,9.30; 7,12.17 5,16.45; 6,2.4.5.16.18

6,31.34

11,33 (cf. Matt 5,15) 12,28

6,31.36 5,26; 7,6

12,58

Luke’s two crucial sayings have καθώς, a term the SM avoids. With ὅπως the opposite is the case. Similarly, with οὕτως: only in the saying Luke 12,28 = Matt 6,30 do they both use οὕτως. One may also raise the question as to why ἵνα is used in the same way only in the Golden Rule (Matt 7,12/Luke 6,31). Even in the common judgment-saying, Matt 7,1 = Luke 6,37 only Matthew has ἵνα.205 204 Anders Jørgen Bjørndaken, “‘Form’ und ‘Inhalt’ des motivierenden Mahnspruches”, ZNW 82 (1970), 347–361; P.J. Nel, Structure and Ethos (1982), on admonition-motivations, 18–82; Mogensen, Israelitiske leveregler (1983). 205 The copyists have recognised that and A D W, etc. add ἵνα.

2.5 From Sources to Authenticity

187

To sum up: Source-critical and historical explanations have paid too little attention to the type of sentences in the SM, the characteristic use of imperatives and of reasons for exhortations/admonitions. The quest for the best text is unavoidable, whether it is discussed within the framework of the Q-theory (who is closest to the original Q-text, Luke or Matthew?) or of the ‘oral-tradition theory’ or of multiple-source theories. The results will always be tentative. If we concentrate on the stylistic and argumentative features the picture is much clearer. The SM illustrates, through wisdom-like exhortations, what is the essence of the genuine conduct of life. Maxims, questions, general sentences, etc. are either premises or conclusions for exhortations or admonitions. The SM predominantly uses the plural ‘you’ together with present tense imperative, and many explanatory and consecutive reasons in order to show the guidelines and goals for a philosophy of life.

2.5 From Sources to Authenticity The study of the sources is part of a hermeneutical process. Modern historiography has shown that the theory of history (German: ‘Geschichtstheorie’) can be a second step as procedure but is from the very beginning part of the ‘historian’s craft’ (so Marc Bloch). This immediately affects the definition of ‘authenticity’. In the positivistic approach of Leopold von Ranke the task of the historian is to find historical events (“merely tell how it really was”), the real events behind the oldest and most reliable written sources. Ranke’s paradigm has in fact ruled New Testament scholarship much more than science of history in general, largely because source-criticism and the 2DH was the first (and should we add, tasty and healthy) fruit of this kind of historiography. One explains the later development and the relation between the sources through ‘scissors-and-paste approaches’, presuming that the sources did not require an interpretation and that the historian was objective. Source-/literary, form- and redaction-criticism in New Testament scholarship have often been variations of this historiographical position, which overlooks what has happened in historiography in the last hundred years.206 206 Marc Bloch, The Historian’s Craft: Reflections on the Nature and Uses of History and the Techniques and Methods, Manchester: Manchester University Press 1954; Georg G. Iggers, The German Conception of History: The National Tradition of Historical Thought from Herder to the Present, Middletown: Wesleyan University Press 21983; idem, Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge, Middletown: Wesleyan University Press 22005; Jörn Rüsen, Für eine erneuerte Historik: Studien zur Theorie der Geschichtswissenschaft, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog 1976; Arnaldo Momigliano, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Los Angeles: University of California Press 1990; H. White, Metahistory

188

§ 2 The Historical Quest

Authenticity is not merely events and facts. Authenticity has to do with the probable stream of events, typical occurrences, characteristic phenomena, and the genuine expression of one’s identity. The facts are always mediated in and through narratives and, in the first century, through orally transmitted narratives. Consideration of the sources means analysing the character of the available sources, finding and interpreting the thought patterns, biases, purpose, style/genre, perspectives, power structures, etc. The oldest source is not necessarily the best. All sources are narratives which inevitably entail an interpretation, have certain biases, an agenda, certain perspectives, etc., based on an oral process prior to when they were written. Scholars, who have other biases, agendas, categories, models and perspectives, will interpret the events and the narratives differently, and it is in the hermeneutical process that the dynamic between facts and explanations unfolds. 2.5.1 The Role of Memory Culture and the Source Problem Ranke and Papias represent opposite positions. Papias relied on oral traditions more than on various kinds of written documents.207 He focused on the eyewitnesses, but can the perspective of orality be combined with a sourceapproach? Since Augustine scholars have gone beyond the repletion of Papias and suggested that one source (mostly Matthew) is most reliable. Gieseler and Herder focused on the oral tradition behind Matthew, but after 1835 most theories denounced the oral tradition and favoured written sources (Mark and Q as written sources). Scholars like Tholuck, Fiebig, Soiron or Wrege protested and claimed that oral tradition is behind the SM and no written sources at all can be reconstructed. They repeated Papias’ thesis and ended up with a dogmatic statement if other historical evidence does not confirm it. The scepticism against complicated and accurate source-reconstructions combined classical form-history and the ‘tradition-criticism’ developed in the so-called ‘Swedish school’ (Ivan Engnell, et al.).208 Due to their more positive (1973); idem, The Fiction of Narrative: Essays on History, Literature, and Theory, 1957– 2007, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 2010. 207 As quoted by Eusebius, H.E. III,39,3f: “Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. … I made enquiries about the words of the elders – what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.” 208 Ivan Engnell, “Traditionhistorisk metod”, SBU II (1952), 1429–1437. Cf. idem, Gamla Testamentet: En traditionhistorisk inledning, Stockholm: Dikonistyrelses Bokvörlag 1945.

2.5 From Sources to Authenticity

189

evaluation of authenticity, one tended to overlook the fact that Riesenfeld and Gerhardsson agreed with M. Dibelius and the form-history that orality and oral transmission are more basic than written sources. After 2000, memory studies and the so-called ‘Jesus memory approach’ pay more attention to source-criticism and are extremely critical of the ‘criteria approach’ in Jesus-research, due to its indebtedness to form-criticism and the discarding of the importance of the Gospels as narratives.209 Jens Schröter has recently underlined that reception is always a part of the transmission and has elements of interpretation. He is therefore critical of too accurate source-theories.210 1) Memory of narrative versus saying-traditions. The two-document hypothesis (2DH) presupposes the differences between narratives and sayings.211 However, Q probably included narratives and Mark has a lot of sayings. According to Bultmann the pronouncement-stories represent a mixed genre in this respect. The narratives had a more or less biographical outline, in which the following elements in particular structured the traditions: ‘Galilee and Jerusalem’, before and after the death of John the Baptist, the healing stories and the dialogues, the initial positive reaction versus the developing narrative, in short: the path that leads to the cross, etc. C.H. Dodd,212 B. Reicke213 – and R. Bultmann214 and H.D. Betz215 – think in various ways that a primitive structuring of the sayings took place. Mark’s genres (parables on growth, disciple-instructions, more parables and dialogues, eschatological sayings) were followed up by Matthew and Luke. 209 Keith, “The Indebtedness of the Criteria Approach” (2012); idem, “'Memory and Authenticity” (2011), 155. 210 Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte (1997), emphasises ‘reception’ as “die Auswahl, sprachliche Gestaltung und literarische Kontextualisierung vorausliegender Überlieferung” (64f). Recently more comprehensively in idem, From Jesus to the New Testament (2013). 211 Stephen Hultgren’s important study on this theme: Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition (2002) lists Herbert Marsh, Friedrich Schleiermacher, the founders of the ‘Twodocument hypothesis’ (K. Lachmann, C.H. Weisse, and H.J. Holtzmann, B. Weiß), and K.L. Schmidt and the earliest form-critics. 212 Dodd, “Primitive Catechism” (1959; revised in idem, More New Testament Studies [1968], here 17f). He finds the origin of the catechetical pattern in the SM. It appears later in many letters in the New Testament and also in Early Christian writings, ibid., 13f. Dodd argued – on the basis of Carrington/Selwyn – that a certain pattern can be found: 1. Holiness, 2. Dismiss vices!, 3. Love-commandment, 4. Eschatological motifs, 5. Discipline. 213 Reicke, The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels (1986), 28, 60–65, 185–189; for the setting of the SM, 84–93. Gerhardsson, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (2001), 77– 82, observes the differences between the transmission of sayings and narratives. 214 Bultmann, GST, 348–355. 215 H.D. Betz, “The Sermon on the Mount and Q” (1990/1992); cf. S. Hultgren, Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition (2002), 339f.

190

§ 2 The Historical Quest

There are also some biographical elements here: a change of audience from ordinary people to more officials; and from a general public audience to more disciple-oriented teaching; from parables to dialogues; from concentration on the past to concentration on the future. 2)The SM as oral text. Can source-criticism go hand in hand with orality as a form of transmission? Some representatives of the ‘Jesus memory approach’ think so, and Alan Kirk has argued that Matthew as a redactor of sources plays a key-role. Kirk has a clear picture of ‘Matthew’s elaboration’.216 Instead of Kirk’s author-oriented model, a text-oriented approach looks for signals in the text. C.H. Lohr finds many oral techniques in the SM.217 The SM is, however, a genuine speech, and in § 3 we will look for signals of an orally performed speech. Due to the parallels to the SP and the Q and Marcan parallels, the SM is a rare case of a text in which it is possible to go at least one step behind the text. 2.5.2 Memory Culture and Authenticity The implications of source-criticism on the question of the historical Jesus is enormous. What about the ‘Jesus memory approach’ (orality)? The circumstances and role of memory changed after 70/90 CE; many eye-witnesses had passed away, the Jewish sect became a factor in many parts of the Hellenistic world, and most importantly, the written Gospels were used. However, much later and precisely in this context, Papias relied on oral traditions more than on various kinds of written documents. Memory culture before 70/90 CE had much better conditions, but do we have reliable information about memory culture before 70/90 CE? Ranke’s scepticism against oral transmission was substituted in form-history, and Bart Ehrman has recently added a number of ‘analytical’ observations and insights from psychology.218 On the other hand, many contributions in recent scholarship argue in favour of reliability. There are several different views on the function and forms of remembrance and transmission: 1) Anamnesis as a function in the Early Church. N.A. Dahl, who was partly trained by Bultmann, already had a totally different view from his mentor in his Inaugural lecture in 1946.219 He argued that memory culture was crucial in Early Christianity. The terminology of anamnesis (ἀνάµνησις,

216

Kirk, Q in Matthew (2016), 184–224. Lohr, “Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew” (1961), esp. 408–419. 218 Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (2007); idem, Jesus before the Gospels (2016). 219 The Inaugural lecture in Oslo 1946, “Anamnesis: Memory and Commemoration in Early Christianity” (first published in ST 1 [1948], 69–95), in N.A. Dahl, Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church (1976), 11–29, certainly had programmatic character. 217

2.5 From Sources to Authenticity

191

Luke 22,19; 1 Cor 11,24f) is linked to the passion narrative, the very startingpoint of the Gospel tradition.220 Dahl’s reflections on Christian anamnesis influenced later research, directly the ‘Swedish school’ (Riesenfeld)221 and indirectly J.D.G. Dunn’s perspective of ‘Jesus Remembered’222 and G. Theißen, who from a different point of view suggested that faith in Jesus early on created institutions and new functions of cultural memories.223 2) The ‘rabbinical teaching-model’ (Riesenfeld, Gerhardsson, Riesner). The conditions for remembrance and transmission are not always the same. Riesenfeld picked up the latter problem in his paper “The Gospel Tradition and its Beginning” (1957).224 Gerhardsson’s book documented in detail how this could happen, but the question of whether it really happened in this way, started early on.225 Gerhardsson’s ‘synthetical’ approach was followed up by Rainer Riesner’s analytical approach. Nearly every saying is analysed as deliberately transmitted tradition.226 3) The role of the eye-witness in a memory culture. Scholars who emphasise the role of eye-witnesses, come closer to the traditional view of Papias. The functions of eye-witnesses have been important in the scholarship of folklore. Torleif Boman and other Scandinavian scholars used folklore material from many cultures to prove that eye-witnesses were important for controlling the reliability of the transmission.227 Why should this be ignored or abolished in New Testament scholarship? 220 Ἀναµιµνῄσκοµαι has a wider meaning in 1 Cor 4,17 (τὰς ὁδούς µου τὰς ἐν Χριστῷ, καθὼς πανταχοῦ ἐν πάσῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ διδάσκω), 2 Cor 7,15 and 2 Tim 1,6; 10,32. 221 N.A. Dahl, Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church (1976), 25: “the manner in which the sayings of Jesus are transmitted is similar in many respects to the manner of transmitting traditions in Judaism. The essential difference concerning the mode of transmission lies in that for Christians Jesus was not merely a link in the chain of succession. He was a unique Master …” 222 Dunn does not quote N.A. Dahl’s groundbreaking article, only his contributions to the historical Jesus, based on Dahl’s insights in his programmatic article. 223 Gerd Theißen, “Tradition und Entscheidung: Der Beitrag des biblischen Glaubens zum kulturellen Gedächtnis”, in Jan Assmann/Tonio Hölscher (eds.), Kultur und Gedächtnis (stw 724), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 1988, 170–196. 224 Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings (1957), 17, cf. the authorised transmitters, p. 23, and how it was memorised. His student B. Gerhardsson picked up all these ideas in Memory and Manuscript (1961). 225 Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (21964), and the reaction from Morton Smith in JBL 82 (1963), 169–176. In The Origins of the Gospel Tradition (1979), The Gospel Tradition (1986) and The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (2001) Gerhardsson provided a much broader foundation. 226 Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer (31988). 227 Boman, Die Jesus-Überlieferung im Lichte der neueren Volkskunde (1967). Not only Scandinavian scholars (K. Liestøl, C. Sydow, K. Krohn), but also in the research of A.B. Lord, J. Vansina, et al. (see below).

192

§ 2 The Historical Quest

There are clear indications that this was an important function in the Early Church, as M. Hengel228 and R. Bauckham have shown.229 The impact of eyewitnesses overcomes the notion of ‘anonymous community traditions’ in older form-criticism, but ‘eye-witnesses’ can never be used a priori as an argument for authenticity. 4) The ‘Jesus Remembered concept’. James D.G. Dunn, who introduced the ‘Jesus Remembered concept’, argues that from the very beginning converts had an urgent need for knowledge about Jesus. The acts of remembering and oral performance were therefore decisive.230 Dunn uses substantial parts of K. Bailey’s observations on preserving memories in Middle Eastern cultures.231 This material is limited to certain areas of the ‘Middle East’ and the ‘Arab world’ and has other features, different from the Graeco-Roman world in the first century CE, but is still an analogy. The so-called ‘Jesus memory approach’ by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, et al. focuses more on the term ‘criteria of authenticity’ as a misnomer. The current historical Jesus research based on these criteria is seen as a blind alley.232 5) Social memory (Halbwachs233) and recent syntheses (Byrskog et al.). The works by Maurice Halbwachs on ‘social memory’ have recently inspired biblical and patristic scholars to see the transmission of Jesus-sayings in a broader framework,234 based on studies in the field of social anthropology,235 on the psychology of memories,236 and on material from different cultures. 228 Martin Hengel, “Eye-witness memory and the writing of the Gospels: Form criticism, community tradition and the authority of the authors”, in Markus Bockmuehl/Donald A. Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel. FS G. Stanton, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005, 70–96. 229 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2006). Cf. Samuel Byrskog’s critical review in JSHJ 6 (2008), 157–168. 230 Dunn, Jesus Remembered (2003), 239–245. Cf. the positive reviews by Samuel Byrskog, in JSNT 26 (2004), 459–471, and Robert B. Stewart/Gary R. Habermas (eds.), Memories of Jesus: A Critical Appraisal of James D.G. Dunn’s Jesus Remembered, Nashville: B&H Publishing Group 2010. 231 Kenneth E. Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels”, Themelios 20 (1995), 4–11, and the critics of Bailey and Dunn: Theodore J. Weeden, “Kenneth Bailey’s Theory of Oral Tradition”, JSHJ 7 (2009), 3–43; John S. Kloppenborg, “Memory, Performance, and the Sayings of Jesus”, JSHJ 10 (2012), 97–132. 232 Keith, “Memory and Authenticity” (2011); idem, “The Fall of the Quest for an Authentic Jesus” (2012). 233 Cf. Aristotle, Mem. rem. 452b7; Eric Havelock, Preface to Plato, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1963; Maurice Halbwachs, La mémoire collective, Paris: Presses universitaires de France 1950. 234 James Fentress/Chris Wickham, Social Memory, Oxford: Blackwell 1992; Barbara A. Misztal, Theories of Social Remembering, Philadelphia: Open University Press 2003. The theories have been recently applied to the Gospel tradition by S. Byrskog and others,

2.5 From Sources to Authenticity

193

Samuel Byrskog presents a synthesis of many of these efforts, based on the ‘Swedish school’. He includes the ‘Jesus Remembered approach’ and impulses from Halbwachs and the social memory approach, and from the philosophical impulses of Paul Ricœur, that have inspired many recent investigations.237 Jens Schröter, who underlines the notion of common knowledge/common history as context, follows the same path, and from this point of view he is critical of the use of some of the criteria in Jesus-research.238 6) Models for oral transmission and the historical quest. Two models tend to dominate the discussion: Delehaye239 and form history collective, anonymous chaotic, unconscious, unstructured without frames deliberately changed

Most social-memory (folklore) studies240 individual, personal orderly, conscious, structured mostly framed traditions predictable changes

cf. Alan Kirk/Tom Thatcher (eds.), Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity (SemeiaST), Atlanta: SBL 2005; Tom Thatcher (ed.), Memory and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Atlanta: SBL 2014; Stuckenbruck et al. (eds.), Memory (2007); Butticaz/Norelli (eds.), Memory and Memories (2018). 235 William Bascom, “Four Functions of Folklore”, Journal of American Folklore 69 (1954), 333–349; Albert Bates Lord, The Singer of Tales, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1960; Heda Jason, “A Multidimensional Approach to Oral Literature”, Current Anthropology 10 (1969), 413–426; Juha Pentikäinen, “Quellenanalytische Probleme der religiösen Überlieferung”, Themenos 6 (1970), 89–118; Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology, London: Routledge 1965; Dundes, “The Devolutionary Premise in Folklore Theory” (1969); Bjarne Hodne, “Tradisjonens pålitelighet”, TTKi 43 (1972), 129–143; Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 198–201. 236 Ehrman, Jesus before the Gospels (2016), focuses more on the psychological factors; cf. Harald Welzer, Das kommunikative Gedächtnis: Eine Theorie der Erinnerung, München: C.H. Beck 2002. 237 Samuel Byrskog, Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (WUNT 123), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000; cf. Paul Ricœur, Memory, History, Forgetting, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2004. 238 Schröter, “The historical Jesus and the sayings tradition” (1996); idem, “The Criteria of Authenticity in Jesus Research and Historiographical Method” (2012). 239 The Jesuit Hippolyte Delehaye, Les légendes hagiographiques (1905), developed a model similar to Bultmann’s concept. It represented the mainstream before 1920 and was substantially revised after 1920. 240 The very influential book of Paul R. Thompson, The Voice of the Past: Oral History, Oxford: Oxford University Press 32000, esp. 82–117, emphasises the social foundation and control of memory – often from below (women, labourers, etc.), and also thinks that oral history can often supplement and correct written evidence. This has many predecessors in Nordic scholarship, e.g. on fairytales: Aarne, Leitfaden (1913), and Liestøl’s groundbreaking studies on legends (Norske ættesogor [1922]), followed up by Delargy, The Gaelic Story-Teller (1945), cf. the review by Boman, Die Jesus-Überlieferung im Lichte der neueren Volkskunde (1967), 10–17.

194

§ 2 The Historical Quest

The scholarly attitude changed in general around 1920 from the first to the second position. What Alan Dundes calls “The Devolutionary Premise in Folklore Theory” dominated. He argued against the search for the original form (German: ‘Urform’) and ‘archetypes’, and against a “misguided and narrow concept of the folk as the illiterate in a literate society”.241 Due to Bultmann’s work and the position of form-criticism, the older views were still lingering in New Testament scholarship. How the new situation developed after 1920 can be seen in research into nearly all kinds of folklore.242 Material from Africa, the Middle-East, the Balkan and Nordic countries, yielded more or less the same general picture.243 These cultures are somewhat distant from the Middle East in the 1st/2nd centuries CE. The methods and conditions for remembrance in Jewish-rabbinic244 and in Greek and Roman culture(s),245 should therefore in the first instance be compared with each other. This second position – based on social-memory approach – must therefore be specialised and differentiated. In any event, the picture of orality in Early Christianity has moved substantially away from the ideas in classical form-criticism. To sum up: Orality has recently become a slogan for diverse contributions and conceptions. It points out limitations in a source-critical approach, but it cannot replace source-theories. The analogies cannot be fully proved and its strength is more the criticism of form-history, of ‘wall to wall covering’ source-criticism, of the ‘devolutionary Premise’, etc. The question is now: does it really prove the authenticity better than source-criticism, and is the ‘Jesus memory approach’ an alternative to the use of criteria in Jesus-research?

2.6 Authenticity of the SM and Its Setting (Authenticity I) In research dealing with the SM, the historical Jesus ‘quest’ must deal with three issues: 241 Dundes, “The Devolutionary Premise in Folklore Theory” (1969), 13. Cf. Krohn, Die folkloristische Methode (1926), who still had this perspective. 242 Sydow, “Om traditionsspridning” (1932). 243 Nordic scholarship has already been mentioned; Africa (Vansina [above, n. 235]); Middle-East (Bailey [above, n. 231]); Ireland (Paul Gaechter, Die Gedächtniskultur in Irland, Innsbruck: Institut für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft 1970); France (Delargy, The Gaelic Story-Teller [1945]); Balkan (Lord, The Singer of Tales [above, n. 235]). 244 Gerhardsson did not argue that his – often much younger – material was the only model. 245 We know much about the school system/curriculum in Hellenistic times, cf. Quintilian, Inst. XI,3,1–183 on pronuntiatio/actio. The role of the Rhapsodes (ῥαψῳδός), often singing itinerant performers of Homer and classical texts, are analogies.

2.6 Authenticity of the SM and Its Setting (Authenticity I)

195

– the question of the authenticity of the Jesus-sayings in the SM – the extremely difficult question concerning the frame: Is the SM Jesus’ programmatic teaching during his Galilean ministry? – At the end we also have to ask another sensitive question: Is the SM the summary of Jesus’ teaching? The first question is primarily our theme here. Even scholars who in general are critical of the synoptic tradition tend to think that the SM reflects the historical Jesus. But how do they argue and how valid is their reasoning? The second question is the most disputed in the exegesis of the SM. Authenticity and hermeneutical processes. The ‘historical Jesus’ debates and debates about the synoptic problem/origins of the Gospel tradition are often isolated from each other. They are and should be integrated, however. They were clearly integrated in the paradigm of Ranke, because he thought it was possible to extract the historical events behind the source through ‘scissors-paste approaches’. He represented the so-called absolute sourcetheory.246 (a) An absolute source-theory: Source (Object) Historical knowledge Historian (Subject) The development from event to source The extract: the real events

Many exegetes differentiate sharply between authentic Jesus-sayings and sayings with their origin in the early community or in the Matthean community. If these sayings are Matthew’s theological product, Jesus is seen through the lens of the first Christians in Palestine or of Matthew and his community. This is a typical example of the absolute source-theory. To divide the source into separate strata – as we did in § 2.3 – is one thing. To claim that only one of them is ‘source’ for historical events and the other part is ‘relic’, reflecting the Matthean community, puts the historian in the role of a scientist who has his object under his control. The extreme form is the claim that the historian can reconstruct the whole history, from the earliest events to the final redaction of the Gospels.247 One should rather assume that the SM is ‘source’ and ‘relic’ at the same time, and that the sayings of the SM can be utilised as source and relic at the same time. This leads to a more modern study of sources. The absolute sourcetheory had science as its model. The problem was that this model presupposes that historical events will and can be repeated in analogy to experiments in science. Historiography in France (Annales-circle), R.G. Collingwood in the 246

Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 184–192. Bultmann describes his program in a letter to Wilhelm Bousset dated 1 February 1920: “… da ich eine wirkliche Geschichte der einzelnen Traditionsstücke (in ihren verschiedenen Gattungen) zu schreiben versuche und die Gesetze der Überlieferung beschreibe für Wortüberl[ieferung] wie für Erzählstücke”. 247

196

§ 2 The Historical Quest

UK, and J. Rüsen in Germany strongly criticised this methodology and represent an alternative. Heidegger launched similar ideas, and Bultmann applied them in the exegesis of Paul and also in his book on Jesus (1926). The basis for the book on Jesus was, however, the previous analysis of the synoptic tradition (GST, 1921), which Bultmann did not revise subsequently. There are fundamental differences between absolute and functional sourcetheories: (b) A functional source-theory: History (events, ideas, emotions) Source Historian hermeneutical process historical knowledge

Historical knowledge can be acquired only through a dialogue with the sources, in which the historian with his questions and interests, with his language and categories, with certain biases and perspectives, meets the source with its language, biases and perspectives. The function of comparison, the formulation of the situation/conflict behind certain events must be clarified. The role of narrative analysis, of orality and of philosophical/theological interpretation must be considered here. These approaches are partly and sometimes broadly developed in the interpretation of the ‘historical Jesus’. 2.6.1 The Authenticity of the Frame: Jesus and an Inaugural Speech If we look at the headlines given in commentaries and books about Jesus, few scholars seem to have many doubts. The SM is called: Jesus’ programmatic speech (“Die fundamentale Unterweisung der Jünger”,248 Jesus’ teaching activity (“Die Lehrtätigkeit”249), the first speech, given during his Galilean ministry,250 Jesus as a humanitarian teacher,251 Jesus forming a receptive audience as a people of God’s realm,252 or simply ‘the teaching of Jesus’.253 This means that scholars see the frame as reliable: the SM is rooted in an Inaugural Speech given in Jesus’ earliest career on a mountain in Galilee. However, Karl Ludwig Schmidt’s criticism of the frame was the startingpoint for the form-critical school.254 Both chronology and geography are 248

G. Schneider, Lukas I (21984, 31992), 149ff (“Feldrede”). H. Klein, Lukasevangelium (2006), 242ff (sc. “Jesu”). 250 Bock, Luke I (1994), 548ff. 251 Gundry, Luke (2010), 249. 252 Carroll, Luke (2012), 144ff. 253 Green, Luke (1997), 260ff (“The Status and practices of Jesus’ community”); C.A. Evans, Luke (1990/2011), 322ff (“The life of the Israel of God”). 254 K.L. Schmidt, Rahmen (1919), 69–79, argued that “die sogenannte Bergpredigt ein Mosaik von Stücken ist” … and the geography and chronology are open: we have sayings, “deren Lokalität nicht nur in Galiläa, sondern auch irgend anderswo (Nordland, Peräa, Samaria, Judäa) gesucht werden kann, und deren Zeit nicht innerhalb weniger Monate, 249

2.6 Authenticity of the SM and Its Setting (Authenticity I)

197

fantasy, which should imply that studies on the Galilean and the political setting of the SM can simply be ignored.255 If the frames are ‘relics’ and not ‘source’, the setting in a Matthean community after 80 CE is more important. The setting in Antioch, in a Jewish community or in a community in tense conflict with the Synagogue, is in this case decisive. Why should one locate the traditions in a Galilean setting? It seems like an unnecessary exercise. 2.6.1.1 The Frames from a Source-critical Point of View The SP and the SM are not located at the same place in the Marcan framework.256 The facts in the frames are the following: – On a mountain (εἰς τὸ ὄρος, Mark 3,13; Matt 5,1; 8,1; Luke 6,12.17: ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ), the teaching takes place. Mark locates the election of the Twelve on the mountain.257 Matthew still links the SM linguistically to Mark 3,13 (5,1: ἀναβαίνει εἰς τὸ ὄρος). – a special teaching (διδάσκειν/διδαχή, Mark 1,21f.25; Matt 5,2; 7,28; Luke 6,6)258 – ‘People’ (ὄχλοι, Mark 3,9.20; Matt 5,1; 7,28; Luke 6,17.19; 7,9; πλῆθος, 6,17; λαός, 6,17; 7,1; Matt 4,23) and some disciples (µαθηταί, Mark 3,7.9; Matt 5,1; Luke 6,13.17.20), attend the event. 1) Mark’s frame: a comparison with other speeches. Mark determines the narrative setting for most important speeches – except for the Inaugural Speech:

Mark Luke

Matthew

Parable speech

Sending-out

Against Pharisees

Eschatological speech

4,3–34 32 verses 8,4–18

6,7–11 5 verses 9,2–5; 10,1–16; (+ 12,2–9; 14,26f) 20 + 10 verses 10,5–42 38 verses

12,37–40 4 verses 20,45–47; 11,37– 44.47–54 19 verses 23,2–36 35 verses

13,2–37 36 verses 21,8–36; 12,39–46

15 verses 13,3–52 50 verses

37 verses 24,1–51 + 25,1–46 97 verses

nicht innerhalb eines Jahres, sondern auch innerhalb mehrerer Jahre der Geschichte Jesu zu suchen sein wird”. M. Dibelius, Formgeschichte (1919/31959), 247–250, was more cautious, but Bultmann, GST, 354–356, 358f, considered the frame as unhistorical. 255 S. Freyne, R. Horsley, H. Moxnes, G. Vermes, et al. (see below). 256 Noticed by Schmid, “Markus und der aramäische Matthäus” (1953), 151ff. Followed up in his Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien: Mit Beifügung der Johannes-Parallelen, Regensburg: Pustet 61971, 32ff. 257 Not the speech. Luke 6,13–19 has this scene before the Inaugural Speech, whereas Matthew locates the scene before the disciple-speech in Matt 10. 258 Mark 1,27: διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾿ ἐξουσίαν; Matt 7,29: ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων. Ἐξουσία is in fact a common factor in these texts (Mark 1,27; 2,10; 6,7; Matt 7,29; 8,9; Luke 5,24; 7,8).

198

§ 2 The Historical Quest

Both Matthew and Luke adjust Q to Mark, their authoritative outline. Mark does not reveal the content of the teaching in the villages and cities in Galilee, but his narratives from Jesus’ Galilean ministry provide a number of occasions for Jesus’ teaching and preaching (Mark 1,14.21f.38f.45; 2,13).259 The saying-traditions from Q could possibly fit into many of these settings. 2) The function of the summaries; source-critical remarks. The summaries are important in Mark’s narrative, and Luke follows this technique. So does Matthew, but his technique is stereotyping and repetition of summaries.260 Eve-Marie Becker has recently analysed the genre and significance of summaries.261 The Gospels offer no ‘excerpts’ (περιοχαί) as in Livy’s History, nor summaries of historical events,262 rather ἐπιτοµαί, condensed accounts, like Mark 1,14f or the general descriptions of typical events like the notices in Mark 1,28.39; 2,13; 6,6b, etc.: Mark Epitomai 1,14f

General info

Luke Epitomai 4,14

1,22 1,28 1,32–34

4,40

6,6b.34

Matthew Epitomai 4,17

4,32 7,1

1,39 2,13 3,7–12 3,20

General info

7,28 4,24 4,23f

4,44 6,17–19 8,1

General info

8,2f

4,23; 9,34 4,25 9,36–38

(4,23); 9,35

Matthew and Luke repeat Mark’s ‘epitomai’. Matthew re-shapes the general descriptions into his epitomai, and the epitomai before and the general description after the SM increase the importance of the SM. 3) Source-critical hypotheses; the beginning of Q and the exact setting for the SM. The questions are: – Does Mark give any indication for the place of an Inaugural Speech? – Does Q give such an indication and is this the same as Mark? If not, which one is best? – Do Matthew and Luke follow Q or Mark or do they alternately use Q and Mark? 259 Mark 1,14: εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν; 1,21f: εἰς Καφαρναούµ; 1,38: ἀλλαχοῦ εἰς τὰς ἐχοµένας κωµοπόλεις; 1,39: εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν; 1,45; 2,13: ἐξῆλθεν πάλιν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν. 260 Matt 4,24: καὶ περιῆγεν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ διδάσκων ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν καὶ κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας (= 4,17: κηρύσσειν/ἡ βασιλεία) καὶ θεραπεύων πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν µαλακίαν ἐν τῷ λαῷ; 9,35: καὶ περιῆγεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς πόλεις πάσας καὶ τὰς κώµας διδάσκων ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν καὶ κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας καὶ θεραπεύων πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν µαλακίαν. 261 E.-M. Becker, “Die markinischen Summarien” (2010). 262 One can see the very brief information in Mark 1,14/Matt 4,12 (ἀκούσας δὲ ὅτι Ἰωάννης παρεδόθη) as a summary of the longer story in Mark 6,7ff; Matt 14,1ff.

2.6 Authenticity of the SM and Its Setting (Authenticity I)

199

Luke follows the sequence of Mark 1,21–3,6 (in fact until Mark 3,19) before he introduces the SP (with only one exception: the calling of Peter, Luke 5,1ff; Mark 1,16ff), whereas he deconstructs Mark 3,7–20. Mark

Luke

Matthew

3,7–12: summary 3,13: on the mount 3,14–19: calling of the Twelve

6,17–16; 4,40; 6,19; 4,41 6,13 (20) 6,12–16

4,23–25 5,1ff 10,2ff

Matthew follows Mark 3,7–12 more strictly (Matt 4,23–25 – 5,1ff; 10,2ff), but both Matthew and Luke reduce the elaborated summaries in Mark. Both Matthew and Luke use elements from Mark’s summaries, but instead of general descriptions they present actual narratives. This technique has been a starting-point for many comprehensive source-theories.263 All synopses of the Gospels struggle with the location of the SM and SP within the framework of Mark’s narrative. The synopses give four possible solutions: – The SM starts with Mark 3:19 (K. Aland,264 J.B. Orchard,265 et al.). – The SM starts with Mark 3:12/13 (O. Knoch,266 R.W. Funk267). – The SM starts with Mark 1:39 (Huck-Lietzmann/Huck-Greeven,268 R.W. Funk). – The SM starts with Mark 1:21 (F. Neirynck,269 H.F.D. Sparks 270).

263 Lachmann’s Q-theory is easier to defend compared with Griesbach (Mark combined Matthew and Luke). Boismard (Proto-Mark), Vaganay (Proto-Matthew) and Farrer (Mark – Matthew – Luke). 264 K. Aland, Synopsis quattuor Evangeliorum (141985), 75ff. Neirynck, “Matthew 4:23– 5:2 and the Matthean Composition of 4:23–11:1” (1990), 25, has strengthened the 2DH, and particularly the theory of Markan priority here: “Mark provides a satisfactory explanation and … no Proto-Matthean or other non-Markan source is needed”. 265 John Bernard Orchard, A Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Arranged according to the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1983; Josef Hainz, Synopse zum Münchener Neuen Testament, Ostfildern: Patmos 52013, 54; Marie-Émile Boismard/ Arnaud Lamouille, Synopsis graeca quattuor Evangeliorum, Leuven: Peeters 1986, 59ff. 266 Otto Knoch, Vollständige Synopse der Evangelien: Nach dem Text der Einheitsübersetzung, Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelanstalt 21989. 267 Funk, New Gospel Parallels I (21990), in fact has two conclusions. 268 Albert Huck, Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 121975, and both Huck’s editions (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1931) and Huck/Hans Lietzmann (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 1963), and Huck/Heinrich Greeven (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 131981) made no changes in his edition. 269 Neirynck, “Matthew 4:23–5:2 and the Matthean Composition of 4:23–11:1” (1990), 42, thinks Matthew is utilising several summaries from Mark 1 plus Mark 3,8f.13; 6,6b. He therefore places the SM between Mark 1,21 and 1,22. Matthew and Luke abandon εὐθύς, but Luke 4,49 reintroduces it. 270 Hedley F.D. Sparks, A Synopsis of the Gospels, London: Black 21970.

200

§ 2 The Historical Quest

The introductory frames (Matt 5,1; Luke 6,20) speak in favour of Mark 3,13: Matt 5,1

Mark 3,13

Luke 6,12.17–20

Ἰδὼν δὲ τοὺς ὄχλους … ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος (= 8,1) καὶ καθίσαντος αὐτοῦ προσῆλθαν αὐτῷ οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ·

Cf. 3,19.20 Καὶ ἀναβαίνει εἰς τὸ ὄρος καὶ προσκαλεῖται οὓς ἤθελεν αὐτός, cf. 2,15; 3,7.9

6,17 ὄχλος πολὺς µαθητῶν αὐτοῦ (6,12 εἰς τὸ ὄρος προσεύξασθαι) 6,20 εἰς τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ ἔλεγεν, cf. 6,13.17

Matthew adds substantially to all speeches, Luke extends and shortens two. The Q-material forces Matthew and Luke to add the SM/SP and extend the commissioning speech. An Inaugural Speech does not fit into Mark’s narrative due to the plot of the ‘Messianic secrecy’ in the first part of Mark’s Gospel. It is a problem for most source-theories to explain the concluding frame (Matt 7,28–8,1; Luke 7,1). Matthew here conflates many frames from Mark. Matt 7,28–8,1(5) 7,28 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους, ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ· 7,29 ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων

καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραµµατεῖς αὐτῶν 8,1 Καταβάντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοί (= 4,25) 8,5 Εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰς Καφαρναούµ

Mark 1,22.27f

Luke 7,1; (4,32) 7,1 Ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν πάντα τὰ ῥήµατα αὐτοῦ

1,22 καὶ ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ· ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων 1,27 ἐθαµβήθησαν ἅπαντες. διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ᾿ ἐξουσίαν … ἐξῆλθεν ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ εὐθὺς πανταχοῦ 1,22 καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραµµατεῖς (3,22 Καὶ οἱ γραµµατεῖς οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύµων καταβάντες) 2,15 ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ (cf. 3,7)

4,32 καὶ ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἦν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ

7,1 εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ,

(6,17 καταβὰς µετ᾿ αὐτῶν) 7,9 στραφεὶς τῷ ἀκολουθοῦντι αὐτῷ ὄχλῳ 7,1 εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναούµ

Is it a coincidence that both Matt 7,28f and Luke 7,1 use the Q-tradition after the SM/SP?271 Both Mark and Q linked the powerful teaching to the area 271 Francis Watson, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2013, 154f, argues too strongly that Mark 3,13–19 is the basis for the SM/SP and therefore he sees the common location as “coincidences of Q”. However, Matthew uses only the

2.6 Authenticity of the SM and Its Setting (Authenticity I)

201

around Capernaum.272 Q also includes narratives,273 and the frame in Q makes it no coincidence that Matthew and Luke have a similar location for the Inaugural Speech. Teaching and healing are closely linked in Q and caused Matthew to keep sayings and miracles together (Matt 5–7, 8–9).274 Mark refers repeatedly to speeches of Jesus (Mark 1,22.28.38.39.45; 2,13; 3,13),275 and Matt 7,28f uses the first of them (Matt 7,28 = Mark 1,22), whereas Luke 7,1 uses the last one (Mark 3,13). Because of the programmatic Nazareth speech (Luke 4,16ff) he has to locate the Inaugural Speech to a later stage in Mark’s outline (Mark 3,7–13).276 The Inaugural Speech in Q was located between the two narratives: the temptation story (Matt 4,1–11//Luke 4,1–13) and the miracle in Capernaum (Luke 7,1–10//Matt 8,5–13).277 To sum up: Mark and Q have both narratives and sayings. There is no need for operating with additional sources or editions of the two sources (protoMark, etc.). Mark leaves ample room for a SM, through the notices about Jesus’ powerful teaching in the Capernaum area. The Q-narrative (Matt 8,5– 13; Luke 7,1–10) is located in Capernaum and has ‘authority’ (ἐξουσία) as its notion of mountain from Mark 3,13; cf. Schmid, “Markus und der aramäische Matthäus” (1953); Neirynck, “Matthew 4:23–5:2 and the Matthean Composition of 4:23–11:1” (1990). 272 Mark 1,27; 2,1; Matt 4,15; 8,5; Luke 4,23.31; 7,1, cf. Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu (1907), 54. 273 Lindemann, “Die Logienquelle Q” (2002), is today one of the few who presuppose that Q consisted exclusively of sayings without any narratives at all. 274 Because of the scheme speech (Matt 5–7) and miracles (Matt 8–9) Matthew relocates many of the healing narratives in Mark 1,23–3,12, whereas Luke can follow the outline of Mark 1,14–3,19 (= Luke 4,14–6,19) – with some remarkable exceptions: He uses the summary of Mark 3,7–12 as the scene for the SP (Luke 6,17–19); the summary of Mark 1,14f is substantially changed in order to make room for the Nazareth speech (4,16–30); Lk 5,1ff is elaborated as a preparation for Luke 6,12–16. Matthew has the election of the twelve disciples much later (Matt 10,2–4). 275 Mark sees the synagogues as the main location of Jesus’ teaching (except for the summaries of Mark 1,14f.38), so Matthew uses only the formulation of Mark 3,13 (ἀναβαίνει εἰς τὸ ὄρος) as his introduction to the SM. Schmid, “Markus und der aramäische Matthäus” (1953), 158f, argued correctly against Vaganay, “L’absence du sermon sur la montagne chez Marc” (1951), who assumed that Mark consciously abandoned the SM. 276 The edition of the IQP elaborates many narrative ’reminiscences’ and particularly this one, cf. Robinson et al., The Critical Edition of Q (2000), 46f. The scattered sayings in Mark 4–13 are mostly necessary for the progress of the narrative (e.g. Mark 8,34–9,1 = Matt 16,24–28; Luke 9,23–27), but some are not, particularly in Mark 9–11. Here we can find sayings that ‘overlap’ with some of the sayings in the SM. 277 The significance of the notice in Mark 1,39 is often overlooked (ἵνα καὶ ἐκεῖ κηρύξω· εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐξῆλθον). It is – next to Mark 1,22 – the closest one has to a programmatic saying in Mark. Matthew locates the miracle-story immediately following (Mark 1,40–45) immediately after the SM and before the healing of the daughter of the centurion (Matt 8,1–4).

202

§ 2 The Historical Quest

key term. Matthew underlines this aspect through the location on the mountain, by combining the first and the last record (Mark 1,22.27; 3,13) about Jesus’ teaching activity. Luke has in fact the same setting (powerful teaching located on a hillside near Capernaum). The major difference is the first programmatic speech in Nazareth – reported much earlier than Mark 6,1–6 = Matt 13,53–58 –, which for Luke is the preparation for the SP. The source-critical questions also need at least a clarification from a historical point of view. Two (five) questions must be answered from a historical point of view: – Did Jesus deliver one, programmatic speech in his early ministry? – Is it important that it is located in Galilee, on a mountain? 2.6.2 Did Jesus Deliver One Programmatic Speech in His Early Ministry? The SM and SP are from one perspective products of Matthew and Luke.278 The two speeches are not minute protocols. The evangelist’s sermons would not last more than five (SP) or 15–20 minutes (SM). Speeches are normally longer. Both the SM and SP are rather summaries. This assumption which was launched as early as 1553 by Calvin,279 is based on the fact that 40% of the SM derives from different Lucan speeches. The SM is a concentration of longer speeches, so concentrated that some transitional remarks (between Matt 6,18/19; 6,34/7,1; 7,6/7, etc.) are seemingly lacking. Luke can therefore locate some sayings to different settings. Matthew prefers to have longer compositions, containing different themes. The SP with its threefold introduction, 6.20.27.39, can be perceived as three different speeches with different audiences. The SM can also be seen as a collection of various speeches. On the other hand, already the SM and even more so the SP can be considered as one speech. Seen in a broader literaryhistorical perspective, both speeches have a clear genre (see § 3). An Inaugural Speech with programmatic character? The narrative frame in both Matthew and Luke (Matt 5,1f; Luke 6,17–20a) shows clearly its character as Inaugural Speech. The phrase ‘opening his mouth’ (ἀνοίξας τὸ στόµα αὐτοῦ, Matt 5,2) is overstated in order to mark it as an important speech.280 All evangelists report carefully about people’s reactions to the speeches. Luke ends the Nazareth speech with the reaction of astonishment (ἐθαύµαζον ἐπὶ τοῖς λόγοις τῆς χάριτος, Luke 4,22), and report the same reaction to the 278 The implications of this statement are often overstated. Cf. Marxsen, “Streit am falschen Ort” (1982), 508. 279 Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (above, p. 45, n. 181), 259. 280 Luke has the same consecutive sequences of speeches as Matthew’s carefully composed five sermons, starting with the Nazareth speech (4,16–27); the SP (6,20–49); the parable-speech (8,4–18); the disciple discourse (10,1–26); on prayer (11,2–10) plus 11,46– 12,12; 12,16–59; 13,20–35; 14,7–17,10; 17,20–37 (18,14); 21,5–38.

2.6 Authenticity of the SM and Its Setting (Authenticity I)

203

second programmatic speech (the SP), both based on Isa 61 as pre-text. The reaction to Jesus’ programmatic speeches in Mark 1,21f (= Matt 7,28f; Luke 4,32) is the same. The term ἐξουσία, meaning authority more than authorisation (jurisdiction, Luke 23,7), trustworthiness with an element of power (not almighty) also occurs in some healing narratives (Matt 8,9; 9,6.8), but mostly in crucial speeches (Matt 7,29; 10,1; 28,18; Mark 1,22.28; 6,7; Luke 4,36; 9,1). It is about authority from God and not men (cf. Matt 21,23–27). Such speeches have peculiar importance. Mark 1,38 is illuminating: Jesus’ intention (εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐξῆλθον) is to preach (ἵνα καὶ ἐκεῖ κηρύξω). The programmatic character is clear, but the content is not recorded. The narrative plot in Mark does not give room for inaugural speeches. The gradual revelation of the ‘Messianic secret’ aims more at the speech in Mark 8,35–9,1 than inaugural speeches. The content in the Inaugural Speech would distract the reader in many ways, and for a Graeco-Roman addressee of Mark the polemic and the theme are hard to grasp. Luke’s two first speeches obviously have a programmatic character. What about the much longer SM? Do sayings about prayer, or parables about light (Matt 6,22f) or pearls and swine (7,6) etc. fit into a programmatic speech? We will later (§ 3) see that they do so. From a historical point of view, it is more than probable that Jesus gave many programmatic speeches. The SM and SP summarize some of them, and the memory that some triggered very strong reactions is probably precise, even though John and the Gospel of Thomas have no memory of one programmatic speech.281 All evangelists use the two terms διδάσκειν and κηρύσσειν mostly in the reports from the earliest ministry.282 Jesus’ speeches elsewhere, the disciple discourses, the parable-speeches, the speeches in John and the Gospel of Thomas, have a different character. The existence – and composition – of Q indicate that few of Jesus’ speeches were recorded early on. In Q, Mark, and in fact all the Gospels – except for the Gospel of Thomas – we see clear differences between speeches in Jesus’ early ministry and his speeches (later?) in Jerusalem. All evangelists have polemical speeches, eschatological speeches and a farewell discourse (Mark 13; Matt 24–25; Luke 21; John 14– 17). They have more elaborate parables and have a totally different character from the programmatical speech in the earliest ministry. 281 John and the Gospel of Thomas omit not only the Inaugural Speech. We have no parable-speech or eschatological speech either. 282 Mark has διδάσκειν in 1,21f; 2,13; 4,1f; 5,20; 6,6.12.30.34 and later in Mark 8,31; 9,31; 10,1; 11,17; 12,35; 14,49. Matthew has διδάσκειν in 4,23; 5,2; 7,29, cf. 9,35; 11,1; 13,54; Luke 4,15.31; 5,3.17; 6,6; 13,10.22; 19,47; 20,1; 21,37; 23,5; and John only in 6,59. Mark has κηρύσσειν in 1,14.38f.45; 6,2.12; 7,36; Matt 4,17.23; 9,35; 11,1; Luke 4,18f.44; 8,1.

204

§ 2 The Historical Quest

2.6.3 A Speech in Galilee? And on a Mountain? Is it important that the programmatic speech was delivered in Galilee? John (6,26–65) records only one speech from the ministry in Galilee.283 The Gospel of Thomas has nothing, and Mark has many, and emphasises Galilee much more than Luke. Luke does not mention Galilee in the parallels to Matt 4,12f.18.23.25 and is more concerned about the wider audience (6,17).284 The extremely mixed audience gives an interesting setting for the saying about enemy-love (6,27–38). The Woes (6,24–26) also presuppose a mixed group. The Galilean framework in Matthew is founded on his theological reflection, based on Isa 8,1: Galilee is called Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, and based on the light-metaphor (ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήµενος ἐν σκότει φῶς εἶδεν µέγα).285 In scholarship the importance of Galilee for the exegesis of the SM is evaluated differently: (a) Some scholars do still see fundamental differences between Jesus’ Galilean and Judean ministry. Ernest Renan, Albert Schweitzer et al. thought in terms of an evolution in Jesus’ thought, focusing mostly on theological dimensions (eschatological and Christological thinking) and his selfconsciousness, his understanding of his mission.286 Ernst Lohmeyer tried to see two complementary patterns of thought.287 (b) Galilee means that Jesus was part of a particular Jewish context. They were unorthodox Jews, the Pharisees did not play a strong role, the synagogues and not the Temple were important. Both Jewish and Christian scholars elevate this to a major perspective, and often with extreme ideological interests.288 (c) Socio-political approaches have stimulated the study of the Galilean setting of the SM. Sean Freyne’s fundamental studies on Galilee located the 283 In John most speeches are located to the Jerusalem ministry (John 3; 5; 7; 9–10; 12; 13–17, plus the long dialogue in Samaria (John 4). 284 Luke 5,17; 8,26 come closest, cf. 1,26; 2,4.39; 3,1; 4,14.31 and 17,11; 23,5.49.55; 24,6. The audience in 6,17 is remarkable: πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Ἰερουσαλὴµ καὶ τῆς παραλίου Τύρου καὶ Σιδῶνος. 285 Matthew is here closer to the Septuagint-text, but he omits τὰ µέρη τῆς Ἰουδαίας from Isa 8,23 and he changes Isa 9,1: ὁ λαὸς ὁ πορευόµενος ἐν σκότει, ἴδετε φῶς µέγα· οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου, φῶς λάµψει ἐφ᾿ ὑµᾶς. Konradt, Evangelium nach Matthäus (2015), ad loc., puts his finger correctly on the changes of the Masoretic Text in Isa 9,2f, which is not unique. P. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (2007), offers more examples of similar changes in the Masoretic Text. 286 Renan, Histoire des origines du Christianisme I (1863); Schweitzer, Messianitätsund Leidensbewußtsein Jesu (1901). 287 Lohmeyer, Galiläa und Jerusalem (1936/21953), 10–15, 26–36. His arguments have influenced G.H. Boobyer, W. Marxsen, W. Kelber, et al. 288 The Toledot-tradition underlines this, and Walter Grundmann, esp. in Jesus der Galiläer und das Judentum, Leipzig: Wigand 1940.

2.6 Authenticity of the SM and Its Setting (Authenticity I)

205

SM here.289 Richard Horsley does the same and takes the political conflict into account.290 Gerd Theißen picks up the same question in a much broader framework: the relations city–countryside, rich–poor, powerful–powerless people, are important as well as the different stand to Temple, land and Torah.291 John Dominic Crossan focused on the peasant society and the influence of other (even Cynic) wisdom-teachers.292 Geza Vermes thought the proverbial and parabolic sayings – also in the SM – are rooted in Galilean soil.293 Halvor Moxnes focuses more on economic factors, inspired by Bruce Malina and other social-anthropological studies of Galilee.294 A number of recent studies have in fact illuminated the SM in a new way. (d) Galilee explains much of Jesus’ teaching. The background for most of the parables of Jesus is the scenery of Galilee (Matt 6,28–39; 13,47–50, etc.). Both the Inaugural Speech and texts from the double tradition reflect this scenery.295 The fundamental question remains: that the SM fits perfectly into a Galilean context is one thing, but is the Galilean setting historically and exegetically important? It is one factor, but hardly a dominating one. We will later see this feature in a broader historiographical framework (§ 2.7–8). It is of course much more significant than the question about its location on a mountain or somewhere else in Galilee. On a mountain? For Augustine, the Sermo in monte was not given deliberately. Both terms ‘sermon’ and ‘mountain’ can be disputed, but for the SM they were important. The notice in Matt 5,1 (ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος) was more than a geographical one. Luke’s change from ʻmountain’ (ὄρος) to a ʻplain’ (ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ) had little impact, because Luke did not downplay the aspect. He rather strengthened it through the narrative about the election of the twelve apostles, which Mark sees as purpose of going up the mountain (Mark 3,13: ἀναβαίνει εἰς τὸ ὄρος). The difference between ‘mountain’ (εἰς τὸ ὄρος) and ʻplain’ (ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ), its exact geographical location (near Tabgha?), and its theological importance will always be a matter of debate. 289 Cf. Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels (1988), 71–74: not only the frame of the SM, but the sayings as well. More recently, idem, Jesus a Jewish Galilean (2004), 47–51; idem, Galilee and Gospel (2010). 290 Horsley, Galilee (1995); idem, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis, Bloomsbury: T&T Clark 1996. 291 Theißen/Merz, Der historische Jesus (32001), 156–170. 292 Crossan, Jesus (1995). 293 Vermes, Jesus in his Jewish Context (2003), 4–13, sees this aspect as a crucial factor for explaining why Jesus the Jew differs from other Jewish teachers. Cf. Avery-Peck, “The Galilean Charismatic and Rabbinic Piety” (2006). 294 Moxnes, “The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of the Lower Galilee” (1992); idem, “Constructing the Galilee of Jesus in an Age of Ethnic Identity” (2010). 295 Nearly all before the change of perspective to Jerusalem (before Luke 13,22 and of course before the final turn in Luke 19,28).

206

§ 2 The Historical Quest

Many scholars stress the analogy to Moses and Sinai, for a number of reasons: Matthew’s outline has prepared for the Moses-analogy. The new ethics in the SM supersedes the Sinai-ethics, etc. The preaching on mountains is something extraordinary and in many texts in the Tanach a mountain is the place for special revelations (Moriah, Sinai, Gerizim, Carmel, Zion, etc.) and a place for God’s promises (Ps 104,5ff; 121,1f; Mic 1,4; 4,1; Nah 1,5.15, etc.). These arguments are often overstatements. ‘Mountain’ refers in the context of Matt 4,23–25 at most to Isa 40,9 and 49,13 (“rejoice, O earth, O mountains! For God comforts his people and will have compassion on his poor/ afflicted ones”) and 52,7 (Messiah preaching the gospel of the Kingdom of God). One should not exaggerate a signal more than the evangelists indicate. The historical arguments pro et contra a location on a mountain will never be strong. The exact location slightly influences the question of audience. In the beginning the crowd were primarily the addressee, and Jesus increasingly instructed the disciples and constituted ‘the Twelve’ at a later stage. The SM has a general audience (τοὺς ὄχλους together with the disciples, Matt 5,1; cf. 9,8; 9,36), which primarily means that it is a public speech. The location is not a home or a synagogue. To conclude: The memory of fundamental teaching in Jesus’ early ministry in Galilee can be found in all the Synoptic Gospels. Mark does not have an Inaugural Speech, because that would easily contradict his concept of a ‘Messianic secret’ (and ‘parable theory’). Q clearly had a programmatic speech in the beginning of its ‘epitome’. Historical proofs for the event of one, programmatic speech in Jesus’ early ministry on a mountain in Galilee, are sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker. Verification and falsification must be part of a broader historiographical argument.

2.7 The SM in the Framework of Historical-Jesus Research (Authenticity II) In the vast majority of books about Jesus, the SM is evaluated positively, in spite of more than two hundred years of historical-critical Jesus-research. Thousands of books have been written, and we will here focus on the critical studies, having in mind the general positive evaluation of historicity. Periodisation in Jesus-research: some critical remarks. The debates on ‘the historical Jesus’ have mainly concentrated on the narratives, and the history of research of the sayings follows different paths. We follow the traditional division of the history of Jesus-research into the phases First Quest – No Quest – New Quest – Third Quest, even though this division is based on

2.7 The SM in the Framework of Historical-Jesus Research (Authenticity II)

207

many myths about Jesus-research, and more on the research on narratives than on the sayings. Since no alternative has yet been established, we have to follow the established scheme. The scheme is misleading for many reasons: The three names (‘first’, ‘new’, ‘third’) are unprecise, and two names (‘no’, ‘new’) are simply misleading. They contradict obvious facts: About 500 books about Jesus were written during the ‘No Quest’ period, and the ‘New Quest’ was not new compared to many contributions in the ‘No Quest’ – or even in the ‘First Quest’. The division into four periods downplays the variety of positions within every period, and overlooks the fact that there are some common convictions throughout all periods. In all periods certain criteria are used, and some of them are used in all ‘periods’, but were understood and functioned differently. If we look at the research into the SM in particular, the results, methods and interpretation do not change according to the proposed ‘periods of Jesusresearch’. The exegesis varies within all ‘phases’ and is much more dependent on other factors than the proposed ‘periods of Jesus-research’. 2.7.1 The SM in the Era of the So-called First Quest (1778/1800–1920) The First Quest – the long period ‘from Reimarus to Wrede’ – is the breakthrough of historical-critical research. There were also historical studies of the Gospels before Reimarus, and many books about Jesus after Reimarus followed the old paths. However, ‘first’ is appropriate in the sense that the climate in scholarship changed: The division of historical versus dogmatic approach became more and more clear. The specialisation in scholarship developed during this period, and ‘New Testament scholars’ could devote themselves to historical approaches. Source-criticism through historians like Johann Gustav Droysen, Ernst Bernheim, Charles-Victor Langlois/Charles Seignebos, et al.296 developed categories and tools for a critical-historical approach.

From the historiographical point of view this is the period from Leopold von Ranke to Rudolf Bultmann. It was a period of scholarly optimism, believing that it was possible through scientific methods to reconstruct the historical Jesus, and the core of Jesus’ teaching was the SM. Reimarus, Strauss and Wrede, et al. had a more pessimistic view. They argued that the Gospels were basically wrong, and that Jesus’ tragic end was rather a contrast to his optimistic teaching. Liberals found more connections between Jesus’ teaching and a hidden destiny.297

296 Droysen, Grundriss der Historik (1893); Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie (31903). 297 Theißen/Metz, Der historische Jesus (1996/1998), differentiated between critical Jesus-Quest (1774–1830), and liberal, optimistic Jesus-research (1830–1901).

208

§ 2 The Historical Quest

In 1835 two totally different approaches changed much in scholarship on ‘the historical Jesus’, but not so much on the SM. Karl Lachmann (and Christian Hermann Weisse)298 developed the two-document hypothesis (2DH), and their main argument was the SM, and this gave the SM an even stronger place in theology. In the same year David Friedrich Strauss came out with a source-theory with a harsh criticism of ‘Leben Jesu’. Most of the narratives are created in Early Christianity. Pious fantasy formed them in accordance with Christian myths. However, Strauss found authentic material in the sayings, in the parables, but first and foremost in the SM.299 The SM is mostly authentic: the Beatitudes (although preserved in Ebionitic, or Essenian circles), the words against the Law, the criticism of the piety of the Pharisees, even the enigmatic saying in Matt 7,6, are considered genuine sayings of Jesus. Bruno Bauer, a student of Strauss, was the great exception. According to him Strauss should have been much more critical. He argued sharply against his teacher, and his colleague August Tholuck, who assumed the speech is “in allen ihren Theilen ursprünglich”.300 Bauer started with a comparison with the SP, and he demanded that three questions should be answered: 1. Is the SM as a totality historical? 2. What was the historically correct context? 3. How far is Luke from Matthew? 301 He concluded that Luke has a more original text than Matthew, but also that Luke is not a historical source in the strict sense. The responses from liberals, and other responses, were clear: the SM is in general authentic, partly because of its poor Christology, the lack of ecclesiology, and the radical and genuine character of the sayings. The First Quest was therefore dominated by representatives of the Liberal Theology, and for liberal theologians the SM tended to be the core of Jesus’ teaching and often the essence of Christianity as well. Albrecht Ritschl saw the interpretation of the Kingdom of God and the ethics of the SM as the second elliptic centre in Christianity – next to the Pauline teaching of righteousness of God. In the same way, Adolf Harnack’s famous lectures in 1900 on the essence of Christianity used many texts from the SM.302 Nearly every year in the liberal era new books about the historical Jesus came out, and the most influential

298

Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte (1838). Strauss, Leben Jesu (1835/1836), 569–587 (§ 72: “Die Bergrede”), cf. idem, Das Leben Jesu: Für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet, vol. I, Leipzig: Brockhaus 21864, 254, where he commented on the seven parables in Matt 13, and continued: “gehören …, nächst der Bergrede, zum Aechtesten, was uns von Aussprüchen Jesu geblieben ist”. 300 Tholuck, Auslegung der Bergpredigt (1833), 23. 301 B. Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker I (1843), 283–387, here 296, 298. 302 Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums ([1900/]2005), esp. 47–74. 299

2.7 The SM in the Framework of Historical-Jesus Research (Authenticity II)

209

scholars (H.J. Holtzmann, E. Renan, C.A. Briggs,303 et al.) argued in favour of authenticity for the majority of the sayings in the SM.304 Liberal theologians argued that the undisputed Inaugural Speech (= Luke 6,20–49) reproduced sayings of Jesus. Only the ‘Jewish-Christian’ additions to the Inaugural Speech by Matthew (such as 5,17–19; 6,1–8.16–18; 7,6) are definitely secondary supplements in the Early Church. Even in Paul Wernle’s famous book about Jesus from 1917, circulated in more than 100,000 copies and read by German soldiers in the trenches during the War, the SM was the core of Jesus’ teaching. The challenge was not a theoretical one: if the commandment on enemy-love derives from Jesus, how can Christians on both sides of the demarcation line reinterpret it? The liberal exegetes in Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and in France had to deepen the meaning of the ‘enemy-love saying’ in the SM in their contexts.305 Some critical voices could also be heard: Julius Wellhausen considered a number of sayings and even the Lord’s Prayer as not authentic.306 Scholars from the religion-history school saw primarily communities and not authors/ evangelists behind the text. According to Wilhelm Bousset the authentic sayings of Jesus dominate, but about one third of the SM reflects the Palestinian community. The fact that Jesus was convicted by Jews and Romans, was seen by Reimarus, Strauss, et al. in light of political struggles, whereas the liberal theologians mostly saw the conflict with Jewish authorities as the centre of the conflict. The Jewish protest against Jesus’ new, original message was the driving force in history. Many studies by liberal exegetes therefore saw the legalistic and cultic texts in the SM as secondary additions. Anti-Judaism had been an issue since Albert Eichhorn. In retrospect it is easy and terrifying to see the anti-Jewish biases in liberal historical studies and exegesis in ‘the religio-historical school’.307 Fresh approaches from Jewish scholars provided a substantial protest against this type of exegesis and yielded many new insights. C.G. Montefiore 303 Just to mention one exegete outside Germany/France. Charles Augustus Briggs, a Presbyterian biblical scholar (1841–1913) wrote The Messiah of the Gospels, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1894; New Light on the Life of Jesus, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1904; The Ethical Teaching of Jesus, New York: Scribner 1904; cf. the most informative book on the whole period by Walter P. Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900–1950, Harrisburg: Trinity 1999. 304 Renan, Vie de Jésus (1863), saw Jesus in his Galilean ministry as a romantic preacher of love, whereas he later tended to revolutionary preaching, cf. Histoire des origines du Christianisme I (1866). 305 The best reviews (in Theologische Rundschau, etc.) came from H. Windisch, who as a German was professor in Leiden but had strong affiliations to scholars in the UK. 306 For a complete review of Wellhausen’s position, see Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 301–303. 307 Documented by Gerdmar, Roots of Theological anti-Semitism (2009).

210

§ 2 The Historical Quest

opened up for a fruitful dialogue with his analysis of the SM. He found the basically Jewish text as authentic sayings of Jesus, a position G. Friedlander tried to modify.308 Montefiore saw Jesus as a Jewish prophet and could therefore also include the seeming criticism of Judaism in the SM. Friedlander was more sceptical, but thought that odd texts like Matt 7,6; 5,23f were nevertheless authentic. To sum up: On the basis of the absolute source-theory, an optimism on behalf of historical science dominated the Jesus-research. The authenticity (of most of the SM) was underlined even by scholars who had a more pessimistic view, and were critical to the Gospel’s narrative about the end of Jesus. 2.7.2 In the Era of the So-called ‘No Quest’ (1920–1950) After the First World War the battlegrounds were turned into memorial parks and in New Testament scholarship the optimism of the Jesus-research became a faint memory of the past. The climate in scholarship changed: optimism on behalf of historical-critical research also here turned into pessimism, and it was necessary to look into the future and not look back to historical events. Eschatology became a keyword and philosophical and theological questions came into focus. It fits well into this pattern that the foundation of the formcritical method (1919–1921) made historical reconstructions even more difficult. A few obvious features – next to the use of form-criticism – are characteristic of the so-called ‘No Quest’: – No ‘Life of Jesus’ in the sense of biography can be written. – No ‘Life of Jesus’ in the sense of psychology (inner life) of Jesus can possibly be reached. – The reconstruction of the ‘personality’ of Jesus is impossible. – No optimism concerning reaching the goal of the basic reality of the ‘Life of Jesus’ (i.e. the concept of Ranke: “wie es eigentlich gewesen”). However, it is a myth that the ‘Leben-Jesu-Frage’ ended in the year 1918. In the period of the so-called “No Quest” (1920 to 1950) more than 500 books on Jesus were written outside the Bultmann-school,309 and two of these were written by the founders of form-criticism: Rudolf Bultmann’s Jesus (1926) came out in the series “Die Unsterblichen” (‘The Immortals’), and in 1939 Martin Dibelius published his Jesus. In Germany, and elsewhere, the literature on Jesus flourished, but it was generally more modest and less optimistic than prior to 1920. The myth that no Jesus-research took place in the period 1920–1950 is thus more than an overstatement.

308 C.G. Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels (1909); Friedlander, Jewish Sources (1911). See above, §§ 1.2.3 and 1.3.6.5. 309 More in Baasland, “Fourth Quest?” (2011), 33f.

2.7 The SM in the Framework of Historical-Jesus Research (Authenticity II)

211

The origin of the myth about ‘No Quest’ appeared after 1950 – from scholars in the Bultmann-school who argued for a ‘New Quest’. They were well aware of the relatively untroubled and uninterrupted quest for the historical Jesus progressing in French and Anglo-Saxon – and even German – scholarship. The premise for representatives of the ‘New Quest’ was “the conviction that this continuation of the nineteenth-century German quest ought probably to be interrupted or at least disturbed”.310 They thus denied the legitimacy of the books about Jesus based on the old premises, and according to the representatives of the ‘New Quest’, new premises had to be implemented in order to deserve the title Jesus-research. 1) Founders of classical form-criticism and the SM. Form-criticism became the main tool in ‘liberal’ German scholarship, but even here the authenticity of the SM was evaluated positively. Bultmann here followed in the footsteps of D.F. Strauss.311 According to Bultmann, nearly three quarters of the SM are genuine Jesus-tradition. Bultmann mentioned the SM only in the periphery, but his analysis of the individual sayings shows his positive evaluation of the tradition. This attitude is expressed in scattered places in his Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1921). His letter to Gunkel in 1923 confirms more clearly his evaluation in Geschichte (GST).312 Matthew

GST

Letter to Gunkel

Gattung

5,3–12 5,13–16

114f, 134f, 162 95f, 100, 102 77, 82, 84, 91, 102, 107, 112 142–146, 157f, 159 160, 176, 350 101, 103, 160, 185

9. Luke 6,20f (older) 51. Luke 14,34 (on salt) 50. Mark 4,21(on light) (Matt 5,21f on killing) 32. Luke 16,18 (on divorce) 3. Luke 12,54–56 (reconcile)

82, 87, 110

29. Matt 5,39b–41 (retaliation)

Prophetic word Wisdom-sayings Wisdom Law-sayings Law-sayings Wisdom – parable Wisdom

5,21–48

310

Robinson, A New Quest (1959), 1. Rudolf Bultmann planned to dedicate his critical study ‘History of the Synoptic Tradition’ (1921) to D.F. Strauss, and in fact, he argued along much the same lines. The publisher therefore hesitated to publish the book. W. Bousset and H. Gunkel had to argue strongly in favour of the book, and Bultmann decided rather to dedicate the book to his teacher W. Heitmüller, whose book about Jesus was widely read. Bultmann however did not change the content. Compared to Strauss, he was nearly as critical of the narratives and the mythical framework of the evangelists, but he also agreed with Strauss when it came to authentic material in the SM, cf. Konrad Hammann, Rudolf Bultmann: Eine Biographie, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000 (ET: Rudolf Bultmann: A Biography, Salem, Or.: Polebridge 2012). 312 My reconstruction in Theologie und Methode (1992), 230–254, has proved to be correct, cf. the publication and interpretation of the letter to Gunkel in Baasland, “Consistent Jesus-Research?” (2015). 311

212 Matthew

§ 2 The Historical Quest GST

Letter to Gunkel

Gattung

82f, 85, 92, 110, 159f

30. Matt 5,44–48 (enemylove) 44. Matt 6,19–21 (treasures) 41. Matt 6,24 (serve two masters) 46. Matt 6,25f.28b–33 (worrying) 26. Matt 7,1–5 (on judging)

Wisdom

6,19–21 6,24

81, 85, 87, 109 79, 91, 95, 109

6,25–34

82, 84f, 92, 107, 109, 111

7,1–5

85, 90, 111

7,7–11 7,13f

85f,90, 109, 112 81, 85, 110

7,15

131, 134

7,16–20 7,21

99, 109 122f, 154

7,24–27

187, 218f 49, 55, 82, 84, 97, 105, 162 81, 90

(5,29f)

45. Matt 7,7–11 (on prayer) 7./39. Matt 7,13f (narrow gate)

35. Luke 6,43f (tree and fruit) 19. Luke 6,46 (Lord, Lordsaying) 60. Matt 7,24–27 (house) 49. Luke 6,39 (teachers) 40. Mark 9,43–47 (on ‘offence’)

Wisdom Wisdom Wisdomsayings Wisdomsayings Wisdom + image Wisdom + admonition Propheticapocalyptic Wisdom Prophetic Parable Wisdom Wisdom

Some sayings have their origin rather in the Early Church: Matthew GST 5,17–19 5,23f

146f, 157f, 160, 164, 166– 168, 176 140, 156, 158, 160, 350, 378

5,33ff 6,1–18

143f, 157, 160 140f, 156, 160

6,22f 6,34 7,6 7,12 7,22f

77, 91, 95 77, 80, 84, 111 80, 85, 107 93, 107 123, 134, 162f

Letter to Gunkel

Gattung Law-saying

(25. Luke 17,3f; cf. Mark 11,25) 23. Matt 23,16–19

Law-saying Law-saying Church order (piety rules) Wisdom Wisdom Wisdom Wisdom Prophetic

The third aspect is redactional additions, which is primarily a matter of style.313 Bultmann’s understanding of the SM changed somewhat after the breakthrough of dialectical and existentialist theology. In GST, he emphasised Jesus as a wisdom teacher, and in his book on Jesus (1926) he still called Jesus a Jewish rabbi. However, he emphasised much more the eschatological teaching, and interpreted the teaching much more in prophetic terms. He 313

Matt 5,4.6–9 (p. 114); 5,13f.16 (pp. 95f); 5,20 (p. 161); 5,21–48 (pp. 350f); 6,1 (pp. 161, 351).

2.7 The SM in the Framework of Historical-Jesus Research (Authenticity II)

213

tended to interpret even more sayings in the SM as authentic than he did in GST, but all this, according to Bultmann, is only a matter of interpretation. At the very end of this period (1948) he reinterpreted the teaching of Jesus and as in 1920314 Bultmann once more saw the teaching of Jesus as a preparation for Christianity. He therefore referred simply to GST, when it came to the question of “source for the teaching of Jesus”.315 Bultmann’s thesis, that Jesus’ teaching was only “eine Voraussetzung der Theologie des Neuen Testaments” provoked even his students, and as a result e.g. Ernst Käsemann, Günther Bornkamm, Ernst Fuchs, launched the ‘New Quest’. For Bultmann the SM as such was never important, only parts of its sayings. The SM was a deliberate collection of sayings (‘Sammlung’) that happened to be part of Matthew (and Luke). Martin Dibelius had a different approach. His form-history focused more on the narratives. In his brief analysis of the sayings according to his synthetical approach he searched for the Sitz im Leben, and he saw a catechetical purpose as the setting for most of the sayings. The SM is here a primary example. Generally, he abstained from too narrow debates on authenticity.316 He thought in fact, that most of the sayings in one way or another reflect Jesus’ own teaching, which he made clear in his book on Jesus (1939): The SM puts together sayings as a sort of catechism (“Katechismus des christlichen Lebens in der Welt”).317 Even texts like Matt 6,1–18 (= MattS) are influenced by the historical Jesus. Both in the book on Jesus and in Die Botschaft von Jesus Christus (1935), the crucial sayings were treated as authentic.318 In the ‘Shaffer Lectures’ at Yale in 1937, he made a renewed and the most extensive analysis of the SM.319 He denied that Jesus gave long speeches like Matt 5–7.320 The SM collects programmatic sayings, and paints an ideal picture of Jesus’ teaching: some sayings Jesus had picked up himself, and his teaching of the Kingdom coins most of the sayings,321 but the evangelists have influenced the sayings relatively little. This collection of programmatic sayings deserves therefore particular attention, which Dibelius paid to them. 314 Bultmann, “Ethische und mystische Religion im Urchristentum” (above, p. 79, n. 328). 315 Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 2. 316 M. Dibelius, Jesus (31960), 21: “Eine Diskussion darüber, ob ein einzelner Spruch ‘echt’ sei, ist oft müßig …” 317 Ibid., 88. 318 M. Dibelius, Die Botschaft von Jesus Christus (1935), 144–151, cf. 59ff. 319 M. Dibelius, Sermon (1940 = “Bergpredigt” [1953]). It was apparently difficult for him to apply Matt 5,44f (on enemy-love), when Hitler and his own people had started a world war. 320 M. Dibelius, Sermon (1940), 99, 83f. 321 M. Dibelius, “Bergpredigt” (1953), 120, mentioned explicitly the question of authenticity (“die Echtheitsfrage”) and introduced this key – on the background of a discussion of many disputed sayings with reference to their authenticity.

214

§ 2 The Historical Quest

2) The SM in German scholarship (outside the form-critical school). The form-critical method was not a major factor in the debates on the SM and its authenticity. Dialectical Theology presented a profound eschatological and Christological interpretation of the SM, and was less interested in the historical question. Hans Windisch criticised not only the eschatological and Christological interpretations, but also Bultmann’s and Dibelius’ theological exegesis of the SM. Windisch advocated a more profound historical approach. The ethical wisdom-teaching is the core, and he offered a positive evaluation of the authenticity. Heinrich Weinel was even more clear: nearly everything in the SM is authentic.322 Exceptions are Matt 5,19 and 7,6. The two World Wars were in fact the main driving factor; after the First World War the peace-movement was strong, but after Hitler’s takeover in 1933 the climate changed totally until the Germans’ final defeat in 1945. The awakening of Dialectical Theology was one response to the situation, Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Nachfolge/The Cost of Discipleship (1937/1949) gave the most powerful response. Teaching in Berlin on the SM in 1935 he found a protest against the Nazi ideology in almost every saying. Bonhoeffer in fact took every saying in the SM as genuine Jesus-saying. Julius Schniewind, another opponent of the Nazis, who as exegete accepted much of the formcritical insights, did the same. The isolated sayings in the SM embodied the wisdom of Jesus the Messiah.323 Jewish scholars emphasised these texts as expressions of Jesus, the Jewish brother, and they followed mainly in the path of C.G. Montefiore. They also did so as critics of the anti-Semitic type of exegesis, the political consequences of which they could hardly believe would take place. Exegetes who supported the Nazi-regime, such as Emanuel Hirsch and Walter Grundmann,324 focused on the anti-Jewish elements in the SM, and labelled Matt 5,17–19 and 7,6 and a few other texts as later Jewish-Christian interpolations. 3) Contributions to the SM outside Germany. After World War I, the peace-movement, pacifism, and international interest for the SM (Gandhi, et al.), but also ‘Social Gospel’-movements etc., provided inspiration to the renewed study of the SM among theologians and exegetes. Geography (continents, countries and language-groups) and denominational affiliation (particularly Catholic versus non-Catholic scholarship) still played a role in scholarship. French scholarship was in general critical to form-history, but even Oscar Cullmann’s relatively positive reception led him to a positive evaluation of 322 Weinel, Bergpredigt (1920), 40: “so muß fast der gesamte Inhalt der Bergpredigt für echt erklärt werden”. 323 Schniewind, “Zur Synoptiker-Exegese”, TRu NF 2 (1930), 129–189; idem, Matthäus (61953), 27f. 324 Roland Deines, Walter Grundmann: Ein Neutestamentler im Dritten Reich, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 2007.

2.7 The SM in the Framework of Historical-Jesus Research (Authenticity II)

215

the historicity of the SM.325 Maurice Goguel’s comprehensive studies also supported the authenticity of the SM.326 We see the same in the UK, where a leading scholar, Thomas W. Manson, provided an extensive treatment of the SM. He launched here his audience-criticism and included what later was labelled as redaction-criticism.327 He was well aware of “the editorial methods of Matthew and Luke”, but the SM still delivers “genuine records about Jesus”.328 The debate in the US was more influenced by the Social Gospel movement and by Reinhold Niebuhr’s reflections on the ethics of the SM.329 Exegetes like Amos Wilder and Henry J. Cadbury, responded with profound analyses of the ethics of the SM, which they in general considered as historical.330 To conclude, this period of time is often called the hyper-critical period in historical-Jesus research, so it may surprise us that the scepticism about the SM had a silent voice in this turbulent time. Few denied that the SM to a great extent was historical. 2.7.3 In the Framework of the ‘New Quest’ (1950–1980) The representatives of the ‘New Quest’ claimed that this ‘quest’ was “based upon new premises, procedures and objectives”.331 The ‘New Quest’ claimed that it differed more from the ‘First Quest’ than from ‘No Quest’. However, the difference from the ‘First Quest’ was not so much the methods and historical insights, but more about the theological impact of the results and about criteria. Käsemann initiated the debate as a debate on criteria. He took up Bultmann’s usage of the criterion of dissimilarity, and saw this criterion as a starting point for historical research. Käsemann in 1952 opposed Bultmann’s 325

Oscar Cullmann, “Die neuen Arbeiten zur Geschichte der Evangelientradition” (1925), in idem, Vorträge und Aufsätze: 1925–1962, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1966, 41–90. 326 Maurice Goguel, Jésus de Nazareth: Mythe ou histoire, Paris: Payot 1925 (ET: Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History, London: T. Fisher Unwin 1926), cf. idem, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, 2 vols., New York: Harper 1960. 327 T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1931/21935). He later affirmed his position in The Sayings of Jesus (1949) and Ethics and the Gospel (1962); cf. Henry D.A. Major et al., The Mission and Message of Jesus, London: Dutton 1937/1946, 14f. 328 T.W. Manson made a thorough analysis of The Sayings of Jesus (1949) as recorded in the document Q, “The teaching peculiar to Matthew” and “The teaching peculiar to Luke”. Edwyn C. Hoskyns/Noel Davey held the same position, The Riddle of the New Testament, London: Faber 1931 (= Das Rätsel des Neuen Testaments, München: Kaiser 1957, 91ff). 329 R. Niebuhr, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics (1935), ch. II: “The Ethics of Jesus”. 330 Wilder, Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus (1950), and on the SM, his “The Teaching of Jesus: II. The Sermon on the Mount” (1951). 331 Robinson, A New Quest (1959), 2.

216

§ 2 The Historical Quest

position,332 and underlined the continuity between the teaching of Jesus and the Kerygma; it was precisely Jesus’ radical preaching that gave the Kerygma its character.333 His programmatic paper two years later334 has later been considered as the beginning of the ʻNew Questʼ. The ‘New Quest’ was ‘new’ within the Bultmann-school. Outside the Bultmann-school it was commonplace. Käsemann in fact followed Bultmann’s approach around 1925 – when Bultmann wrote his book on Jesus.335 They had in common disputable assumptions, e.g. the criterion of dissimilarity, which was decisive for Bultmann and his school. This criterion denounced the Jewishness of Jesus and had a tendency to argue against ‘ecclesiological’/‘Early-Catholic’ tendencies. In this school form-criticism was a premise for ‘Life of Jesus’-research, and they argued against scholars who applied form-criticism in a less critical form. 1) The combination of form-criticism and redaction-criticism in the Bultmann-school. Bultmann’s masterpiece ‘Theology of the New Testament’ required many corrections, and two of them were taken up by his own students. Next to the neglect of ‘the historical Jesus’, they underlined the achievements of the evangelists.336 G. Bornkamm in particular elaborated both questions simultaneously, and he argued strongly for the authenticity of many Jesus-sayings. He restricted the role of the evangelists; the division between ‘tradition’ and ‘redaction’ is the task, and he saw the evangelists as editors more than authors. Matthew’s particular Jewish-Christian position did not make as dramatic a change to the Jesus-tradition as the concept of salvation-history by Luke, who represents ‘Early Catholicism’.337 2) The SM outside the Bultmann-school. The breakdown of ideologies after World War II gave more credibility to scientific and historical approaches. In this period of the ‘New Quest’ for the historical Jesus, the combination of formand redaction-criticism was often perceived as being without preconceptions/ presuppositions (German: voraussetzungslos) and was therefore undisputed. 332 Käsemann reviewed the first instalment of Bultmann’s Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1948), in “Ein neutestamentlicher Überblick” (1949/50, 1951/52), asking for the “zugrundegelegten Kriterien für die Verkündigung Jesu” (ibid., 195–197). 333 Ibid., 197: “So sinnvoll diese Aussage als Abschluß der Leben-Jesu-Forschung ist, so gewiß hat sie das Problem nicht zum Abschluß gebracht, welche Relevanz die Historie – und zumal die Historie Jesu! – für Theologie und Glauben besitzt, im Gegenteil, es in schneidender Schärfe und von neuen Voraussetzungen her wieder aufgeworfen.” 334 Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I (1964), 187–214 (“Das Problem des historischen Jesus”, prepared in “Sackgassen im Streit um den historischen Jesus”, ibid., 31–68). 335 Käsemann started as a student in Bonn in 1925 with Erik Peterson as his teacher. 336 Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (51965), 1f, 477–479. 337 Bornkamm, “Matthäus als Interpret der Herrenworte” (1954); idem, “Die Gegenwartsbedeutung der Bergpredigt” (1954); idem, “Bergpredigt: I. Biblisch”, RGG3 1 (1957), 1047–1050; idem, “Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt” (1977/78).

2.7 The SM in the Framework of Historical-Jesus Research (Authenticity II)

217

‘Catholic’ and ʻProtestant’ became much closer during this period. In general, Bultmann’s influence was relatively low among Catholic scholars, but e.g. the catholic Schnackenburg and the Bultmann-student Bornkamm agreed to a great extent. J. Jeremias, L. Goppelt, R. Guelich and X. Léon-Dufour, underlined the historicity even more.338 The influential scholars in Scandinavia (H. Riesenfeld, B. Gerhardsson, N.A. Dahl)339 and in the UK (C.H. Dodd, F.F. Bruce), and North America340 did the same, even though they conveyed some of the insights from form- and redaction-criticism. Criticism against the image of the historical Jesus in the ‘New Quest’, dominated by the Bultmannschool, was often harsh: against their criteria, against their use of formcriticism, against underlying and sometimes clear anti-Jewish biases. 3) The Jewish character of the SM as a challenge. According to Käsemann, sayings with a Jewish character were inauthentic. The emphasis on the Beatitudes, the Antitheses, etc. was strong and the criticism of Jewish sayings (like Matt 5,17–20) was harsh. Herbert Braun and Ethelbert Stauffer compared Jesus and the radicalism of Qumran. Braun underlined the differences,341 whereas Stauffer offered a more subjective, yet in some ways challenging perspective on the historical Jesus, based on archaeological evidence and both Roman and rabbinic sources.342 He later turned the insights into speculations and launched the theory of Jesus as a Qumran-influenced Jew. The most influential contribution came from William D. Davies, who compared the SM with broader Jewish ethical traditions. In the SM Matthew conveys authentic sayings of Jesus, but in the Gospel represents the situation after Jamnia, and the division between Jews and Christians.343 After the Holocaust the question of Jesus and Judaism was extremely tense in Jewish circles. Jewish scholars who worked together with other biblical 338

Jeremias, Bergpredigt (1959) = Sermon (1961); Goppelt, Die Bergpredigt und die Wirklichkeit dieser Welt (1968); Guelich – a student of Goppelt –, in Sermon (1982); Xavier Léon-Dufour, The Gospels and the Jesus of History, London: Collins 1968, 206–210. 339 N.A. Dahl, “Der historische Jesus als geschichtswissenschaftliches und theologisches Problem” (1953/1955/1976), and already in Volk Gottes (1941), 144, he distinguished between ‘cross-section-view’ (German: Querschnitt-Betrachtung) and ‘effect/consequence’-view (German: Längsschnitt-Betrachtung). 340 US: A.N. Wilder, H.J. Cadbury, et al.; Canada: Francis W. Beare, The Earliest Records of Jesus: A Companion of the Synopsis of the First Three Gospels by Albert Huck, Oxford: Blackwell 1962, 52–69. 341 Herbert Braun,“Beobachtungen zur Tora-Verschärfung im häretischen Spätjudentum”, TLZ 79 (1954), 347–352; idem, Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus (1969); idem, Jesus (1969). 342 Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus: Gestalt und Geschichte (Dalp Taschenbuch 332), Bern: Francke 1957. Here he argued in favour of a number of historical informations in the Gospels. In Die Botschaft Jesu: Damals und heute (Dalp Taschenbuch 333), Bern: Francke 1959, 10, he called for an “Entjudaisierung” (de-Judaization) of the Jesus-tradition (cf. Jesus, 63f). 343 Davies, Setting (1964); idem, Sermon on the Mount (1966).

218

§ 2 The Historical Quest

scholars on the Qumran texts, had open eyes for Jesus’ role in the history of Judaism. David Flusser contributed to the dialogue with his fresh reconstructions of the historical Jesus. He compared Jesus, Hillel and the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ in Qumran and saw Jesus as a Jewish sage with a high selfawareness.344 The SM and the parables were also for Flusser the most authentic Jesus-sayings. To conclude: ‘New Quest’ was in fact less positive to the Jesus-traditions than most scholarship in the so-called ‘No Quest’-period. Due to the criteria they used, they repeated the criticism against the Jewish features in the Gospel tradition. ‘New Quest’ originated and was formulated in the Bultmannschool, so basically was Bultmann’s evaluation of the SM in 1921/1923 still valid. But the growing emphasis on Matthew as redactor rather impaired the claim on authenticity. 2.7.4 The SM in the Framework of the So-called ʻThird Questʼ (1980–) After 1980 a number of new methods were introduced and the centre of gravity in Jesus-research moved gradually to countries outside Germany, particularly to the US. New Testament scholarship became international and ecumenical; the divisions between German and non-German scholarship, or between Protestant and Catholic scholarship, were increasingly erased.345 Even the division between Jewish and Christian scholars became less important. 1) The Jesus-Seminar and the focus on historicity. The Jesus-Seminar started in 1985 with well-known scholars (R.W. Funk, H.W. Attridge, M. Borg, J.D. Crossan, K.L. King, B.L. Mack, J.M. Robinson, et al.) and a spectacular and highly disputed voting-system. Massive criticism came mainly from European scholars, but also from US-exegetes (L.T. Johnson, R.B. Hays, C.A. Evans, et al.). The Jesus-Seminar is only one branch of the ‘Third Quest’, but set the agenda in many ways. The Third Quest/the Jesus-Seminar emphasised more: – the Jewishness of Jesus: not only Jewish roots, but Jesus within Judaism – the evidence from archaeology346 – the use of models from sociology and social anthropology – the socio-cultural setting for Jesus, particularly the Galilean and also the Hellenistic context – the use of Q as a main witness – the extensive use of the Gospel of Thomas (i.e., extra-canonical writings). 344 Flusser, Jesus (1968), and esp. idem, ”Hillel’s Self-Awareness and Jesus”, in idem, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, Jerusalem: Magnes 1988, 509–514. 345 Cf. a more recent publication: Charlesworth/Pokorný (eds.), Jesus Research (2009). 346 Many valuable archaeological studies came out after 1970. Foundational studies were also delivered in the period from about 1850 to 1970, from scholars with different understandings of Jesus. After 1970 archaeology tended to become an ideological issue, cf. Crossan/Reed, Excavating Jesus (2001).

2.7 The SM in the Framework of Historical-Jesus Research (Authenticity II)

219

The first four insights reflect general tendencies in nearly all New Testament scholarship. Specific for the Jesus-Seminar is the role they atttribute the Gospel of Thomas (and Q), and the way they convey many aspects and results from Bultmann’s GST/HST. The Jesus-Seminar is more critical, but most sayings are still recognised as genuine: Matt 5,3.5.11f.13–15.21f.23f.25f.29.34–37.39–41/42.44–48; 6,9– 13a.14f.16.19–21.22f.24.25–30/31; 7,.6.12.13f.16.20, perhaps also Matt 5,11f.22–24.29f.34–37; 6,3.6.13–15.17.19–21.22f; 7,1.3–5.6.7–11.17f. About 67 verses are considered as genuine in the Jesus-Seminar. Funk counts a few less in his book The Gospel of Jesus, but both list more than Bultmann’s GST, and even more than Bultmann’s book on Jesus. Even the sayings in the SM, which are peculiar to Matthew, originate from the historical Jesus (Matt 5,13.23f.34–37; 6,3.16; 7,6). The Jesus-Seminar347 and R. Funk present a more differentiated evaluation:348 Funk/Hoover, Five Gospels Matt 5,3–4.6/5,11f pink/blue Matt 5,13.14f Matt 5,21f.23f/ Matt 5,25f Matt 5,29 Matt 5,34–37 Matt 5,39–41/42/ Matt 5,44–48 Matt 6,3 Matt 6,9–13a Matt 6,14f Matt 6,16 Matt 6,19–21 Matt 6,22f Matt 6,24.25–30/31 Matt 7,2 Matt 7,3–5 Matt 7,6 Matt 7,7f.9–11 Matt 7,12 Matt 7,13f Matt 7,16–18.20

pink blue/pink

Funk, Gospel of Jesus Matt 5,3.4/Luke (p. 15) 6,20.22f Matt 5,13.14.15 (pp. 81, 79) Matt 5,25f (p. 25)

blue blue red/pink/ red-blue-pink pink red/pink/blue blue blue blue blue pink/blue blue pink blue pink blue blue blue/pink/blue

– – Matt 5,39.40.42.44.45 Matt 6,3.6 Matt 6,9–13 Matt 6,14f – – – Matt 6,24.25 – Matt 7,3–5 – Matt 7,7f.9–11 – Matt 7,13f Matt 7,16

(pp. 23f, 73, 39) (p. 64) (p. 63) (p. 39)

Bultmann, GST Luke 6,20f ('Weisheitsworte) undecided

Matt 5,39–41 Matt 5,44f.47

30 (pp. 73, 19f) perhaps (p. 63) (pp. 19, 75)

perhaps

(p. 25) (p. 81)

Matt 7,13

347 The colours according to the critics were ridiculous: red = genuine, pink = probably genuine, grey = not far from being genuine (grey-zone), black = unlikely to be so (blacked out). These categories are in fact widely used in the commentaries (genuine, probably authentic, secondary, redactional, etc.). As soon as the categories are systematised, such a list borders on the comical. 348 Funk/Hoover, Five Gospels (1993), 138–159; Funk, Gospel of Jesus (1999).

220

§ 2 The Historical Quest

Bultmann had saved three quarters of the SM from the fire of criticism, Funk and the Jesus-Seminar are more critical. Funk does not rely on the conclusions in the Jesus-Seminar. The adjustments in his own book on Jesus are not dramatic. It reflects an even more unclear methodology than Bultmann had in his Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. As in Bultmann’s work, Jesus was accordingly primarily a sage, a wisdom-teacher.349 A number of well-known scholars attended the Jesus-Seminar, but they were outnumbered by the scholars, who were critical of the project.350 Both in the US, and also strongly in Europe, scholars distanced themselves from the method(s) and the results. The discussion overlooked the similarities between Funk/the Jesus-Seminar and Bultmann’s form-criticism. 2) New awareness for Jesus the Jew. ʻNew Questʼ rejected the criterion of dissimilarity, at least when it came to the Jewishness of Jesus. They saw correctly a sort of replacement-theory behind this pattern of thought. Scholars with a profound knowledge of Judaism, such as M. Hengel, G. Lohfink, W.D. Davies, D.C. Allison, J.H. Charlesworth, et al., had underlined the Jewishness of Jesus, but at the same the Messianic aspirations and the new features in his teaching. An outsider, diplomat and historian, Pinchas Lapide, challenged the scholars and advocated a new approach to the SM. He underlined the Jewish – and realistic ‒ ethos of Jesus.351 Lapide’s perspective ran into open doors, but a more profound analysis was needed. Geza Vermes352 and e.g. John P. Meier353 understood Jesus as ‘a marginal Jew’. Other scholars tried to understand Jesus ‘within Judaism’ and consequently offered a Jewish interpretation.354 3) Jesus in a broader framework. Literature on the historical Jesus flourished after 1970. Some became bestsellers,355 comprehensive books became standard in universities,356 and hundreds of voluminous or briefer analyses 349

The criticism of Johnson, Real Jesus (1996). E.g. Harold W. Attridge, Marcus Borg, John D. Crossan, Robert W. Funk, Karen L. King, Burton L. Mack, James M. Robinson. Among the critics: Richard B. Hays, Luke T. Johnson, Raymond E. Brown, Craig A. Evans, James D.G. Dunn, et al. Cf. as overview R.J. Miller, The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics (1999). 351 Lapide, Bergpredigt (1982)/Sermon (1986). 352 Vermes, Jesus the Jew (1973). 353 J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew I; cf. Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, New York: Oxford University Press 1999. 354 Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993); Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, New York: Knopf 1999. 355 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision (1987) and Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary (2006), who in his dissertation (1972) already saw the conflict-perspective as essential; and Crossan, Jesus (1995) and Essential Jesus (1998). 356 Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993); Theißen/Merz, Historical Jesus (1997); Jürgen Becker, Jesus von Nazaret, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1996; Nicholas T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Minneapolis: Fortress 1996. 350

2.7 The SM in the Framework of Historical-Jesus Research (Authenticity II)

221

appeared. The SM was in general less accentuated than in previous Jesusresearch. The SM was here mostly part of the analysis of the ethics of Jesus.357 The debates on the SM became intensified in various debates about the radicalism of Jesus; in debates on Marxist ideology and the political interpretation in the 1970s; in the debates in the wake of the peace-movement in the 1980s;358 in the monastic interpretation of G. Lohfink;359 in the ascetic interpretation of J.D.M. Derrett;360 and in creative studies with the intention of broadening the perspectives, through feminism,361 economy,362 socialanthropology, etc.363 4) Tension between the historical Jesus and redaction-criticism. Within the tight current of Jesus-literature, a parallel stream was visible: the literature on Matthew and the Matthean community. The SM was seen as a creation of Matthew and not of Jesus. The two streams could hardly merge, so more and more scholars manoeuvred on both streams; the first position treats the SM as genuine Jesus-speech. They think Matthew had interpreted the speech and added some parts (primarily the Law-sayings). The second position hears primarily Matthew’s voice, but most scholars would add that the spirit of Jesus substantially pervades the sayings. They treat the SM as ‘relic’, which reflects the situation in the Matthean community at the end of the first century CE. This debate goes on, rarely on the level of historiography, but mostly on the analysis of the Matthean Sondergut: are these products of Matthew? Can some of these sayings be historical? Should we read these texts and Matthew as a whole as a Jewish text in an internal inner-Jewish dialogue? 5) Orality as solution? Chris Keith has recently argued “for a Jesusmemory-approach to the historical Jesus, in contrast to the dominant criteria approach”.364 His arguments against the current use of criteria fit well and his 357

E.g. J. Becker, Jesus von Nazaret, 337–387 (“Jesu autoritative Verkündigung des Willens Gottes und die Tora”). 358 Hengel, “Das Ende aller Politik” (1981); idem, “Die Stadt auf dem Berge” (1982); idem, “Die Bergpredigt im Widerstreit” (1983) versus Schrage, “Das Ende aller Politik?” (1982), and Käsemann, “Bergpredigt – eine Privatsache?” (2005). 359 Lohfink, Wie hat Jesus Gemeinde gewollt? (1982); idem, Jesus von Nazareth (2011). 360 Derrett, Ascetic Discourse (1989); idem, Sermon (1994). 361 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, London: SCM 21995; eadem, Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet, New York: Continuum 1994; eadem, Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation, New York: Continuum 1997/2000. 362 Halvor Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke’s Gospel, Philadelphia: Fortress 1988. 363 Malina, New Testament World (1981); Malina/Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (1992); and Neyrey, Honor and Shame (1998). 364 Keith, Jesus’ Literacy (2011), 68.

222

§ 2 The Historical Quest

‘Jesus memory approach’ is valuable. However, one should not see orality and criteria as competing principles. This would be a metabasis eis allo genos. The question about criteria as ‘methods’ must be raised, as also the question: What impact has the understanding and use of criteria as compared to other approaches?

2.8 Theory of History and the Research of the SM (Authenticity III) The SM – together with the parables – is mostly rescued from the fire of criticism.365 ʻFirst Questʼ, ʻNew Questʼ, and ʻThird Questʼ all aspired to conduct their research on a solid historic-scientific foundation.366 The effort in all three ‘Quests’ was to answer the question: What facts can the sources, with respect to Jesus research, deliver? The three ‘Quests’ aimed to sort out the undisputable facts about the historical Jesus. Because of the largely positive results, they have only been seen within the framework of consideration of the sources, and rarely within the framework of the theory of history (‘Geschichtstheorie’). The task here – based on the consideration of the sources (‘Quellenkunde’) and on the theory of history (‘Geschichtstheorie’) – is to analyse: – the criteria of authenticity used in the investigations of the SM – the use of criteria of authenticity in a broader framework. 2.8.1 The Criteria of Authenticity in Jesus- (and SM-)Research Criteria can be vital for a historian in order to avoid subjectivity. Everyone should if possible check their results. The criteria were first formulated 100 years ago, in the period of an ‘absolute source-theory’.367 The criteria in Jesus-research had long roots, and their cradle was the debates about ‘the 365 It is often overlooked that about 30% of the SM consists of parabolic/metaphorical sayings. According to Bultmann most of the SM consists of what he called ʻwisdomsayings’, and in addition some ʻprophetic-apocalyptic sayings’, ʻchurch-instructions’ and a few ʻI-sayings’. 366 For a different approach: Theißen/Merz, Der historische Jesus (1996), operating with five periods in Jesus-research; Theißen/Winter, Kriterienfrage (1997), 1ff. 367 My (and many Scandinavians’) perception of historiography was formed by Ottar Dahl, who provided an extremely important contribution to historical methodology, first in Om årsaksproblemer i historisk forskning, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 1957, and later in his ‘Basic features of historical methodology’ (Grunntrekk i historieforskningens metodelære, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 1967 and Problemer i historiens teori, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 1986), cf. Hans P. Clausen, Hva er historie?, København: Berlingske Forlag 1963, and Pertti Haapala/Marja Jalava/Simon Larson (eds.), Making Nordic Historiography: Connections, Tensions and Methodology, 1850–1970, New York/Oxford: Berghan 2017.

2.8 Theory of History and the Research of the SM (Authenticity III)

223

liberal Jesus’ around 1900.368 In New Testament scholarship specialised methods were developed in the same period, and after 1920 the contact between ‘exegesis’ and general historical science was remarkably weak. Specialised methods and some ‘criteria’ should guarantee objective historical results, but led to an isolation of New Testament scholarship. After 1945 reflections on objectivity became more important for historians, and the renewed interest for criteria after 1945 can be seen as the response to the historiographical question about objectivity.369 However, many innovative efforts were made in historiography in the UK and the US and in Scandinavia after 1950.370 These contributions were hardly recognised or used in New Testament scholarship.371 Instead of linking to this discussion on historiography, exegetes concentrated on a specialised methodology, and produced books on New Testament methods, which for a historian appear rather strange. Seen from the perspective of historians, the exegetical debate about criteria for authenticity lacks also contact with general historiography. From the very beginning it has mostly been a debate about individual criteria,372 and the diversity in scholarship between ‘New Quest’ scholars within and outside the Bultmann-school (e.g. J. Jeremias’ own list of criteria) provoked a vivid debate around 1970.373 368 Jülicher, Neue Linien in der Kritik der evangelischen Überlieferung (1906). Heinrich Weinel,
Ist das “liberale” Jesusbild widerlegt?, Tübingen: Mohr 1910; Wilhelm Heitmüller, “Jesus Christus”, RGG1 3 (1912), 343–410. 369 Käsemann, “Hinweise auf neuere neutestamentliche Forschung” (1949/50, 1951/52). 370 In addition to the books of Hayden White and Jörn Rüsen mentioned above (p. 181, n. 206), e.g. Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, New York: Fordham University Press 1946; Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, Boston: Beacon Press 1957; Hayden White, “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory”, History and Theory 23 (1984), 1–33; Christopher Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, New York: Cambridge University Press 1984; Martha Howell/Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods, Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2001. 371 A major purpose of my book Theologie und Methode (1980/1992), was to describe Bultmann’s methodology, by using terms from historiography. Applied to Jesus-research, Baasland, “Fourth Quest?” (2011). Theißen/Winter took up this challenge in Kriterienfrage (1997) = Quest for the Plausible Jesus (2002). 372 N.A. Dahl, “Der historische Jesus als geschichtswissenschaftliches und theologisches Problem”, KD 1 (1955), 104–132; Theißen/Winter, Kriterienfrage (1997) = Quest for the Plausible Jesus (2002), cf. Gerd Theißen, “Historical Scepticism and the Criteria of Jesus Research”, SJT 49 (1996), 147–176. 373 E.g. D.G.A. Calvert, “An Examination of the Criteria for Distinguishing the Authentic Words of Jesus”, NTS 18 (1971), 209–219; Neil J. McEleney, “Authenticating Criteria and Mark 7:1–23”, CBQ 34 (1972), 431–460; Morna Hooker, “On Using the Wrong Tool”, Theology (London) 75 (1972), 570–581 (gave a new direction); René Latourelle, “Critères d’authenticité historique des évangiles”, Greg. 55 (1974), 609–638.

224

§ 2 The Historical Quest

A new development took place after the Jesus-Seminar and the ʻThird Questʼ. The need for criteria was vital in the Jesus-Seminar, and the critics of the Jesus-Seminar had to establish alternatives. It was particularly the latter group, e.g. G. Theißen, C.A. Evans, S.E. Porter, T. Holmén, that provided thorough treatments of the issue.374 This has changed the climate in the 1990s compared to the debate after 1970 or in the beginning of the 1950s. Criteria or methods? What is a criterion? Criteria are not identical with methods, and methods rather provide material for the evaluation of authenticity. First of all, one has to define the very term ‘criterion’. To simply list the criteria makes little sense. Lists are often misleading, because the criteria are differently applied and understood. The relation between methods and criteria must be clarified, and the criteria must be seen within the framework of methodological debates outside the exegesis as well. Are there in fact two lists: one with criteria of authenticity, one with criteria of inauthenticity? Scholars cannot agree on one list of criteria, which essentially defines the problem. The most common lists have the following criteria: multiple attestation, multiple forms, Aramaic features, dissimilarity, double dissimilarity, coherence, cross-section, longitudinal pattern, etc. The arguments against authenticity are based on scepticism against the framing, communal issues, and when a later historical development is reflected. We see a division in scholarship between those who see the criteria as tools in the sense of ‘methods’ and those who see the criteria as tools in the sense of clear questions or topics, premises for a conclusion. Historical, authentic, genuine, are nearly identical terms. Frederick C. Grant therefore distinguished in the stories between two kinds of authenticity: historical authenticity and a veracious representation of the Great Event. In the sayings, he denied the distinction authentic – not authentic. He operated with a scale ranging from: undoubtedly authentic – like them, conformed to them in style and character – extensions of Jesus utterances – Words of the

Fritzleo Lentzen-Deis, “Kriterien für die historische Beurteilung der Jesusüberlieferung in den Evangelien”, in Karl Kertelge (ed.), Rückfrage nach Jesus: Zur Methodik und Bedeutung der Frage nach dem historischen Jesus, Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 1974, 78–117. 374 C.A. Evans, in Chilton/Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Words of Jesus (1999), 3– 14; S.E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research (2000); Tom Holmén, in Craig A. Evans (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Historical Jesus, New York: Routledge 2008, 43–54; John P. Meier, “Basic Methodology in the Quest for the Historical Jesus”, in Holmén/Porter (eds.), Handbook I (2011), 291–331. The contributions in Keith/ Le Donne (eds.), Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (2012), particularly of Jens Schröter and Chris Keith, show a growing awareness of the methodological problems.

2.8 Theory of History and the Research of the SM (Authenticity III)

225

Lord spoken by Christian prophets – dramatizations in liturgy and homily.375 The two last definitions can hardly be labelled as ‘authentic’. Criteria can on the one hand be understood as scientific tools for distinguishing/giving reason for judgments (Greek: κρίνειν/κρίτηριον) between historical and unhistorical, and on the other hand as just an ‘Index’.376 We have seen that authenticity is not merely events, facts. Authenticity has to do with the probable stream of events, typical occurrences, characteristic phenomena, and genuine expression of one’s identity. I have therefore argued that criteria are in the first place:377 – ways of questioning – premises for explanations – not isolable from source-critical evaluation – not a method or a kind of substitute method. Reflection on criteria leads inevitably into historiography. Questions, explanation, the role of sources are vital parts of historiographical considerations. We see this already when we ask: Which criteria come first, and which ones should be given most weight? The procedure and the strategy are more significant than the individual criterion. A criterion can be undisputed as such, until it plays a disproportionate role. Since the 1950s two different strategies were established: (a) The renewed debate about criteria was launched by Käsemann around 1950. He proposed to start with the criterion of (double) dissimilarity. He made it the first and main criterion. From this criterion he could include other criteria. (b) N.A. Dahl was early opposed to this approach. He argued that the criterion of consequence/longitudinal lines must come first before others can be added. E. Baasland,378 G. Theißen379 and, from a different premise, D.C. Allison, extended the pattern Dahl developed. In spite of my position, but with regard to the history of research, I will begin with the criterion of dissimilarity.

375 Frederick C. Grant, “The Authenticity of Jesus’ Sayings”, in Walther Eltester (ed.), Neutestamentliche Studien. FS R. Bultmann, Berlin: De Gruyter 1954, 137–143, here 142. 376 Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus, London: SCM 1979, 86–92; idem, “Objectivity and Subjectivity in Historical Criticism of the Gospels”, in David L. Dungan (ed.), The Interrelations of the Gospels, Leuven: Leuven University Press 1990, 546–565. 377 Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 257–261 (= 1980, 647–654). 378 Ibid., 230–261, based on the assumption that the criteria are more premises and elements in the total view and not strict methods. 379 Theißen/Winter, Kriterienfrage (1997), 175–216.

226

§ 2 The Historical Quest

2.8.2 The Individual Criteria Applied to the SM A number of criteria can be used in the evaluation of the SM. We distinguish between five types: Criterion

Authenticity

Source-related Form-related Language-related Context-related Historiographic

Multiple attestation (not developed tradition) Form – Multiple form (not later forms) Aramaic Fits into the historical setting/environment Total explanation (more than uniqueness)

Against this background it is better to distinguish in the following section between eight types of criteria. The first four/six are based on observations in the Gospel texts, the last two add historiographical reflections. 1) Source-related criteria. The consideration of sources has to come first, and here New Testament scholarship overlaps partly with normal historical methodology, at least as the first one is widely used. (a) Multiple attestation as a criterion. The ʻcriterion of multiple attestation’ is widely used and must also be applied in SM-research. If the same information about Jesus occurs both in Mark, Q and MattS, it is most likely authentic. The SM is one, and originally the main, foundational pillar for the twodocument-hypothesis, which means that no literary dependency existed between Q and Mark, the two oldest sources. It is a sign of authenticity if the Q- and Mark-texts in the SM correspond, which we have seen that they do. We have argued that Matthew uses Mark-sayings in the SM, but we still see independent sources conflated into the SM. Many scholars, such as T.W. Manson, see MattS as a third independent source. He is well aware of “the editorial methods of Matthew and Luke”, but MattS in the SM still delivers “genuine records about Jesus”.380 For many scholars the Gospel of Thomas is another independent source. One can argue that the authenticity of more than about 70% of the SM is based on more than one source. The presupposition of independence is fragile. It collapses as soon as Q/2DH is criticised or rejected, or the status of the Gospel of Thomas is problematised, or MattS is seen as a redactional product or a product from a much later Matthean community. Is John one of the multiple sources? Or is Schweitzer’s second ‘entweder – oder’381 still valid? Paul N. Anderson382 and scholars involved in his projects 380

T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (21935), 14f. Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (21913/1951), 232 (= 1966, 254). 382 Paul N. Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered, London: T&T Clark 2006. Anderson’s attempt should not be called a ‘Fourth Quest’. 381

2.8 Theory of History and the Research of the SM (Authenticity III)

227

have recently challenged this thesis. However, John has no Inaugural Speech and standing alone it could rather indicate inauthenticity. (b) Tradition–redaction as criterion? Source-theories and not least formhistory383 often lead to a sharp distinction between tradition and redaction. The ‘tradition’ is perceived as more reliable than the ‘redaction’. The paradigm of tradition versus redaction presupposes that we can exactly reconstruct the source (pre-text, ‘Vorlage’) and that the interests of the redactor can be described very accurately. The pre-text for the literary critics was written sources (according to the actual reconstruction), whereas 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. However, 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. The distinction ‘tradition versus redaction’ presupposes the ‘absolute source-theory’ and the scissors-paste procedure. A better paradigm is the ‘functional source-theory’ and what we call ‘open theory about sources and study of the rhetorical effort’. We can clearly identify the rhetorical effort, not the pre-text. Bultmann’s approach of revealing the oldest form of the smallest unit and reconstructing the development from the oldest to the youngest form, is unrealistic and not fruitful. (c) Influenced by later sources? Other arguments are often applied to the SM. A saying is inauthentic if: – there is accordance with the interests of the evangelists,384 – the sayings give answers to community situations of a later time,385 – the sayings presuppose a pagan audience,386 – there is incoherence in the SM,387 – the language is influenced by the Epistles and other early Christian texts.388 383 Already Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1900 and 1905), who argued that the SM consists of small units, but Bultmann, GST, and form-history in general, made it to an overall perspective. 384 Weinel, Bergpredigt (1920), 40. Matt 5,7.17.20.48; 6,33; 7,21.24.26 may serve as examples. 385 Lüdemann, Jesus after Two Thousand Years (2000), 4. The few candidates are: Matt 5,10–12.19(?); 6,1–18; 7,6(?).22f(?). 386 Ibid. Matt 5,46f; 6,7f.30 contradict this. 387 The tension between Matt 5,16 and 6,1–18 must be explained (cf. § 7.4.2. and 7.8.2). 388 Matt 5,11f may serve as an example, but we have rather too many texts that are problematic for the Early Church.

228

§ 2 The Historical Quest

The tendencies of the tradition can be raised as a criterion, but the construction of the tendencies is difficult and can also strengthen the assumption of authenticity.389 2) Criterion of form. The style, language, performance and rhetoric have – since Antiquity – indicated authenticity of texts. Copies, imitations, etc. could be made. Style/form together with the content, style, language, rhetoric, etc. disclose authenticity. The leading exegete around 1900, Adolf Jülicher, underlined the positive side of the criterion: The original teaching has a peculiar freshness, is pithy, personal, etc.390 It is almost the criterion of dissimilarity applied to a form. The best authors and speakers can certainly be recognised through minor characteristics in their style. Charles F. Burney and Thomas W. Manson elaborated this in detail,391 and from Thaddäus Soiron and Hermann Johannes Cladder392 to Rudolf Schnackenburg many Catholic scholars have argued along these lines. Schnackenburg emphasised “Form, Klangfarbe, Bildhaftigkeit, Frische eines originalen Lehrers”.393 Joachim Jeremias listed similarly, more recently, a number of formal characteristics of the teaching of Jesus:394 the use of ‘divine passive’, antithetic parallelism (synthetic parallelism), the particular rhythm (Jeremias referred to Burney), alliteration, assonance and paronomasia. Many of the characteristics of ‘ipsissima verba Jesu’ according to Jeremias occur in the SM: some formal features (‘divine passive’, antithetic parallelism, rhythm, use of hyperbolic sayings, alliteration, paronomasia), conscious use of parables (5,23f.25f; 7,9–11.22f.24–27, and about 30 metaphorical sayings), and use of riddles (5,13b; 6,22f; 7,6). Jeremias argued seemingly on the basis of the ‘criterion of dissimilarity’ as a formal criterion, presupposing that it was both original and that Jesus’ teaching was never repeated. However, he argued more from quantity: these features and this content is heavily used by Jesus and very rarely elsewhere in Judaism or in the Early Church.

389

Cf. Ed P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 9), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1969. 390 Jülicher, Neue Linien in der Kritik der evangelischen Überlieferung (1906), 74: “Das eigenartig Frische, das Pointierte, Individuelle hat … das Präjudiz der Echtheit für sich”. 391 Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord (1925); T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (1931, 2 1935), 45–79. 392 Hermann Johannes Cladder, Unsere Evangelien: Zur Literaturgeschichte der Evangelien, Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 1919. 393 Schnackenburg, “Bergpredigt”, LTK2 2 (1958), 223f, mentioned also “Geist u. Glut einer einmaligen rel. Persönlichkeit …” 394 Jeremias, Neutestamentliche Theologie (1971), 8–37. Jeremias used ‘form-criticism’ reluctantly and instead developed a more advanced literary criticism, which enabled him to differentiate between the language of the evangelists and the voice of Jesus.

2.8 Theory of History and the Research of the SM (Authenticity III)

229

G. Vermes thought that many of the brief, vital and terse statements in the SM have parallels in sapiential literature, but they are rephrased by Jesus (Matt 5,13; 7,1f) or in Q (5,25f.38–41; 6,19–21.22f.25–34; 7,3–5.6.15). In fact, most sayings in the SM are good candidates for what Vermes calls ‘authentic’.395 3) Language (Aramaic) as a criterion. We have a number of Aramaic phrases in the Gospels, and Aramaic language is often used as a criterion of authenticity.396 J. Jeremias mentioned three examples:397 the use of amen (ἀµήν, 5,18.26; 6,2.5.16), the use of αββα/ὁ πατήρ (Matt 6,9/Luke 11,2, cf. Mark 14,36), the term Kingdom/reign of heaven (ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, 5,3.10.19.20; 6,10.33; 7,21), the terms γέεννα and ῥακά in 5,22.398 The thesis that Aramaic sayings in the Greek Gospels divulge genuine sayings, is highly disputed. Wellhausen argued that Aramaic features can in certain cases illuminate the source-discussion.399 If the Greek text makes sense, there are few reasons for going behind it to an Aramaic pre-text. If the text is enigmatic and if unique words or words with strange meaning occur, one can consider an Aramaic pre-text.400 Matt 5,13.14f.22.23f.29f.34–37; 6,1f.19f.22f.27; 7,1f.6.13f.16f.24f are candidates in the SM. Compared with Luke, Matthew seems to be closer to the original Aramaic sayings, but rhetorical interest caused the most important changes. 4) Criterion of content. Liberal Theology and Rudolf Bultmann were convinced that their image of Jesus was correct and could be used as a criterion.401 Bultmann’s premise was that Jesus was a wisdom-teacher from Galilee with apocalyptic ideas – not a rhetor, philosopher, and definitely not an eschatological prophet, revolutionary zealot, or Messiah. Bultmann is far from being alone with this type of argument, and in a critical review A.S. Dunstone listed 15 negative premises he found in Jesusliterature: Jesus made no prophecies about the future, did not rise from the dead, did not claim to be divine, did not plan to found a church, etc.402 395

Vermes, The Authentic Gospel of Jesus (2003), 75–113. For a fuller treatment, Loren Stuckenbruck, “Semitic influence in Greek: An authenticating criterion in Jesus Research?”, in Keith/Le Donne (eds.), Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (2012), 73–94. 397 Jeremias, Neutestamentliche Theologie I (1971), 3–29. 398 Hans-Peter Rüger, “Aramäisch”, TRE 3 (1978), 605–608. 399 Wellhausen used this as a criterion in the first edition of his Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (1905). He was later more hesitant. It is sometimes a matter of preferences (petitio principii) whether one should reconstruct an Aramaic text behind the Greek wording. 400 T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (21935), 45–50. 401 E.g. Bultmann, GST, 263: “es ist ja auch gar nicht von Jesu eigentlichem Beruf die Rede, der Buß- und Heilspredigt”, more in Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 235–237. 402 Alan S. Dunstone, “Ipsissima Verba Christi”, Studia Evangelica 2 [TU 87] (1964), 57–64. Words and actions that do not fit in with the picture of a perfect and loving man are 396

230

§ 2 The Historical Quest

The use of the criterion of content is extremely risky; once again what should be proved is presupposed. 5) Historical setting/environmental criteria. Plausibility and realism indicate authenticity. The settings in the images can easily be located to Galilee (the city on the mountain, 5,14, the lilies and birds on the Galilean hillside, 6,25–32, the landscape behind Matt 7,24–27, etc.). It might give an authentic flavour when the Temple is located far away (Matt 5,23f) and the synagogues are close by (6,1–18). These features definitely do not disprove authenticity. However, plausibility cannot be more than plausibility and not a criterion for authenticity as such. 6) The reverse environmental criterion: criterion of dissimilarity. This criterion of ‘dissimilarity’ or even ‘double dissimilarity’ has had an immense impact in Jesus-research. It was conceived a long time ago, but became popular in the liberal exegesis of the SM.403 However, Bultmann used it in his ‘form-history’ – especially in the analysis of the parables.404 E.g. Emanuel Hirsch used it broadly in his anti-Jewish interpretation of Jesus.405 Ernst Käsemann slightly rephrased the criterion in his response to the ‘No Quest’ in Bultmann’s Theology of the New Testament.406 The formulation of ‘double dissimilarity’ was accepted by Norman Perrin in 1976, and influenced a great number of scholars both in Europe and the US.407 The Beatitudes, Matt 5,13–16 and 5,20, the Antitheses, Matt 6,1–18 are proved to be authentic because of their dissimilarity to Jewish concepts. Matt 6,19–7,12 (and 7,13–27) represent, with some exceptions (7,6; 7,21–23, cf. 5,17–19) this new development. The influence from later Christian theology can perhaps be found e.g. in Matt 5,11f; 5,17–19; 7,21–27. authentic. The prayers (John 17, etc.) not heard by anyone, the use of paradoxes, etc. are used as examples of inauthentic sayings. 403 Paul W. Schmiedel, “Gospels”, in Thomas Kelly Cheyne/J. Sutherland Black (eds.), Encyclopedia Biblica 2 (1901), 1761–1898; Weinel, Ist das “liberale” Jesusbild widerlegt? (above, n. 368). 404 Bultmann, GST, 222, 220. 405 Martin Lehmann, Synoptische Quellenanalyse und die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus (BZNW 38), Berlin: De Gruyter 1970, 159f, on Emanuel Hirsch, Frühgeschichte des Evangeliums, Tübingen: Mohr 1941. Lehmann referred to the style (scanty, succinct style, genuineness, repugnant images, “formaler, knapper Stil, Originalität, anstößige Bilder”), to Jesus’ excellency compared to Jews (“Gegensatz zum Judentum; ragt über jede Religiosität hinaus”) and incongruence compared to the later Christian community (who were not able to grasp, “hat es nicht zu erfassen vermocht”). 406 Käsemann, “Hinweise auf neuere neutestamentliche Forschung” (1949/50, 1951/52), is the background for his statement in 1954 in the lecture “Das Problem des historischen Jesus”, in idem, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I (1964), 187–214, here 205. 407 The criticism of Morna Hooker (“Christology and Methodology”, NTS 17 [1970/71], 480–487; eadem, “On Using the Wrong Tool”, Theology (London) 75 [1972], 570–581) was ignored.

2.8 Theory of History and the Research of the SM (Authenticity III)

231

This criterion – as Käsemann formed it – is indeed problematic. Some call it disparagingly the criterion of rarity,408 or criterion of embarrassment,409 as in fact it alienates Jesus from Judaism and presuppose that the first Christians misunderstood him,410 making him a stranger in his own environment. Historiographical criticism is harsh: It presupposes what should be proved; that Jesus distanced himself from Judaism and that Early Christianity misinterpreted Jesus and developed his teaching in entirely new ways. However, the SM was not much repeated in the Early Church, and that the SM is a Jewish text is rather a sign of its authenticity. At this point, the ‘Third Quest’ yielded new insights: not dissimilarity to the Jewish context, but rather the emphasis on Jesus the Jew. The comparison with Jewish texts/themes/ theology and ethics is the basis for exegesis of the SM.411 Even this misleading and extreme criterion yields very positive results when we apply it to the SM. The sayings are ‘Jewish’, but are still ‘original’, particularly in a Jewish context. The SM has many parallels both in Jewish and Hellenistic literature, but still the SM represents something new and previously unheard. The second part – the assumption of dissimilarity with the Early Church ‒ still lingers in scholarship, insisting that the Early Church misinterpreted their teacher. * The two latter criteria are genuinely parts of historiographical considerations. Authenticity has primarily to do with the stream of events, typical occurrences, characteristic phenomena, and therefore the criterion of dissimilarity is fundamentally false. In this case it takes Jesus’ sayings out of the stream of history. The latter two criteria must be emphasised. To understand the SM historically is to see the sayings coherently and as sayings with certain effects or certain motivations. *

408

Cf. Lüdemann, Jesus after Two Thousand Years (2000), 5. J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew I, 166–177, as the first of five criteria. 410 Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 231 (on the criterion of dissimilarity or distinctiveness), and particularly Theißen/Winter, Kriterienfrage (1997), 28ff and esp. 107ff (on Bultmann), 117 (on the New Quest). 411 Some theological schools (liberals, etc.), and some Jewish interpreters (G. Friedlander, et al.) underlined the dissimilarity to the Jewish context, to the Mishnah, to Jewish theology, Jewish cults and judicial systems, and to the Pharisees. 409

232

§ 2 The Historical Quest

7) Coherence – but how? Motive. The criterion of coherence is nearly undisputed in historical science.412 It is equally indispensable in Jesus-research,413 but can be applied differently. (a) It can follow up the criterion of dissimilarity and thus highlight the particular and original sayings and practices of Jesus. As long as the criterion of dissimilarity is disputed, this line of argumentation is not recommended. (b) A better way is to see coherence as a criterion of certain facts, based on lists of evidences. Such lists are often made in Anglo-American scholarship, e.g by J.M. Robinson,414 and in the ‘Third Quest’ by E.P. Sanders,415 J.H. Charlesworth,416 C.A. Evans,417 C.S. Keener, et al.418 (c) E.g. N.A. Dahl operated with coherence as a cross-section argument, proposed in the best way. If a saying, doctrine or argument occurs in different types of sayings, in different genres, in different sources, it is probably authentic.419 Dahl was influenced by Julius Schniewind, assuming that nearly all sayings presuppose a Messianic self-understanding.420 In the SM the Beatitudes, the wisdom-sayings, the parables, etc. all express the same self-understanding of Jesus, and the same philosophy of life. We can operate with the term ipsissima structura: the sayings have the same theological structure.

412

Anthony Le Donne, “The Criterion of Coherence: Its Development, Inevitability, and Historiographical Limitations”, in Keith/Le Donne (eds.), Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (2012), 95–114. 413 Cf. David J. Neville, Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism, Macon: Mercer University Press 1994, 192–201 (204–222), referring to Tuckett’s analysis. 414 James M. Robinson, Kerygma und historischer Jesus, Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag 21967, 139, listed parables, the Antitheses in the SM, the Basileia-sayings, and outside the SM the sayings about John the Baptist, etc. 415 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (1985), 11f, listed eight “almost indisputable facts”. 416 Charlesworth has a similar approach, and offers a more extensive list, in Holmén/ Porter (eds.), Handbook I (2011), 91–128 (114–123), cf. his “Introduction”, in Charlesworth/Rhea/Pokorný, Jesus Research (2013), 1–15. 417 Craig A. Evans, in Chilton/Evans, Authenticating the Words of Jesus (1999), 3–14. 418 Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2009, 214–224. 419 William O. Walker, “The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Discussion of Methodology”, AThR 51 (1969), 38–56, here 41f, also referred to Charles Harold Dodd, “The quest of the historical Jesus: A discussion of methodology”, in Craig A. Evans (ed.), This historical Jesus: Critical concepts in religious studies, vol. I, London/New York: Routledge 2004, 400–417. J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew I, 176. 420 Julius Schniewind, “Zur Synoptiker-Exegese”, TRu 2 (1930), 129–189, here 187; idem, “Antwort an Rudolf Bultmann: Thesen zum Problem der Entmythologisierung”, Kerygma und Mythos 1 (1948), 98f, and his treatment of the sayings of Jesus in Mark (e.g. Mark 8,29) and Matt 5–7.

2.8 Theory of History and the Research of the SM (Authenticity III)

233

8) The criterion of longitudinal lines (cause). Finally, N.A. Dahl emphasised the criterion of consequence, the criterion of longitudinal lines,421 or explanation why the rejection and execution of Jesus took place. In history there is nothing like ‘necessity’: that a saying, an ideology, an action will necessarily have this or that effect. Every event entails multiple factors which can lead in different directions. There is, however, sometimes a high probability that sayings, ideologies, actions will have certain consequences. Jesus’ Beatitudes, the salt and light sayings, his attitude to the Law, the Antitheses, etc. surprised and provoked, and under certain circumstances could lead to rejection and crucifixion. Nearly every saying in the SM has this potential and thus could be authentic. 2.8.3 The Criteria in a Broader Historiographical Perspective In historiography – in the framework of theory of history – we must finally see the criteria as explanations (cause/reasons), due to the self-understanding of the acting person (plans, motifs) or due to their function or effect. 1) The question of intention, causes/reason and effect/function. At the very beginning of historical Jesus-research (1778), Reimarus raised the right/ crucial question: What did Jesus really want? What was Jesus’ intention?422 In the science of history, one distinguishes between three types of explanations: (a) cause-explanations (covenant laws), (b) motive-explanations, and (c) functional explanations. Robin G. Collingwood’s famous distinction between ‘actions’ (intention, inside) and ‘events’ (terms of bodies, outside), mentions two of them.423 Since Karl Marx the latter explanation has dominated and in ‘Marxism’ the first type also became crucial.424 One should apply all three explanations in Jesus research. Ben F. Meyer has importantly asked the first question,425 whereas e.g. Anthony E. Harvey 421 N.A. Dahl, The Crucified Messiah (1974), 68–71, originally published in 1955 (Rett lære og kjetterske meninger, Oslo: Land og kirke), and in English first in Carl E. Braaten/ Roy A. Harrisville (eds.), Kerygma and History: A Symposium on the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, New York: Abingdon 1962, 138–171. 422 Reimarus, Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger (1778 = “On the Intentions of Jesus and His Disciples”), denied every supernatural origin of Christianity and saw Jesus as a reformer of Jewish concepts. A. Schweitzer overstated his importance, largely due to Reimarus’ anticipation of an eschatological interpretation of Jesus’ teaching. 423 Robin G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, London: Oxford University Press 31970, a distinction supported by Rudolf Bultmann (Geschichte und Eschatologie, Tübingen: Mohr 1958, 155ff). 424 Cf. G.A. Cohen, “Functional Explanation, Consequence Explanation, and Marxism”, Inquiry 25 (1982), 27–56. 425 Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus, London: SCM 1979.

234

§ 2 The Historical Quest

examined political and religious constraints in history, asking for the intentions of both Jesus and his adversaries.426 G. Theißen made the first attempt to incorporate such explanations. In The First Followers of Jesus he traced three possibilities: isolation, protest and adaptation.427 The teaching in the SM is so surprising/provocative that it functions in a disintegrating way: Jesus does not fit into any contemporary movements, systems or institutions. The criterion of dissimilarity picks up this aspect but deals primarily with another cause-explanation: that of motive. The criterion of content and consistence does the same. The advantage of the criterion of consequence is its answer to the questions of causes/reasons for events. The cause, motive and functional explanations are basic in historical research, and it should be the same in Jesus-research.428 The major questions such as why did Jesus die and why did ‘Christianity’ emerge after the death of Jesus, are of the same kind as the question, why did the ‘Iron Curtain’ fall? Few will give mono-causal explanations to this latter question, rather investigate multiple causes (social resentment, economic disaster, poverty, lack of freedom), motives (interests of politicians on both sides of the Iron Curtain), functions (economic cooperation, open markets, the peace-movement, etc.).

2) Criteria and the critical-epistemological approach. The hypotheticdeductive method (HDM) has been developed in science, and its usage in historiography is more problematic, and in Germany has been highly disputed in recent historiography.429 Karl Popper modified the theory and emphasised hypotheses, which are proved through evidences, sources and general arguments.430 This method, often without debate, is used in exegesis, because it is part of an ‘absolute source-theory’. The effort of reconstructing a ‘critical minimum’ must be seen in light of the hypothetic-deductive method. The combination of this method and the accentuation of the criterion of dissimilarity has a devastating effect. It is mostly followed by a second step: after reconstructing the authentic sayings, the ‘critical minimum’.431

426 Anthony E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History (Bampton Lectures), London: Duckworth 1982. 427 Theißen, Soziologie der Jesusbewegung (1977), 32–46. 428 Baasland, “Fourth Quest?” (2011). 429 The sharp distinction between ‘natural science’ and ‘Geisteswissenschaft’ has here been a sine qua non premise in historiography and theology. The Baden philosophy, Dilthey and ‘Lebensphilosophie’, Heidegger-Bultmann and existentialism made the discussion of HDM in historical research irrelevant for a long time. 430 Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford: Clarendon 1972, 35f. 431 Cf. Bultmanns’s teacher, Wilhelm Heitmüller, in Jesus, Tübingen: Mohr 1913, 361: “Das dürfen wir ausdehnen auf alles, was mit solchem Material in organischer Verbindung

2.8 Theory of History and the Research of the SM (Authenticity III)

235

This is the premise for the question: Should historicity and authenticity be proved, or should one rather prove inauthenticity? For the absolute source-theory the main issue is the division between authentic and inauthentic arguments for proving authenticity. Falsification comes first and requirements for falsification are less strict.

An alternative to this critical-epistomological approach is a methodological strategy, which orientates against totality. This puts the three types of explanation in the forefront and gives the first place to the criteria of consequence and coherence. 3) A further perspective: the broader methodological framework. Reconstruction and presentation are two sides of the same coin. Reconstruction will always colour the historian’s presentation of history. Hayden White argues that it is unavoidable for historians to escape the influence of the various literary styles (tragedy, satire and comedy) in their presentation of history. This can be seen in the presentation of the historical Jesus, and we can ‒ with wide brush ‒ paint this scheme: Plot

Explanation

Emphasis in the Gospels

Implication in Jesus-research

Tragedy Satire Comedy Romance

mechanistic contextual organic idiographic

Mark Q – ‘the historical Jesus’ Matthew, Luke & John Gospel of Mary, etc.

radical (Reimarus, etc.) liberal conservative anarchist

This perspective is important in the evaluation of the narratives and particularly when it comes to the passion narratives. Other aspects are more decisive in the evaluation of the sayings. The interpretation of the SM provides some arguments for the best way of presenting the whole story; it is not entirely by chance that not only films, but most books on Jesus have the SM as their starting-point. 4) Different criteria applied for ‘authentic’ and ‘essential’? In historiography the hermeneutical dialogue between sources and historians tends to dominate – often excessively. A historian must reflect his/her own position; the source has certain ideas, emotions, biases, perspectives, purposes, or is a part of certain power-structures, etc., but what about the historian? The naïve claim to objectivity is impossible, and criticism from neo-marxism, feminism, post-colonialism, etc. should not open the wide gate for the perspectivism in post-modern thinking. The criteria in Jesus-reseach are sorted out and used by historians/ exegetes, who must give account of their own presuppositions, particularly when it comes to the big question in the research of the SM: Is the SM the essence of Jesus’ teaching?

steht.” More recently, Norman Perrin, The New Testament: An Introduction, New York: Jovanovich 1974, 43, had the same viewpoint.

236

§ 2 The Historical Quest

Scholars such as Heinrich Weinel were on one point more advanced 100 years ago than the more recent debate. He differentiated clearly between criteria for essence and criteria for authenticity.432 In the debate about criteria, it is still important to make this differentiation.433 We do not use exactly the same methods/tools when we are searching for the fundamental beliefs, the essential in Jesus’ teaching. In the search for the ‘essentials’ we can indeed ask: what is new, the ‘original’, unique, particular? The place for the criterion of dissimilarity is here. In addition, we should ask: – what is predominant, in the key-sentences, – what makes sense, gives the reasons in the sayings, – what is expressed in the particular message with a particular form? The SM is not isolated, and we should use the criteria of consistency and longitude to see the effect and consequences of the SM. The search for ‘essentials’ is the most difficult in historiography. Monocausal explanations should not be given. 5) Summary. The theme in this paragraph has been source-analysis, the role of orality and of historical explanations, language, rhetorical argumentation and criteria in Jesus-research. All these issues have been seen within the framework of historiography. If we discuss these questions within the framework of the outdated approach which L. von Ranke launched nearly two hundred years ago, the exegesis will fall short. To see them within the framework of the historiographical development since the 1920s will be an advantage. The source-debates come out differently and Jesus-research with its use of historical criteria emerges in a new light. The analysis of the SM cannot completely illuminate the historiographical issues. These issues do, however, shed new light on many problems in SM-research in particular and Jesus-research in general.

432 Weinel, Ist das “liberale” Jesusbild widerlegt? (above, n. 368), 37f: “Das Wesentliche bestimmt sich aber nach einer ganz anderen Methode als das Echte. Aus dem Echten, das auf die oben genannte Weise festgestellt ist, muß das Wesentliche noch erst ausgeschieden werden, und zwar nach dem Grundsatz: das Wesentliche ist das Originale.” 433 Werner Georg Kümmel was an exception here. He raised the question in Jesu Antwort an Johannes den Täufer: Ein Beispiel zum Methodenproblem in der Jesusforschung, Wiesbaden: Steiner 1974, 146.

Appendix to § 2.4

237

Appendix to § 2.4 1. Q-Material – in the Inaugural Speech Beatitudes Luke

Matthew

6,20–22 – 22 words Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί, ὅτι ὑµετέρα ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. µακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν,

5,3f.6 – 28 words Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύµατι, ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. µακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ὅτι αὐτοὶ χορτασθήσονται. µακάριοι οἱ πενθοῦντες, ὅτι αὐτοὶ παρακληθήσονται 5,11f – 34 words µακάριοί ἐστε ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν ὑµᾶς καὶ διώξωσιν καὶ εἴπωσιν πᾶν πονηρὸν καθ᾿ ὑµῶν [ψευδόµενοι] ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ. χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὅτι ὁ µισθὸς ὑµῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· οὕτως γὰρ ἐδίωξαν τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑµῶν.

ὅτι χορτασθήσεσθε. µακάριοι οἱ κλαίοντες νῦν, ὅτι γελάσετε. 6,23.26 – 51 words µακάριοί ἐστε ὅταν µισήσωσιν ὑµᾶς οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ ὅταν ἀφορίσωσιν ὑµᾶς καὶ ὀνειδίσωσιν καὶ ἐκβάλωσιν τὸ ὄνοµα ὑµῶν ὡς πονηρὸν ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου· χάρητε ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ καὶ σκιρτήσατε, ἰδοὺ γὰρ ὁ µισθὸς ὑµῶν πολὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ· κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίουν τοῖς προφήταις οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν.

Argumentation Luke

Matthew

6,29f.27f – 64 words Ἀλλὰ ὑµῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν· ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς µισοῦσιν ὑµᾶς, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωµένους ὑµᾶς, προσεύχεσθε περὶ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑµᾶς τὸ ἱµάτιον· τῷ τύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱµάτιον καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα µὴ κωλύσῃς. καὶ ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει µίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε µετ᾿ αὐτοῦ δύο. τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι µὴ ἀποστραφῇς.

5,44.39–42 – 57 words ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν. ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν καὶ

προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑµᾶς. ἀλλ᾿ ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην· καὶ τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ

παντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντος τὰ σὰ µὴ ἀπαίτει.

238

§ 2 The Historical Quest

The Golden Rule – the only saying which has a different context Luke

Matthew

6,31 – 11 words Καὶ καθὼς θέλετε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς ὁµοίως

7,12 – 22/14 words Πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς· οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόµος καὶ οἱ προφῆται

Luke

Matthew

6,32–35 – 69 words καὶ εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς, ποία ὑµῖν χάρις ἐστίν; καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἁµαρτωλοὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶσιν. καὶ [γὰρ] ἐὰν ἀγαθοποιῆτε τοὺς ἀγαθοποιοῦντας ὑµᾶς, ποία ὑµῖν χάρις ἐστίν; καὶ οἱ ἁµαρτωλοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν. καὶ ἐὰν δανίσητε παρ᾿ ὧν ἐλπίζετε λαβεῖν, ποία ὑµῖν χάρις [ἐστίν]; καὶ ἁµαρτωλοὶ ἁµαρτωλοῖς δανίζουσιν ἵνα ἀπολάβωσιν τὰ ἴσα. πλὴν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν καὶ ἀγαθοποιεῖτε καὶ δανίζετε µηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες· καὶ ἔσται ὁ µισθὸς ὑµῶν πολύς 6,35 – 13 words καὶ ἔσεσθε υἱοὶ ὑψίστου,

5,46f – 33 words ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς, τίνα µισθὸν ἔχετε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑµῶν µόνον, τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν;

5,45 – 9 words ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑµῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς

ὅτι αὐτὸς χρηστός ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀχαρίστους καὶ πονηρούς Luke

Matthew

6,36 – 8 words Γίνεσθε οἰκτίρµονες καθὼς [καὶ] ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν οἰκτίρµων ἐστίν.

5,45 – 12 words ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑµεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστίν.

Luke

Matthew

6,37f – 37 words Καὶ µὴ κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ µὴ κριθῆτε· καὶ µὴ καταδικάζετε, καὶ οὐ µὴ καταδικασθῆτε. ἀπολύετε, καὶ ἀπολυθήσεσθε· δίδοτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑµῖν· µέτρον καλὸν πεπιεσµένον σεσαλευµένον ὑπερεκχυννόµενον δώσουσιν εἰς τὸν κόλπον ὑµῶν· ᾧ γὰρ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε ἀντιµετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν.

7,1f – 18 words Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε· ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίµατι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε,

καὶ ἐν ᾧ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε µετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν.

Appendix to § 2.4

239

Peroratio Luke

Matthew

6,41f – 69 words Τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, τὴν δὲ δοκὸν τὴν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ ὀφθαλµῷ οὐ κατανοεῖς; πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου· ἀδελφέ, ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ σου, αὐτὸς τὴν ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ σου δοκὸν οὐ βλέπων; ὑποκριτά, ἔκβαλε πρῶτον τὴν δοκὸν ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλµοῦ σου, καὶ τότε διαβλέψεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου ἐκβαλεῖν 6,43f – 34 words

7,3–5 – 63 words Τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀφθαλµῷ δοκὸν οὐ κατανοεῖς; ἢ πῶς ἐρεῖς τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου· ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ κάρφος ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλµοῦ σου, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ δοκὸς ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ σοῦ; ὑποκριτά, ἔκβαλε πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλµοῦ σοῦ τὴν δοκόν, καὶ τότε διαβλέψεις ἐκβαλεῖν τὸ κάρφος ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλµοῦ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου 7,15–19 – 60 words ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν αὐτῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε αὐτούς. µήτι συλλέγουσιν ἀπὸ ἀκανθῶν σταφυλὰς ἢ ἀπὸ τριβόλων σῦκα; οὕτως πᾶν δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖ, τὸ δὲ σαπρὸν δένδρον καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖ. οὐ δύναται δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖν οὐδὲ δένδρον σαπρὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖν. πᾶν δένδρον µὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται. ἄρα γε ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν αὐτῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε αὐτούς

Οὐ γάρ ἐστιν δένδρον καλὸν ποιοῦν καρπὸν σαπρόν, οὐδὲ πάλιν δένδρον σαπρὸν ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλόν. ἕκαστον γὰρ δένδρον ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου καρποῦ γινώσκεται· οὐ γὰρ ἐξ ἀκανθῶν συλλέγουσιν σῦκα οὐδὲ ἐκ βάτου σταφυλὴν τρυγῶσιν

Luke

Matthew

6,46 – 11 words Τί δέ µε καλεῖτε· κύριε κύριε, καὶ οὐ ποιεῖτε ἃ λέγω;

7,21f – 25 words Οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων µοι· κύριε κύριε, εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ πατρός µου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς 7,24–27 – 97 words Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς, ὁµοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ φρονίµῳ, ὅστις ᾠκοδόµησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν· καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταµοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεµοι καὶ προσέπεσαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ οὐκ ἔπεσεν, τεθεµελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν.

6,47–49 – 85 words Πᾶς ὁ ἐρχόµενος πρός µε καὶ ἀκούων µου τῶν λόγων καὶ ποιῶν αὐτούς, ὑποδείξω ὑµῖν τίνι ἐστὶν ὅµοιος· ὅµοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδοµοῦντι οἰκίαν ὃς ἔσκαψεν καὶ ἐβάθυνεν καὶ ἔθηκεν θεµέλιον ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν· πληµµύρης δὲ γενοµένης προσέρηξεν ὁ ποταµὸς τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν σαλεῦσαι αὐτὴν διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδοµῆσθαι αὐτήν.

240

§ 2 The Historical Quest

Luke

Matthew

ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας καὶ µὴ ποιήσας

καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ µὴ ποιῶν αὐτοὺς ὁµοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ µωρῷ, ὅστις ᾠκοδόµησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄµµον· καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταµοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεµοι καὶ προσέκοψαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἔπεσεν καὶ ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς µεγάλη.

ὅµοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδοµήσαντι οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν χωρὶς θεµελίου, ᾗ προσέρηξεν ὁ ποταµός, καὶ εὐθὺς συνέπεσεν καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ ῥῆγµα τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης µέγα

2. Q-material outside the SM/SP; double tradition Matthew

Luke (outside of SP)

5,13–16 (5,13–15) – 69 words Ὑµεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας µωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται; εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ἔτι εἰ µὴ βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

14,34f – 69 words Καλὸν οὖν τὸ ἅλας ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας µωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται; οὔτε εἰς γῆν οὔτε εἰς κοπρίαν εὔθετόν ἐστιν, ἔξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό. ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω. 8,17 Οὐδεὶς δὲ λύχνον ἅψας καλύπτει αὐτὸν σκεύει ἢ ὑποκάτω κλίνης τίθησιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ λυχνίας τίθησιν, ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόµενοι βλέπωσιν τὸ φῶς. 11,33 Οὐδεὶς λύχνον ἅψας εἰς κρύπτην τίθησιν [οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν µόδιον] ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόµενοι τὸ φῶς βλέπωσιν.

οὐδὲ καίουσιν λύχνον καὶ τιθέασιν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τὸν µόδιον ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, καὶ λάµπει πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ. οὕτως λαµψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑµῶν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑµῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑµῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Matthew

Luke (outside of SP)

5,18 – 42 words Μὴ νοµίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόµον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι. ἀµὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑµῖν· ἕως ἂνπαρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ µία κεραία οὐ µὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόµου, ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται

16,16f – 34 words Ὁ νόµος καὶ οἱ προφῆται µέχρι Ἰωάννου· ἀπὸ τότε ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίζεται καὶ πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται. εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστιν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν ἢ τοῦ νόµου µίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.

Matthew

Luke (outside of SP)

5,25f – 43 words

12,57–59 – 58 words Τί δὲ καὶ ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτῶν οὐ κρίνετε τὸ δίκαιον; ὡς γὰρ ὑπάγεις µετὰ τοῦ ἀντιδίκου σου ἐπ᾿ ἄρχοντα, ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ δὸς ἐργασίαν ἀπηλλάχθαι ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, µήποτε κατασύρῃ σε πρὸς τὸν κριτήν, καὶ ὁ κριτής σε παραδώσει τῷ πράκτορι, καὶ ὁ πράκτωρ σε

ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχύ, ἕως ὅτου εἶ µετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, µήποτέ σε παραδῷ ὁ ἀντίδικος τῷ κριτῇ καὶ ὁ κριτὴς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ καὶ εἰς φυλακὴν βληθήσῃ·

Appendix to § 2.4

241

ἀµὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ µὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν, ἕως ἂν ἀποδῷς τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην

βαλεῖ εἰς φυλακήν. λέγω σοι, οὐ µὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν, ἕως καὶ τὸ ἔσχατον λεπτὸν ἀποδῷς.

Matthew

Luke (outside of SP)

5,32 – 34 words Ἐρρέθη δέ· ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον. ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν µοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυµένην γαµήσῃ, µοιχᾶται.

16,18 – 17 words

Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαµῶν ἑτέραν µοιχεύει, καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυµένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαµῶν µοιχεύει

Matthew

Luke (outside of SP)

6,9–13 – 61 words Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑµεῖς· Πάτερ ἡµῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνοµά σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου· γενηθήτω τὸ θέληµά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς· τὸν ἄρτον ἡµῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡµῖν σήµερον· καὶ ἄφες ἡµῖν τὰ ὀφειλήµατα ἡµῶν,. ὡς καὶ ἡµεῖς ἀφήκαµεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡµῶν· καὶ µὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡµᾶς εἰς πειρασµόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡµᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

11,2–4 – 43 words εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς· ὅταν προσεύχησθε λέγετε·Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνοµά σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου

Matthew

Luke (outside of SP)

6,21 – 12 words ὅπου γάρ ἐστιν ὁ θησαυρός σου, ἐκεῖ ἔσται καὶ ἡ καρδία σου.

12,34 – 12 words ὅπου γάρ ἐστιν ὁ θησαυρὸς ὑµῶν, ἐκεῖ καὶ ἡ καρδία ὑµῶν ἔσται.

Matthew

Luke (outside of SP)

6,22f – 45 words Ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώµατός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλµός. ἐὰν οὖν ᾖ ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου ἁπλοῦς, ὅλον τὸ σῶµά σου φωτεινὸν ἔσται· ἐὰν δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου πονηρὸς ᾖ, ὅλον τὸ σῶµά σου σκοτεινὸν ἔσται. εἰ οὖν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν, τὸ σκότος πόσον.

11,34–36 – 63 words Ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώµατός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου. ὅταν ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου ἁπλοῦς ᾖ, καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶµά σου φωτεινόν ἐστιν· ἐπὰν δὲ πονηρὸς ᾖ, καὶ τὸ σῶµά σου σκοτεινόν. σκόπει οὖν µὴ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν. εἰ οὖν τὸ σῶµά σου ὅλον φωτεινόν, µὴ ἔχον µέρος τι σκοτεινόν, ἔσται φωτεινὸν ὅλον ὡς ὅταν ὁ λύχνος τῇ ἀστραπῇ φωτίζῃ σε.

τὸν ἄρτον ἡµῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡµῖν τὸ καθ᾿ ἡµέραν· καὶ ἄφες ἡµῖν τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν, καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίοµεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡµῖν· καὶ µὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡµᾶς εἰς πειρασµόν.

242

§ 2 The Historical Quest

Matthew

Luke (outside of SP)

6,24 – 27 words Οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν· ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα µισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει. οὐ δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ µαµωνᾷ.

16,13 – 28 words Οὐδεὶς οἰκέτης δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν· ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα µισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει. οὐ δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ µαµωνᾷ.

Matthew

Luke (outside of SP)

6,25–33 – 188 words ∆ιὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑµῖν· µὴ µεριµνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑµῶν τί φάγητε [ἢ τί πίητε], µηδὲ τῷ σώµατι ὑµῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε. οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶµα τοῦ ἐνδύµατος; ἐµβλέψατε εἰς τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὅτι οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν οὐδὲ συνάγουσιν εἰς ἀποθήκας, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τρέφει αὐτά· οὐχ ὑµεῖς µᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν; τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑµῶν µεριµνῶν δύναται προσθεῖναι ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτοῦ πῆχυν ἕνα; καὶ περὶ ἐνδύµατος τί µεριµνᾶτε; καταµάθετε τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ πῶς αὐξάνουσιν· οὐ κοπιῶσιν οὐδὲ νήθουσιν· λέγω δὲ ὑµῖν ὅτι οὐδὲ Σολοµὼν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ περιεβάλετο ὡς ἓν τούτων. εἰ δὲ τὸν χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ σήµερον ὄντα καὶ αὔριον εἰς κλίβανον βαλλόµενον ὁ θεὸς οὕτως ἀµφιέννυσιν, οὐ πολλῷ µᾶλλον ὑµᾶς, ὀλιγόπιστοι; µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε λέγοντες· τί φάγωµεν; ἤ· τί πίωµεν; ἤ· τί περιβαλώµεθα; πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν· οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος ὅτι χρῄζετε τούτων ἁπάντων. ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν [τοῦ θεοῦ] καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑµῖν. µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον, ἡ γὰρ αὔριον µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς· ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς.

12,22–31 – 169 words διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑµῖν· µὴ µεριµνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ τί φάγητε, µηδὲ τῷ σώµατι τί ἐνδύσησθε. ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶµα τοῦ ἐνδύµατος. κατανοήσατε τοὺς κόρακας ὅτι οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν, οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν ταµεῖον οὐδὲ ἀποθήκη, καὶ ὁ θεὸς τρέφει αὐτούς· πόσῳ µᾶλλον ὑµεῖς διαφέρετε τῶν πετεινῶν. τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑµῶν µεριµνῶν δύναται ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτοῦ προσθεῖναι πῆχυν; εἰ οὖν οὐδὲ ἐλάχιστον δύνασθε, τί περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν µεριµνᾶτε; κατανοήσατε τὰ κρίνα πῶς αὐξάνει· οὐ κοπιᾷ οὐδὲ νήθει· λέγω δὲ ὑµῖν, οὐδὲ Σολοµὼν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ περιεβάλετο ὡς ἓν τούτων. εἰ δὲ ἐν ἀγρῷ τὸν χόρτον ὄντα σήµερον καὶ αὔριον εἰς κλίβανον βαλλόµενον ὁ θεὸς οὕτως ἀµφιέζει, πόσῳ µᾶλλον ὑµᾶς, ὀλιγόπιστοι. καὶ ὑµεῖς µὴ ζητεῖτε τί φάγητε καὶ τί πίητε καὶ µὴ µετεωρίζεσθε· ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τοῦ κόσµου ἐπιζητοῦσιν, ὑµῶν δὲ ὁ πατὴρ οἶδεν ὅτι χρῄζετε τούτων. πλὴν ζητεῖτε τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα προστεθήσεται ὑµῖν. Μὴ φοβοῦ, τὸ µικρὸν ποίµνιον, ὅτι εὐδόκησεν ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν δοῦναι ὑµῖν τὴν βασιλείαν.

Matthew

Luke (outside of SP)

7,7–11 – 74 words Αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑµῖν, ζητεῖτε καὶ εὑρήσετε, κρούετε καὶ ἀνοιγήσεται ὑµῖν·

11,9–13 – 75 words κἀγὼ ὑµῖν λέγω, αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑµῖν, ζητεῖτε καὶ εὑρήσετε, κρούετε καὶ ἀνοιγήσεται ὑµῖν·

243

Appendix to § 2.4 Matthew

Luke (outside of SP)

πᾶς γὰρ ὁ αἰτῶν λαµβάνει καὶ ὁ ζητῶν εὑρίσκει καὶ τῷ κρούοντι ἀνοιγήσεται. ἢ τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑµῶν ἄνθρωπος, ὃν αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρτον, µὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; ἢ καὶ ἰχθὺν αἰτήσει, µὴ ὄφιν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ;

πᾶς γὰρ ὁ αἰτῶν λαµβάνει καὶ ὁ ζητῶν εὑρίσκει καὶ τῷ κρούοντι ἀνοιγ[ήσ]εται. τίνα δὲ ἐξ ὑµῶν τὸν πατέρα αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἰχθύν, καὶ ἀντὶ ἰχθύος ὄφιν αὐτῷ ἐπιδώσει; ἢ καὶ αἰτήσει ᾠόν, ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ σκορπίον; εἰ οὖν ὑµεῖς πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες οἴδατε δόµατα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑµῶν, πόσῳ µᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ [ὁ] ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει πνεῦµα ἅγιον τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν.

εἰ οὖν ὑµεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες οἴδατε δόµατα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑµῶν, πόσῳ µᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς δώσει ἀγαθὰ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν. Matthew

Luke (outside of SP)

7,13f – 25 words Εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης· ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόµενοι δι᾿ αὐτῆς· 7,14 = Matt 25,11f

13,24 –15 words ἀγωνίζεσθε εἰσελθεῖν διὰ τῆς στενῆς θύρας, ὅτι πολλοί, λέγω ὑµῖν, ζητήσουσιν εἰσελθεῖν καὶ οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν. 13,25 … ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις ἡµῶν ἐδίδαξας·

Matthew

Luke (outside of SP)

7,22f – 42 words πολλοὶ ἐροῦσίν µοι ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ· κύριε κύριε, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι ἐπροφητεύσαµεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι δαιµόνια ἐξεβάλοµεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι δυνάµεις πολλὰς ἐποιήσαµεν; καὶ τότε ὁµολογήσω αὐτοῖς ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑµᾶς· ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ οἱ ἐργαζόµενοι τὴν ἀνοµίαν.

13,26f – 27 words ἄρξεσθε λέγειν ἐφάγοµεν ἐνώπιόν σου καὶ ἐπίοµεν καὶ ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις ἡµῶν ἐδίδαξας. καὶ ἐρεῖ λέγων ὑµῖν· οὐκ οἶδα [ὑµᾶς] πόθεν ἐστέ· ἀπόστητε ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ πάντες ἐργάται ἀδικίας.

3. Triple-tradition Mark

Matthew

Luke

4,21 on light – 19 words µήτι ἔρχεται ὁ λύχνος ἵνα ὑπὸ τὸν µόδιον τεθῇ ἢ ὑπὸ τὴν κλίνην; οὐχ ἵνα ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν τεθῇ;

5,15 – 20 words οὐδὲ καίουσιν λύχνον καὶ τιθέασιν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τὸν µόδιον ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, καὶ λάµπει πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ

4,24 on measure – nine words ἐν ᾧ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε µετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν καὶ προστεθήσεται ὑµῖν.

Matt 7,2 – six words ἐν ᾧ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε µετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν.

Luke 8,16 Οὐδεὶς δὲ λύχνον ἅψας καλύπτει αὐτὸν σκεύει ἢ ὑποκάτω κλίνης τίθησιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ λυχνίας τίθησιν, ἵνα. (Cf. 11.33–35: [οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν µόδιον] … Lk 6,38; 8,18 (19,16) ᾧ γὰρ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε ἀντιµετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν. (Cf. 8,18: ὃς ἂν γὰρ ἔχῃ, δοθήσεται αὐτῷ)

244

§ 2 The Historical Quest

Mark

Matthew

Luke

9,43.45.47 on offence – 83 words ἐὰν σκανδαλίζῃ σε ἡ χείρ σου, ἀπόκοψον αὐτήν· καλόν ἐστίν σε κυλλὸν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωὴν ἢ τὰς δύο χεῖρας ἔχοντα ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὴν γέενναν, εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον. ἐὰν ὁ πούς σου σκανδαλίζῃ σε, ἀπόκοψον αὐτόν· καλόν ἐστίν σε εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωὴν χωλὸν ἢ τοὺς δύο πόδας ἔχοντα βληθῆναι εἰς τὴν γέενναν. ἐὰν ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου σκανδαλίζῃ σε, ἔκβαλε αὐτόν· καλόν σέ ἐστιν µονόφθαλµον εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ δύο ὀφθαλµοὺς ἔχοντα βληθῆναι εἰς τὴν γέενναν … 9,49 on salt καλὸν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον γένηται, ἐν τίνι αὐτὸ ἀρτύσετε; ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἅλα καὶ εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἀλλήλοις. 10,11 on remarriage – 22 words ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαµήσῃ ἄλλην µοιχᾶται ἐπ᾿ αὐτήν· καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαµήσῃ ἄλλον µοιχᾶται. 10,21 ὕπαγε, ὅσα ἔχεις πώλησον καὶ δὸς [τοῖς] πτωχοῖς,

Matt 5,29f – 29+23 words

(Luke 17,1f) – 18 words

εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔξελε αὐτὸν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ· καὶ εἰ ἡ δεξιά σου χεὶρ σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔκκοψον αὐτὴν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ.

ἀνένδεκτόν ἐστιν τοῦ τὰ σκάνδαλα µὴ ἐλθεῖν, πλὴν οὐαὶ δι᾿ οὗ ἔρχεται---. ἵνα σκανδαλίσῃ τῶν µικρῶν τούτων ἕνα. ·

καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ, 11,24 on prayer –13 words λέγω ὑµῖν, πάντα ὅσα προσεύχεσθε καὶ αἰτεῖσθε, πιστεύετε ὅτι ἐλάβετε, καὶ ἔσται ὑµῖν.

(= 18,8: καλόν σοί ἐστιν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωὴν κυλλὸν ἢ χωλὸν ἢ δύο χεῖρας ἢ δύο πόδας ἔχοντα βληθῆναι εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον.)

Matt 5,13 Υµεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας µωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται; εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ….

Luke 14,34f Καλὸν οὖν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἅλας µωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἀρτυθήσεται;.

Matt 5,32 – 18 words

Luke 16,18 – 17 words

πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν µοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυµένην γαµήσῃ, µοιχᾶται Matt 6,20

Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαµῶν ἑτέραν µοιχεύει, καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυµένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαµῶν µοιχεύει. Luke 12,33 Πωλήσατε τὰ ὑπάρχοντα ὑµῶν καὶ δότε ἐλεηµοσύνην· ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς βαλλάντια µὴ παλαιούµενα, θησαυρὸν ἀνέκλειπτον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς Luke 11,9 – four words

θησαυρίζετε δὲ ὑµῖν θησαυροὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ, Matt 7,7f – four words Αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑµῖν

αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑµῖν.

245

Appendix to § 2.4 Mark

Matthew

Luke

11,25 on forgiveness – 23 words ὅταν στήκετε προσευχόµενοι, ἀφίετε εἴ τι ἔχετε κατά τινος, ἵνα καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἀφῇ ὑµῖν τὰ παραπτώµατα ὑµῶν.

Matt 6,14f – 16 words

Lk 6,37; 7,3f – 10 words

Εὰν γὰρ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παραπτώµατα αὐτῶν,

ἀπολύετε, καὶ ἀπολυθήσεσθε. ἐὰν µετανοήσῃ ἄφες αὐτῷ. µετανοῶ, ἀφήσεις αὐτῷ.

13,30 on parousia –14 words λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι οὐ µὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη

µέχρις οὗ ταῦτα πάντα γένηται.

ἀφήσει καὶ ὑµῖν ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος· Matt 5,18 – 27 words ἀµὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑµῖν ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ µία κεραία οὐ µὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόµου, ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται.

Luke 16,17 (21,31) – 15 words εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστιν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν ἢ τοῦ νόµου µίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν.

4. Matthew’s Sondergut SM 5,4.7–10

Matthew

5,14a 5,14b 5,16 (καλὰ ἔργα) 5, 17.19f 5,22 5,23f 5,33–37 6,1 6, 2–4 6,5–8 6,16–18 6,34 7,6

Matt 23,21f (23,3ff.26) (23,4.18ff.23f) (18,19; 23,5ff (9,14 par.)

Parallels elsewhere Jas 3,17: ἄνωθεν σοφία, εἰρηνική, ἐπιεικής, ἐλέους POxy 655,24; Dial. Sav. 14b; 34b; Joh 8,12; 12,35f POxy 132; GTh 32 1 Pet 2,12; Jas 2,18 Jas 1,25; 2,10.12 Jas 1,9 (βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν); 5,9 Mark 11,25; Did. 14,2 Jas 5,12; Justin, 1 Apol. 16,5 Did. 8,1; cf. Jas 3,17 (ἀνυπόκριτος) GTh 62 (to 6,3); 104 Did. 8,2; GTh 104 Did. 8,1 Jas 4,13–15; Dial. Sav. 53a GTh 93/Agr. 165; Did. 9,5

5. Luke՚s Sondergut The four woes (6,24–26 – 44 words), and four other sayings from Q: Luke’s Sondergut

Matthew

GTh, James, Didache etc.

6,38 (ὑπερεκχυννόµενον) 6,39 blind leaders 6,40 disciple and teacher 6,45 the good man’s words

13,12a; 25,29a 15,14b 10,24 12,34f

1 Clem. 13,2; Pol., Phil. 2,3 GTh 34 John 13,16; 15,20; Jas 3,1; Dial. Sav. 53c GTh 45

246

§ 2 The Historical Quest

Luke 6,24–26 – 44 words οὐαὶ ὑµῖν τοῖς πλουσίοις, ὅτι ἀπέχετε τὴν παράκλησιν ὑµῶν. οὐαί, οἱ γελῶντες νῦν, ὅτι πενθήσετε καὶ κλαύσετε οὐαὶ ὑµῖν, οἱ ἐµπεπλησµένοι νῦν, ὅτι πεινάσετε οὐαὶ ὅταν ὑµᾶς καλῶς εἴπωσιν πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι· κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίουν τοῖς ψευδοπροφήταις οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν. Luke 6,38 – 36 words Καὶ µὴ κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ µὴ κριθῆτε καὶ µὴ καταδικάζετε, καὶ οὐ µὴ καταδικασθῆτε. ἀπολύετε, καὶ ἀπολυθήσεσθε δίδοτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑµῖν· µέτρον καλὸν πεπιεσµένον σεσαλευµένον ὑπερεκχυννόµενον δώσουσιν εἰς τὸν κόλπον ὑµῶν ᾧ γὰρ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε ἀντιµετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν Luke 6,39 – 10 words (Εἶπεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς.) µήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν; οὐχὶ ἀµφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον ἐµπεσοῦνται Luke 6,40 – 14 words οὐκ ἔστιν µαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον· κατηρτισµένος δὲ πᾶς ἔσται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ Luke 6,45 – 29 words ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας προφέρει τὸ ἀγαθόν, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ προφέρει τὸ πονηρόν·. ἐκ γὰρ περισσεµατος καρδίας λαλεῖ τὸ στόµα αὐτοῦ.

Matt 5,4 ὅτι αὐτοὶ παρακληθήσονται Matt 5,4 µακάριοι οἱ πενθοῦντες, Matt 5,6 µακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες

(Matt 5,12: οὕτως γὰρ ἐδίωξαν τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑµῶν) Matt 7,1f – 20 words Καὶ µὴ κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ µὴ κριθῆτε.

ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίµατι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε µετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν Matt 15,14 – 13 words ἄφετε αὐτούς· τυφλοί εἰσιν ὁδηγοὶ τυφλὸς δὲ τυφλὸν ἐὰν ὁδηγῇ, ἀµφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται. 10,24 – 12 words Οὐκ ἔστιν µαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον οὐδὲ δοῦλος ὑπὲρ τὸν κύριον αὐτοῦ. Matt 12,35f – 32 words ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει ἀγαθά, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει πονηρά. λέγω δὲ ὑµῖν ὅτι πᾶν ῥῆµα ἀργὸν ὃ λαλήσουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀποδώσουσιν περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγον ἐν ἡµέρᾳ κρίσεως

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition: Rhetorical Composition of the Sermon on the Mount and Its Alternatives 3.1 The Impact of Composition on Interpretation For some scholars the question of composition is very important, and for others a peripheral issue. For some, composition and understanding of the argumentation and genre are closely linked. For others, composition is just a matter of aesthetics, a secondary aspect about the last stage of a historical process. Does the variety of proposals indicate the possibility to find different compositional patterns in the same text? The issue may be called composition or structure, plan, outline, arrangement, etc.; are scholars talking about the same thing? This paragraph has these general questions in mind, but its main purpose is to show the impact of composition on interpretation. Does the composition lead to a better understanding of the theology and ethics in the SM? Was there – almost from the very beginning – a compositional plan, or is the SM an arbitrary collection of sayings, developed during a long traditional process? 3.1.1 Introductory Remarks Behind different approaches we can often see methodological differences, primarily between two or three text-models: – text- (and reader-)oriented – author- (and theology-)oriented – historical-genetically oriented According to the latter model, the text is a starting point for reconstruction. The text can be understood almost as straightforward. If not, reconstruction would be very difficult. The main interest is what is behind the text, and one should reconstruct the whole process from the very beginning. For the author- and text-oriented approaches, the interpretation of the text and its composition are the focus. The question is: what kind of compositional plan do we have in the SM? The arguments in favour of and against a thoroughly compositional, or even rhetorical, plan in the SM must be analysed. The composition of the SM should be relatively easy to find: the Beatitudes (5,3–12), the Antitheses (5,21–48) and the so-called piety-rules in 6,1–18,

248

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

have an extremely clear structure. Matt 5,17–6,18 has many typical Matthean features, and Matt 5,3–12 and 7,13–27 have a transparent structure. The task is to find the plan behind the seemingly unorganized sayings in Matt 6,19– 7,12. Scholars tend to label these verses as an arbitrary collection, a disorganized heap of “other sayings”,1 “several admonitions”2 “on church matters”,3 “the conduct of daily life”,4 “social – or practical – issues”,5 etc. Is Matthew really inconsistent, or what is the compositional plan of the whole speech? 3.1.2 Short History of Research J. Smit Sibinga and M. Carter have provided a review of contemporary approaches to the question of composition.6 They do not offer a comprehensive and systematic analysis, and they ignore rhetorical approaches. H.D. Betz has a longer historical perspective but is – necessarily – eclectic in his presentation.7 A comprehensive analysis would require a monograph. The purpose of this subsection is a few remarks on the history of research, and to debate systematically the impact of different approaches. At the end we will offer insights into the text from a rhetorical perspective and based on orality. 1) Rhetoric as starting point. Augustine and John Chrysostom – both rhetorically trained orators – were the first to reflect on this topic. They read the SM as a rhetorical speech, and they found in it beautiful pieces of rhetoric. In monastic movements – after 529 CE – the SM became a manual of discipline, and the aesthetical dimensions were less important. The usage as a 1

Bornkamm, “Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt” (1977/78), 425. He was not able to find any conscious composition in Matt 6,19–7,12 (see below, n. 33). 2 Strecker, Bergpredigt (21985), 134ff; Schniewind, Matthäus (81956), 96 (“die Schlußmahnungen”). Albright/Mann, Matthew (1971), 79ff, call Matt 6–7 “great instructions” (on wealth, discipleship and detachment, etc.). 3 Luz, Matthäus I (52002), 459, calls Matt 6,19–7,12 simply “Anweisung für die Gemeinde” (six instructions), but sees some elements of conscious composition. The English edition, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 381ff, has no headline. 4 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 54, 423ff (“The Conduct of daily life”); on pp. 55–57 he operates with eight different topics. They reflect a numerical symbolism and a certain thought-progression, cf. 423–428 (esp. 426). 5 Allison, Sermon on the Mount (1999), 435f, modified from Davies/Allison, Matthew (1997), 625ff. Theißen, “Urchristliches Ethos” (2005), 218, proposes the headline “die Sozialparänese” for Matt 6,19–7,12. 6 There are in fact few scholarly reviews on this topic, and none of them focuses on a possible rhetorical structure, cf. Smit Sibinga, “Exploring the Composition of Matth. 5–7” (1994); Carter, What Are They Saying about Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount? (1994), 35– 55, and H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 21ff, 44–50; Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount (2004), 21–26; Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 29–33. 7 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 44–50 and in fact also in the paragraph ‘major problems’ (pp. 5–44), deals with the composition.

3.1 The Impact of Composition on Interpretation

249

manual or as a catechism made the question of composition less important. In both medieval studies and the exegeses of the reformers in the 15th and 16th centuries, the focus on ethical and theological argumentation was the burning issue. However, theologians like Thomas Aquinas also had eyes open for the rhetorical argumentation of the SM. Luther, and particularly Melanchthon and Calvin, used their rhetorical training in the exegesis of the SM. Melanchthon and Calvin had few followers on this point. John Wesley followed here in the footsteps of Luther, and presented his theological interpretation. The scepticism against rhetorical analysis in the Enlightenment period did not have so much to do with the decline of the classical tradition which took place much later. The lingering influence from ancient rhetoric can be seen in the works of the two scholars, who were both trained in rhetoric, W.M.L. de Wette8 and his successor in Berlin, A. Tholuck (1835). Tholuck represented a conservative view, and he found in the SM the ipsissima vox/genuine voice of Jesus. It is typical for Jesus to have both a conscious and a seemingly arbitrary compositional plan. Tholuck argued that the SM is based on “the logic of the heart” more than on thoroughly philosophical, rhetorical, literary principles.9 2) Decomposition as a starting point and result. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849) is the forerunner of genuine historical approaches, and from his position in Basel (after 1822), he observed and contributed to the wave of historicism, both in the Tübingen-school (D.F. Strauss and F.C. Baur) and in source-criticism (C.H. Weisse,10 K. Lachmann) in Berlin. They raised the historical questions so strongly that rhetorical and literary aspects were neglected. The task for an exegete/historian was to detect the sources behind Matthew/Luke and reveal the historical forces which created their theology. The critical studies of D.F. Strauss, and Tholuck’s book on the SM came out in the same year. Tholuck’s book was often perceived as outdated as soon as it came out. Analytical decomposition, not composition, should be the starting point. The SM was the result of an historical process and the task for scholars was to reconstruct this process. The final composition of the SM was not the main point. This composition was either an arbitrary result, or a conscious process, driven by certain persons or forces. 8

W.M.L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Berlin: Reimer 1826, § 87 (pp. 144ff emphasise the oral tradition and § 97 the priority of Matthew), and idem, Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi (1836/31846), 53–97, here 66–69 (idem, Kurze Erklärung der Evangelien des Lukas und Markus [21839], 53–58 on Luke’s SP), cf. H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 22f. De Wette’s letter of consolation to the mother of a student who was accused of being a murderer, forced him to leave Berlin in 1819. 9 Tholuck, Auslegung der Bergpredigt (21835), 23 = Commentary (1869), 8–16. Apart from exordium and peroratio he finds no co-ordination or subordination (p. 16); e.g. Matt 7,1–11 has the headline “diverse unconnected admonitions”. 10 Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte (1838).

250

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

The acceptance of the Q/‘Two-source theory’ had an impact on the exegesis of the SM. In fact, the two-source theory presupposes the existence of a collection of speeches, and the first and most important proof is the SM, the existence of an ‘Inaugural Speech’. One big question came up from the very beginning: Where do we find the oldest text, the most original ‘Inaugural Speech’? Many assumed Matthew (Schleiermacher, Tholuck, A. Meyer, F.C. Baur, A. Hilgenfeld, A. Harnack), others argued in favour of Luke (B. Bauer, C.G. Wilke, H.J. Holtzmann).11 The similar outline of the SM and the SP indicated a compositional plan, the differences between them indicated a historical process. Scholarship continued to see the composition as an important theme, but less in ‘German’ scholarship than in England, France, US and Scandinavia, etc. A new development started with C.F.G. Heinrici’s ground-breaking and often forgotten comprehensive analysis of the SM in 1900/1905. He found a number of smaller units which he claimed as the real origin of the SM, and emphasised its arbitrary structure.12 Form-critics came up with new arguments for this point of view, and the lingering interest for composition outside the form-critical school was seen as outdated. Form-critical scholars had different ambitions when it came to reconstruction. E. Peterson essentially stated that the small units and the composition was an arbitrary composition.13 M. Dibelius thought the SM was the result of catechetical concerns.14 In his analysis of the speeches in Acts, he underlined the difference between these speeches and the SM/SP. Luke 6,20– 49 shows that this is just a collection of given sayings, whereas the speeches in Acts are literary products. However, in the end the SM is ‘paraenesis’, which implies an arbitrary composition, or no compositional plan at all. Bultmann had a consequently historical-genetical text-model. He wanted to reconstruct the seamless growth of tradition from the individual small sayings to the SM as Matthew edited it.15 Matthew just framed the tradition, inserted the sayings into the narratives and composed the speeches, by using available sources of sayings.16 Matthew followed certain principles: subject arrangement (Matt 5,21–26; 6,5–8[13], etc.), association by catchwords (Matt 5,14f, etc.), or formal relationship (Matt 7,1ff).17 The composition of the SM follows strictly the laws of transmission of oral tradition.18 The author had no literary or rhetorical ambitions. 11

H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 23, nn. 170f. Heinrici, Bergpredigt I (1900), 38ff; II (1905), 9ff. 13 See below, n. 31. 14 M. Dibelius, Formgeschichte (1919/31959), 247. 15 Bultmann, GST, 358f. 16 Bultmann, GST, 348–355, 358f, 376–384 (HST, 322–328, 333f, 351–359). 17 Bultmann, HST, 324f. 18 Confirmed by Lohr, “Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew” (1961). 12

3.1 The Impact of Composition on Interpretation

251

This dominating trend before 1945 prevented publications on this issue. The occasionally published contributions were mostly overlooked. Decomposition was the starting-point and the end product was a more or less arbitrary result. 3) Redactional approaches. A new shift came, however, through redactioncriticism in the 1950s. At the beginning this school was basically a branch of the Bultmann-school, and few recognised that a methodological shift had taken place: from a consequent historical-genetical to an author- (and theology-)oriented text-model. Redaction-criticism investigated Matthew’s and Luke’s compositional plans. The method was designed as an additional tool to form-criticism. The main concern was the relationship between tradition and redaction. The author’s additions and corrections, re-composition of the smaller units, show his literary and theological ambitions. The breakthrough of structuralism in the 1970s (text-linguistics, etc.) opened up for a more consequent text-oriented model, dealing extensively with the text in Matt 5–7. Norman Perrin lifted redaction-criticism in this direction, and his criticism of the “comparative neglect of composition and structure” was important for many scholars. However, Perrin himself did not really follow up his program.19 The question of composition was in the end not the main point in ‘redaction-criticism’, and few contributions were made to composition. But the effort of some classical scholars20 and some studies especially by catholic exegetes before the 1950s, were now taken more seriously.21 4) Author- and text-oriented contributions. Structuralism and literary criticism developed from ‘New criticism’22 had now a new text-model. The text itself has priority, not the author or the historical processes behind the text.23 19

Perrin, “The Evangelist as Author” (1972). E. Meyer, Ursprung (1921), 242. In the same year as Bultmann published his formcritical study (1921) the classicist Eduard Meyer formulated the opposite opinion: 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” (ibid., 242f). 21 E.g. Soiron, Bergpredigt (1941), 98–127. 22 Inspired by T.S. Eliot’s essays (“Tradition and the Individual Talent” and “Hamlet and His Problems”), and Ivor A. Richards’ contributions: The Meaning of Meaning, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. 1923; idem, The Principles of Literary Criticism, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. 1925; and idem, Practical Criticism, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. 1929. Cf. René Wellek, “The New Criticism: Pro et Contra”, Critical Inquiry 4 (1978), 611–624. 23 Eric D. Hirsch jr. made an attempt to be more inclusive: Validity in Interpretation, New Haven/London: Yale University Press 1967; idem, The Aims of Interpretation, Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press 1976. 20

252

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

In this climate it was an important scholarly task to find a conscious plan in the SM. Even scholars who were defending form- and redaction-criticism took part in this effort. E.g. U. Luz thinks Matthew composed the text with almost mathematical accuracy.24 In Luz’ solution there is a certain tension between this thorough text-orientation and the author – and the historicalgenetical perspective. The problem with all kinds of author-oriented approaches, is its ‘mirrorreading’: the text mirrors the author and his situation. This is a possible approach if we know a lot about the author, but this is not the case with ‘Matthew’. 5) Is rhetoric still the key? Rhetorical criticism analyses the literary tools and the argumentation in the text as it is presented. The author behind it is sometimes very important, and the processes and literary pre-texts behind the text can be interesting. A revival of rhetorical approaches was inspired by the so-called ‘Nouvelle rhétorique’,25 but more by contributions from classical scholars. George A. Kennedy paid special interest to the SM, and he found there a clear rhetorical composition.26 To what extent do we have a rhetorical structure in the SM? Is it possible to reach a consensus in this respect?

3.2 Historical-Genetical Perspective There is hardly any other text in the New Testament where the conditions are better for going behind the text. The historical-genetical perspective is indeed more advantageous here than elsewhere in the New Testament, and we have seen (in § 2.3) that from a source-critical point of view the sayings behind the SM can be divided into four groups: (a) Between at least 20 and 30 verses are almost identical with Luke in his SP. This so-called ‘Inaugural Speech’ (IS), amounts to less than 30% of the 105 verses in the SM. (b) Luke has the largest part of identical sayings in his ‘Travelogue’ (Luke 9,51–18,14/19,10) where at least 37 verses (about 35% of the SM) are identical, and some of them are nearly 100% congruent. According to Thomas 24 Luz, Matthäus I (52002), 27–32, esp. 253–255; idem, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 5–10, and esp. 172–174 (on the SM, gives the question of outline priority in his introduction). A saying like Matt 7,6 is extra problematic because Luz was not able to grasp how it fits into his scheme of outline. 25 Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca, Traité de l’argumentation (1958). 26 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation (1984), and Thom, “Justice in the Sermon on the Mount” (2009), see below, § 3.8.

3.2 Historical-Genetical Perspective

253

Bergemann’s (perhaps too strict) criteria27 less than 30% of the so-called Qmaterial is word for word the same in SM/SP, compared to about 80% of the Q-material in total. (c) Nearly ten sayings come from Mark or parallels in Mark. (d) Matt 5,4f.7–10.(13.)14.16f.19–24.27f.31–39.41.43; 6,1–8.(10b.13b.) 16–18.34; 7,6.(12b.)15.19, more than 40 sayings (more than 35% of the SM) are Matthew’s ‘Sondergut’. Some of these sayings might derive from a source or do we see the genuine hand of Matthew here? Do these parts have different compositional plans? Is the present SM a mixture of different compositional ideas? 3.2.1 Form-critical Arguments against a Compositional Plan Q was for scholars with the ambition to reach the oldest layers of the tradition only a first step. Behind the sources Mark and Q, even older sources existed. One had to reconstruct the oldest aphoristic sayings of Jesus. C.F.G. Heinrici reconstructed a number of smaller units as the real origin of the SM.28 The SM is a collection of aphoristic sayings and Matthew’s primitive compositional techniques take place at a late stage of the transmission of the synoptic tradition. Heinrici thus anticipated form-criticism, and Bultmann assumed that the SM is composed of nearly 50 aphoristic sayings.29 He described Matthew’s editorial techniques and found some compositional principles in Matt 5–7.30 E. Peterson in his article in RGG2 (1927) is more sceptical in this respect. The final text of the SM is arbitrarily composed.31 Many commentators, who were critical to parts of form-criticism, argued in the same way.32 Even in RGG3 G. Bornkamm advocated basically the same form-critical view,33 but he modified his position a few years later, partly under the influence of redaction-criticism. 27

Bergemann, Q auf dem Prüfstand (1993), 230 (229ff, 56ff). Heinrici, Bergpredigt I (1900), 38ff; II (1905), 9ff. 29 Bultmann, GST, 73ff. Matt 5,3–10.11f.13.14a.14b+15.16; 5,17.18.19.20; 5,21f.23f. 25f.28f.30f.32.33–37.38–42.43–44.45.46f.48; 6,1–18, including 6,7f.9–13.14f, and 6,19– 21.22f.24.25–34 (6,27.34 independent?); 7,1.2.3–5.6.7f.9–11.12.13f.15.16–20.21.22–23. 24–27. 30 Bultmann, GST, 381f. 31 Peterson, “Bergpredigt: Biblisch”, RGG2 1 (1927), 907–910, thought the composition was arbitrary (“eine Zusammenstellung aus Einzelsprüchen und Redeeinheiten in der Willkür und Zufälligkeit ihrer Komposition”, 909). Peterson reflects a common opinion in the 1920s at least in German scholarship. He repeats W. Bousset’s argument in RGG1 1 (1909), 1037ff, but Bousset saw more than Peterson the Q-source behind the SM. 32 Schniewind, Matthäus (111964), 38, reads the SM as consolation-speech. The SM might consist of isolated sayings, but even the isolated sayings reveal this very character. 33 Bornkamm, “Bergpredigt: I. Biblisch”, RGG3 1 (1957), 1047–1050; e.g. Matt 6,19– 7,12 is “ohne erkennbaren Leitgedanken” (1048). 28

254

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

3.2.2 The Structure of the ‘Inaugural Speech’ as Proof Matthew and Luke have the same order as long as they follow Mark. The Qmaterial, on the contrary, is placed differently. There is, however, an exception, the SM/SP source behind the SM/SP. The SM was in fact the main reason behind the new theory.34 Mark had no Inaugural Speech, and both Matthew and Luke convey a programmatic speech. This is a main reason for the assumption of an Inaugural Speech in Q.35 Both Matthew and Luke demonstrate great freedom in their use of sources, and that is why we have to explain why the SP and SM have a common outline. The common tradition outside the SM/SP might be close when it comes to wording, but are often very different in order. Only here is the compositional plan nearly identical in their common tradition. The skeleton behind the two speeches is indeed the same: – Beatitudes – two radical sayings: on retaliation and enemy love – two theological-ethical summaries, Matt 5,48; 7,12 = Luke 6,36.32 – the radical judgment sayings – two lively parables (Splinter and log and Tree and fruit) – two sayings about doing (Lord saying and House that prevails) Except for the Golden Rule the outline is the same, and this cannot be arbitrary. It means that both Luke and Matthew are dependent on the Inaugural Speech. Even the logion on splinter and log has the same position in spite of all other changes. I have argued elsewhere that the Inaugural Speech is larger than the SP, and that the outline is rhetorical with a chiastic structure.36 The outline of a minimum Inaugural Speech must be considered when it comes to the composition of the SM. Recent theories on Q, including the international Q-Project, ‘IQP’, and different Q-synopses37 assume that Q had an Inaugural Speech, and this theory limits the redactional activity of Matthew. It implies that the Inaugural Speech in fact structured the fundamental outline of the SM, starting with the Beatitudes and ending with the final parables. The middle section structures Matthew’s composition. Matthew acknowledges the Inaugural Speech as important as Mark; he only occasionally changes the order of Mark/Inaugural Speech. Using Q in general he is free to restructure the order. Luke works in a similar way.

34

Tholuck, Commentary (1869), 23; Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte (1838). Even scholars who claim Matthew’s priority or scholars who – due to an extreme redaction-criticism or narrative analysis – isolate Matthew, have to deal with the parallels in Luke/Q. 36 Baasland, “Auf der Spur einer ‘Grundsatzrede’ vor der Bergpredigt” (2019), 228f. 37 The large number of Q-synopses (Polag, Schulz, Schenk, Neirynck, Kloppenborg, Fleddermann, Hoffmann/Heil, etc.) can be mentioned, but most comprehensive is Robinson et al., The Critical Edition of Q (2000). 35

3.2 Historical-Genetical Perspective

255

If the Inaugural Speech has this impact, one should not only try to reconstruct the content and outline of this sermon. For the question of composition of the SM it is even more important to reflect on the genre and composition of the Inaugural Speech.38 I have argued that the genre of the Inaugural Speech must not be confused with the genre of Q. Q is an epitome that easily could be replaced and most likely occurred in slightly different forms. The Inaugural Speech had perhaps different forms, but is definitely not an epitome. Sourcecriticism gives in this case valuable insights, because of the distinct beginning and end and the common structure in the Inaugural Speech. 3.2.3 Matthew as Compiler (Form-criticism) or Author (Redaction-criticism) Matthew can be perceived as creative ‘author’ or as compiler. According to the historical-genetical text-model Matthew is primarily a compiler, a redactor of available traditions. For Heinrici and form-criticism (Bultmann, M. Dibelius) ‘Matthew’ as author played hardly any role. The situation in scholarship changed in the 1950s. Redaction-criticism represents a first step towards an author-oriented text-model, still based on source- and form-criticism. The additions to the tradition by the evangelists reveal their theological interests. Not only John, but also Matthew and Luke, and even Mark and the creator of Q, could be seen as theologians. Relatively few new proposals (Bornkamm, P.F. Ellis, et al.) appeared in the first stage of redaction-criticism. Nor did they start with any analysis of the artistry of Matthew’s composition. Redaction-criticism is author-oriented and, contrary to form-criticism, its proponents see Matthew as a creative author. The author-oriented approach was ‘theological’, but the community and their place in the history of theology came increasingly to the forefront. The second wave of redaction-criticism was launched in the 1980s and ended with the conclusion that Matthew was the creator of the SM; this speech was not conceived as the SM before 80 CE. It was a result of the theology of the Matthean community. In the debate about the SM in the beginning of the 1980s, W. Marxsen marked the distance between Jesus and Matthew. He stated sharply: The SM is not Jesus’ speech, it is a creation of Matthew and is his message to his community in the 80s.39 What exceeds Luke’s SP (the Q-material) shows Matthew’s interests best,40 and most distinct are the three piety-rules in Matt 6,1–18, the additions to the Beatitudes (5,4.6–9), and particularly the distinct new features in 5,17.19f. Most, but not all, reflect the Jewishness of Matthew. 38

Baasland, “Auf der Spur einer ‘Grundsatzrede’ vor der Bergpredigt” (2019), 227–231. Marxsen, “Streit am falschen Ort” (1982), 508. 40 Specific to the SM are the strange logia in Matt 7,6, the life-philosophy of 6,34, the text on murder 5,21f and on oaths (5,33f, cf. 23,18ff), and some parables (5,14.23f, etc.). 39

256

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

In many ways, this was a renewal of Tendenz-criticism in the Tübingenschool, but without the sharp antagonism between Jewish and Hellenistic communities. They stressed geographical (Syria, Palestine, etc.), religious (within or outside the Synagogue) and situational (community in transition) differences. The SM is an integral part of community-formation, dealing with identity-making. It is a foundational document for a new community of disciples.41 In this second wave of redaction-criticism, the notion of identitymaking plays a greater role. The proposal of Andrie Du Toit may serve as example:42 5,1f: Introduction: The Inaugural Speech of Jesus, the second Moses and messianic King 5,3–12: The identity markers of the blessed Jesus community 5,13–16: The unique mission of the Jesus community 5,17–7,27: The exemplary ethos of the Jesus community 7,28–29: Conclusion: The reaction of the audience

Matt 5,17–7,27 could still further be subdivided into: 5,17–20: The exemplary ethos of the Jesus community: Practising the surpassing righteousness 5,21–48: … in interpersonal relationships 6,1–18: … in religious activities 6,19–34: … in everyday issues 7,1–12: … in some remaining life-areas 7,13–27: The radical choices Jesus’s followers are confronted with.

Most scholars construct Matthew’s community as a contrast community that replaces Israel. The new community and the formation of its identity is the focus. Matthias Konradt has convincingly argued that this community imagined themselves as part of Israel, but that this community should also include pagans.43 Conclusions: The historical-genetical approach basically implies a deconstruction of the text. The composition is insignificant, an arbitrary result of an historical process. Exegesis in the period 1850–1970 offers very few constructive contributions to the composition. The interest in Matthew’s literary skills by U. Luz and others came in a period when structural, text-oriented, rhetorical approaches took a leading role.

41 Meeks, Moral World (1986), 136ff, provided important impulses, as also in Matthewresearch did Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism (1990), 94–101. 42 Du Toit, “Revisiting the Sermon on the Mount: Some Major Issues” (2016). 43 Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew (2014), 86f (not a matter of replacement or supersession, but supplementation and expansion); idem, Evangelium nach Matthäus (2015), passim.

3.3 Jewish Roots as Key to the Composition? What about Genre?

257

3.3 Jewish Roots as Key to the Composition? What about Genre? The SM has most likely both Jewish and Hellenistic parallels. Billerbeck could at this point not establish rabbinic parallels which were closer than those Bultmann found in the sapiential tradition.44 Nearly every individual saying in the SM has parallels in Hellenistic or rabbinic sources, but these collections offer few parallels when it comes to the composition of the SM. Only Hellenistic rhetoric provides close parallels. However, most scholars assume that the closest parallels to the SM – a Jewish speech to a Jewish audience – must be found in Jewish texts. 1) Jewish texts as key to the composition. Most texts have pre-texts that illuminate their meaning. What are pre-texts for the SM? There are many ways to discover pre-texts or hidden patterns, and Old Testament texts present many possible candidates. In the case of the SM, Genesis is seen as a pre-text,45 obviously the Decalogue,46 but wisdom and prophetic texts should rather be suggested. There are many good reasons for seeing Mic 6,8 as a key text. Every part of the key verse may be found in the SM: – “He has showed you, O man, what is good” (‫ה־טּוֹב‬ ֑ ‫) ַמ‬, cf. Matt 5,3–16 – “What does the Lord require of you?” (‫דּוֹרשׁ‬ ֣ ֵ ‫ = ) ַמה י ְה ָ֞וה‬Matt 5,17–20 – “to act justly” ( ֙‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫ = )ע ֲ֤שׂוֹת ִמ‬Matt 6,1–18 – “to love mercy” (‫ = )אַ ֣ ֲהבַת ֶ֔חסֶד‬Matt 5,21–48 – “to walk humbly with your God” (#‫הֶ ֽי‬%‫ = ) ַה ְצ ֵנ֥ע לֶ ֖ כֶת ַ עִם־ ֱא‬Matt 6,19–7,27 Bultmann’s list of wisdom parallels can easily be enlarged, but there is no parallel to the composition of the SM as a whole. Otto Betz finds the common pattern in covenant texts from the Tanach:47 Introduction Blessing Status Obligation Commandment

Matthew (SM)

Exod 19

Deut 28

5,1–2 5,3–12 5,13–16 5,17ff 5,21–48

19,1–3a 19,3b–4 19,5f 19,7f 20,1ff

28,2–6 28,7–13a 28,13b–14 (6,4ff)

44 Billerbeck and Bultmann published their books in the same year(s), cf. Bultmann, GST, 73–77 (HST, 69–73: 1. Principles; material- and personal formulations; blessings; arguments a maiore ad minus. 2. Exhortations. 3. Questions). 45 Jonathan A. Draper, “The Genesis and Narrative Thrust of the Paraenesis in the Sermon on the Mount”, JSNT 75 (1999), 25–47. 46 Lioy, Decalogue (2004). 47 O. Betz, “Bergpredigt und Sinaitradition” (1987).

258

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

The either/or, the decision-making process, is the theme in Deut 27–28. This is at least an analogy to the SM. If we seek parallels outside the Tanach, we find pre-texts in liturgical texts, especially in the Jewish Morning Prayer.48 This prayer starts with a benediction, similarly to Matt 5,3ff, continues with the adoration of the Torah (like Matt 5,17ff), using texts like Ps 145, 84 or 24. The ‘Eighteen-Benediction’ is a clear equivalent to the Lord’s Prayer. Some scholars think rabbinic texts offer the best analogies. W.D. Davies argued in 196449 that the teaching of Simon the Just in m.Abot 1,2 could explain the plan of the SM: “By three things is the world sustained: by the Law [≈ Matt 5,17–48], by the (Temple) service [≈ Matt 6,1–18], and by the deeds of loving kindness” [≈ Matt 6,19–7,12].” M. Smith50 finds similarly in the SM the same general composition (introduction, body, conclusion) as in Sifre Num. 6,26; Sifre Deut. 3,23; 11,13. Smith indicated as early as 1951 that the SM had a rhetorical composition and suggested a very similar outline to what later rhetorical criticism has worked out. He thought, however, that the ‘body’ of the SM, Matt 5,17–7,12, is dealing with one issue: “concerning the law”. Günther Bornkamm thought that parallels in Qumran (1QS, 1QSa, CD) and the Mishnah-treatise Abot (plus Didache) came closer to the SM. He argued that the SM is a step towards a Christian church order. 2) Polemics/debate with Jewish opponents as the key. A thematic approach can be orientated from the addressees of the sayings in the two main sections (5,17–48; 6,1–18) and also in Matt 6,19–7,12. Th. Zahn thought Matt 5,21–48 was directed against the rabbis and ch. 6 against the Pharisees.51 J. Dupont similarly saw Matt 5,20ff as polemic against the Scribes and Pharisees and ch. 6 against the Pharisees.52 J.A. Fitzmyer found three types of righteousness, represented by the Scribes, the Pharisees and the disciples (Matt 6,19– 7,12),53 and O. Hanssen assumed only two addressees: 5,21–6,18 the Jews and 6,19–7,12 the pagans.54 J. Jeremias proposed this scheme: to the Scribes (5,21ff), the pious (6,1ff), the disciples (6,19ff).55 The polemics in Matt 5,21– 48 Zdravko Stefanovic, “‘One Greater than the Temple’: The Sermon on the Mount in the Early Palestinian Liturgical Setting”, AJT 6 (1992), 108–116. 49 Davies, Setting (1964), 305–315; Davies/Allison, “Reflections” (1991), 285f. 50 Morton Smith, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (JBL Monograph Series 6), Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature 1951, 78–114, esp. 88ff, 108ff. 51 Zahn, Matthäus (41922), 220. 52 Dupont, Béatitudes I (1958), 178–181. 53 Fitzmyer, Luke (1981), 628f, thus combines the perspective with the theme of justice. 54 Hanssen, “Zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt” (1970), 105f – due to the universal and missionary approach in light of Matt 5,16. 55 Jeremias, Bergpredigt (51965), 22 = Sermon (1961), 23: Matt 5,21–48 Jesus and the theologians; 6,1–18 Jesus and the Pharisees; 6,19–7,27 Jesus and the converts.

3.3 Jewish Roots as Key to the Composition? What about Genre?

259

6,18 is the rationale for all these approaches, but the theory is basically unnecessary. This approach accepts that the SM was a speech to a Jewish audience, but the proponents’ understanding of the text leads to their hypotheses. The approach reads the SM incorrectly as a polemical text. These approaches mostly reflect the view that Jesus/Matthew advocated a so-called replacement theory. More recently H. Frankemölle and M. Konradt have emphasised the continuity. Frankemölle thinks the composition of the Tanach is the model for the arguments in the SM. The three paragraphs in the SM refer to different parts of the Tanach: the Law (5,21ff), the Prophets (6,1– 18) and the Wisdom writings (6,19–34).56 Jesus as Jew makes his comments and is renewing these traditions. The polemical texts are not against Israel or Jews. The SM has no woes – like the SP. It has polemics against the Scribes and Pharisees only in Matt 5,20, and this polemics is vague and general compared to the polemics in Matt 23. In Matt 23 the Scribes and Pharisees are called hypocrites. The polemics against hypocrites in Matt 6,1–18 is different. Only due to the three piety rules (alms, prayer, fasting), which the Pharisees – and Jesus – kept, an identification is possible, but not necessary. Even in Matt 23 the polemics is based on traditional Jewish prophetic criticism, as Moshe Weinfeld has shown.57 The more surprising aspect in the SM is the polemics against the publicans (5,46) and the pagans (ἐθνικοί, 5,47; 6,7.30) and sinners (ἁµαρτωλοί). The two groups publicans and pagans return in the polemics of Matt 18,17. However, none of these texts structures the SM. 3) Jewish proselyte catechism as key. The SM has never – even inside the monasteries – been used as a catechism. Still scholars have interpreted the SM as such and investigated its Jewish parallels, which they found in Jewish proselyte catechisms. P. Carrington58 and E. Selwyn59 elaborated on the pattern, and W.D. Davies made a more comprehensive argument for the thesis in his book on the SM.60 D. Daube offered, on the basis of Jewish texts, new arguments for the same theory.61 Composition in the SM follows a common pattern: invitation/blessings (5,3–16); commandments (5,17–48); charity (6,1–7,12); penalty (7,13–23); reward (7,24–27). The Jewish pattern of catechism continued in

56

Frankemölle, Matthäus (1994), 255. Weinfeld, “The Charge of Hypocrisy in Matthew 23 and in Jewish Sources” (1990). 58 Carrington, Primitive Christian Catechism (1940). 59 Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter (1946/21961), esp. 363ff. 60 Davies, Setting (1964), 370–380. In the commentary by Davies/Allison (Matthew [1997]) this theory has nearly faded out. 61 Daube, New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (1956), particularly in the chapter “A Baptismal Catechism”, 106ff, here 113–135. 57

260

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

Christianity, e.g. in the SM, as British, Swedish62 and some German scholars have suggested.63 H. Schürmann tried to be more precise: it is ‘postbaptismal’ teaching of newly baptized disciples.64 Only the SM has the way motif (7,13f), but the Beatitudes (and Woes, Luke 6,24–26) introduce the two-way structure, which is typical for catechetical texts. The choice between two ways dominates the speech from beginning to end.65 Already Bultmann found ‘catechism-like’ collections of sayings in Matthew/the SM,66 and E. Lohse has more recently emphasised that this was a Christian catechism.67 Thus the Jewish analogies are hardly more than analogies. 4) Genre as key: Hellenistic parallels? Genre often provides the best indication of an outline. Some of the proposals of genre have a great impact on the question of composition, others have little or no impact. Form-criticism had to reflect on genre, and M. Dibelius suggested ‘paraenesis’, which should be an ‘egg of Columbus’ in scholarship. It provided the solution concerning the genre of the SM – plus the Epistle of James and a great number of Christian texts – and one of its criteria is an arbitrary composition. A genre with no compositional plan is nearly an oxymoron, but the applicability of the solution was enormous.68 The form-critical approach was developed at a time when the Church and not the world was the arena for most theological approaches, and formcriticism had similar perspectives to theology in general. The earliest Church, the disciples, were the audience for the SM.69 Pioneers of form-criticism (Bultmann, M. Dibelius)70 emphasised the SM as a catechism. 62 Beijer, Kristologi och etik i Jesu Bergspredikan (1960), 200ff, inspired by Riesenfeld and Gerhardsson, and Jeremias, Sermon (1961), 20–23, support this theory. 63 Alfred Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, Leipzig: Deichert 1903 (= TB 26; München: Kaiser 1966), 9–44, did not recognise the importance of the SM in his treatment. K.-W. Niebuhr, Gesetz und Paränese (1987), presents the most comprehensive analysis of the parallels. His conclusion about the SM, ibid., 232–238, is cautious. 64 Schürmann, Lukasevangelium I (41990), 383. He concludes: “Die Komposition 6,20– 49 scheint in ihren wesentlichen Teilen schon früh katechetisch benutzt worden zu sein” (ibid., 386). He says somehow different on p. 326: “Die Jüngerunterweisung Jesu ist zur Welt hin offen gedacht; die Kirche ist keine sich abschließende Sekte”. Cf. Gottfried Schille, “Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums II”, NTS 4 (1958), 101–114, here 107–110. 65 Radl, Evangelium nach Lukas I (2003), 377. 66 Bultmann, GST, 350f, 354f (‘katechismusähnliche Sammlungen’). 67 Carrington, Primitive Christian Catechism (1940); Lohse, Theologische Ethik des Neuen Testaments (1988), 142 (“katechismusartige Zusammenstellung”). 68 M. Dibelius, Formgeschichte (1919/31959), 247. 69 The ‘Dialectical Theology’ and K. Barth’s conscious change of the title of Christliche Dogmatik (1927) to Kirchliche Dogmatik (1929ff) is typical. Otto Dibelius wrote in 1927 Das Jahrhundert der Kirche: Geschichte, Betrachtung, Umschau und Ziele (Berlin: Furche). This gave plausibility to the theory of the Church as the addressee and the notion

3.3 Jewish Roots as Key to the Composition? What about Genre?

261

H.D. Betz’ proposal of the SM as an epitome comes closer to M. Dibelius’ genre of paraenesis. The parallel is Hellenistic epitomes of gnomic sayings.71 His references to Epicurus’ κυριαὶ δόξαι are more apt than Ben Sira, PseudoPhocylides, Philo’s Hypothetica, 1QS/1QSa, Pirke Abot, etc. Epictetus’ Enchiridion and especially oral instructions (ἀκούσµατα) in Pythagorean schools come close to the SM.72 The very notion of epitome presupposes that rhetorical, compositional skills are lacking. Betz therefore denies at the end that the SM is a literary or rhetorical composition. Betz finds, correctly, sophisticated rhetorical argumentation in the individual passages, but when it comes to composition, he alludes to a general stoic thought pattern.73 It is striking that the SM does not link the sayings through catchwords, etc., like in the Gospel of Thomas.74 Even thematic links are rare. The reason is that the SM represents a different genre. Surprisingly, U. Luz gives in when it comes to the genre of the SM.75 Is the thoroughly sophisticated composition without any parallel? Many proposals will be debated in this book (catechism, paraenesis, wisdom-tract, etc.), but the simplest and best solution is near at hand: The SM is a ‘speech’, a logos protreptikos (protreptic speech, see below).76 If it is this kind of rhetorical speech, it has a Hellenistic character. Is this possible in this type of Jewish speech? And are there analogies to the SM in Hellenistic speeches? The discussion on the speeches in Acts has showed that they have some similarity with the speeches Xenophon, Polybius, Appian and Josephus introduced into their historical narratives.77 Matthew’s speeches have a totally different character. of ‘Gemeindebildungen’. The harsh criticism of the tradition and its fragmentation of the sources did not change anything. 70 Bultmann, GST, 160f (141, 144) for most of Matt 5,21–6,18 and 381f for the whole SM, and M. Dibelius, Formgeschichte (1919/31959), 240ff. 71 First in Essays (1985), 1–16, later in “The Sermon on the Mount: In Defence of a Hypothesis” (1991) and in his Sermon (1995). Cf. Heinrici, Bergpredigt I (1900), 78–81. For an assessment, Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 29–33, 586–593. 72 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 75, refers to Iamblichus, Vit. Pyth. 18,80–87; Diogenes Laertius VIII,17f. 73 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 63f, using the threefold scheme in stoicism: physics, logic and ethics. 74 Simon Gathercole, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences (SNTSMS 151), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012, esp. 131– 134. 75 Luz, Matthäus I (52002), 255f; idem, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 174 (“there is no real analogy … that would permit us to interpret it in terms of its genre”). 76 Cf. Nolland, Luke I (1993), 293 (“A Sermon for disciples”). 77 Xenophon, Hell. II,4,42; VI,5,57; Polybius III,11; XXI,14,4; Appian, Hist. rom. III (= Samnitika); Bell. civ. III,63,257; Josephus, Ant. XVI,384ff.

262

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

Conclusion: The search for pre-texts is necessary, but it is mostly difficult to prove anything, particularly when it comes to composition. A possible similarity of genre gives the best indication.

3.4 Theological Concepts as Key Luther and his followers focused on the theological outline of the SM. Calvin and John Wesley came up with more sophisticated literary outlines than Luther.78 Later on, many theologians together with exegetes have contributed to discover the theological argumentation in the SM. In the 20th century exegetes like e.g. Alfred M. Perry and Josef Kürzinger provided new insights by combining literary and theological aspects.79 The SM can be seen as a treatise on many theological themes. Many interpreters look for a basic theme, a crucial text, a major theological outline.80 1) Righteousness as the main theme. The theme ‘righteousness’ has been in focus since the Reformation. For good reasons exegetes have seen this as the general theme in the SM. The distinct use of the term δικαιοσύνη in Matt 5,3.10.20; 6,1.33 – all of them in crucial sentences – cannot be ignored. Luther did not see the tension between Matt 5,20 and Paul’s concept of δικαιοσύνη. Some Lutheran exegetes have done so later on, and scholars from other denominations have underlined this theme even more.81 According to J.D. Kingsbury the theme of righteousness dominates the whole SM.82 Th. Soiron had the same understanding almost fourty years before,83 and 78 Meistad, Martin Luther and John Wesley on the Sermon on the Mount (1999), 76, reconstructed Luther’s outline in the following way: Matt 5,3–20: Introduction; 5,21–6,18: Teaching Orthodoxy; 6,19–7,12: Application: Orthopraxy; 7,13–27: Christ’s Warnings. 79 Perry, “The Framework of the Sermon on the Mount” (1935); Kürzinger, “Zur Komposition der Bergpredigt nach Matthäus” (1959). 80 Keener, Matthew (1999), 163ff, and many others think it is sufficient to give a description of the content in the paragraph. He and others are often successful in doing so, but as attempts to describe the outline of the SM, this is insufficient. 81 Some see the principle of righteousness in Matt 5,20 as the key to Matt 5,21–7,12 based on Matt 6,33 as key sentence for Matt 6,19ff, cf. Thom, “Justice in the Sermon on the Mount” (2009), 335 (δικαιοσύνη and priorities). Heinrici, Bergpredigt II (1905), 68ff. 82 Kingsbury, “The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount within Matthew” (1978), 136 (Matt 5,3–16: those who practise the greater righteousness; 5,17–48: practise the greater righteousness towards the neighbour; 6,1–18: practise the greater righteousness towards God; 6,19–7,12: practise the greater righteousness in other areas of life; 7,13ff: injunctions on practising the greater righteousness). 83 Soiron, Bergpredigt (1941), 120 (“Die Composition der Bergpredigt”, 98–127), 120f (Matt 5,3–16: the new righteousness/Beatitudes; 5,17–48: the unexpected new righteousness; 6,1–34: practising the new righteousness; 7,1–23: importance and necessity of the new righteousness).

3.4 Theological Concepts as Key

263

more recently e.g. H. Weder,84 W.T. Wilson,85 R. Deines,86 C.H. Talbert,87 J. Thom,88 put the theme of righteousness (justice) in the centre of the discussion, reading the SM as a thematic treatise. 2) Perfection – Matt 5,48 as the key. Righteousness is the theme in five key sentences, perfection only in Matt 5,48. The concept of perfection (τέλειος) has the potential of being a main theme in the SM. Matt 5,48 and 5,20 frame the Antitheses, and they summarize patterns of thoughts elsewhere in the SM. E.g. M. Vahrenhorst thinks wholeness and congruence (in short τέλειος) is the theme in Matt 5,21–48, and even more in Matt 6,1–7,12.89 The spirituality of perfection is rooted in the monastic tradition and plays a significant role for Catholics and Methodists and in fact for Christians from all denominations.90 Matt 19,21 presents an interpretation of τέλειος, in relation to wealth. The horizon for the concept is much wider and covers all themes in the Antitheses and in the SM as a whole. 3) The love commandment. Righteousness and perfection are explicitly mentioned. ‘Love’ is only mentioned in the ‘thesis’/quotation from Lev 19,18. Even so, many scholars, e.g. A. Schlatter,91 O. Hanssen,92 J. Lambrecht,93 J.D. Kingsbury see the love commandment as the key to the SM. Luz thinks 84 Weder, Rede der Reden (1985), 90ff, 156ff: ‘Righteousness and Law’ (“Gerechtigkeit und Gesetz”) and ‘Righteousness coram Deo’ (6,1–7,12). Like Frankemölle he thinks that 6,1 is a key and that 6,2–7,11 develops what righteousness is all about. 85 Wilson, “A Third Form of Righteousness” (2007). 86 Deines, Gerechtigkeit (2004), 95, 446ff. 87 Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount (2004), 62–68, the theme “higher righteousness” is developed in Matt 5,17–7,12. 88 Thom, “Justice in the Sermon on the Mount” (2009), 315f. Cf. Viljoen, “Righteousness and Identity Formation in the Sermon on the Mount” (2013). 89 Vahrenhorst, “Die Bergpredigt als Weisung zur Vollkommenheit” (2007), esp. 128ff. 90 Cf. on Matt 5,48 in particular: Rudolf Schnackenburg, “Die Vollkommenheit des Christen bei Matthäus”, in idem, Christliche Existenz nach dem Neuen Testament, vol. I, München: Kösel 1967, 131–156; Trilling, Das wahre Israel (31964), 192–196; Luck, Die Vollkommenheitsforderung der Bergpredigt (1968); Georg Künzel, Studien zum Gemeindeverständnis des Matthäusevangeliums (CTM.A 10), Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag 1978, 218– 250; Paul Johannes Du Plessis, “Love and Perfection in Mt 5:43–48”, NovT 1 (1967), 28– 34; Hartin, Spirituality of Perfection (1999), ch. 6: “The call to perfection in the Letter of James and the Sermon on the Mount”. 91 Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus (21933/61983), 151: Matt 5,21–48 is the sanctification of the human fellowship (“Heiligung der menschlichen Gemeinschaft”), 6,1–18 is the purification of the devotion (“Reinigung des Gottesdienstes”). 92 Hanssen, “Zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt” (1970), 103f: the paragraph “Church and Judaism”: Matt 5,21ff the new relation to neighbours, 6,1–18 the new relation to God. The paragraph “Church and Gentiles” the same in opposite sequence: 6,19ff the new relation to God, 7,1–12 the new relation to neighbours. 93 Lambrecht, Ich aber sage euch (1984), 27 (5,21–48: “Antithesen”; 6,1–18: “Handeln vor Gott”; 6,19–34: “Unbesorgtheit und Engagement”).

264

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

the love commandment summarizes the Antitheses,94 others that the love commandment structures, as we will see, most of the so-called corpus of the SM. To conclude: Of these central themes, only the theme of righteousness can serve as a key to the composition.

3.5 The Search for Key Texts The conclusion of a book often provides its key and a kind of summary, like Matt 28,18–20. Matt 7,24–27 can be seen as a key to the content and purpose of the SM, but hardly to its composition. Matt 7,21 can also be seen as a key text. Relatively few scholars find crucial texts in Matt 6,19–7,12,95 the paragraphs that are difficult to fit into the composition of the SM. Klaus Berger thinks that 6,19–21 is the key text.96 Few scholars think Matt 6,25ff or 7,1f are crucial texts in the SM.97 The question of outline is closely connected to the question of purpose. However, purpose is a vague term, meaning aim, intention, driving motive, key, or occasion or argumentation, theme, issue, topic, or character, etc. The outline should underline the verses that play a key role, like Matt 5,20 – 5,48 – 7,12.

1) The Antitheses (Matt 5,21–48) and the key text. Matt 5,48 and the theme of perfection summarizes the Antitheses, which some would call the ‘heart of the SM’,98 but few scholars see Matt 5,21ff as the key to the composition. Matt 5,43–48 has the potential of being a key concept, but it does not dominate in the composition.99 2) The Lord’s Prayer as the Key Text. Other scholars consider the Lord’s Prayer or specifically Matt 6,11 as the central theme in the SM. It combines the theme of doing the will of God with a broader theological assessment. As the Lord’s Prayer is the mathematical centre of the SM, this theory often implies a theory of chiastic structure. Some think the Lord’s Prayer provides the outline for the rest of the SM, similarly to the Beatitudes in the theory of Goulder. Tholuck100 referred to previous authors (Gottlieb Philipp Christian Kaiser [1817] and Rudolf Stier [1843], et al.) who saw the Lord’s Prayer as 94

Luz, “Bergpredigt”, RGG4 1 (1998), 1310f. Scholars have the most problems with Matt 7,1–12 in the compositional plan, cf. already Weizsäcker, Das apostolische Zeitalter (31902), 380f. 96 Berger, Jesus (2004), 321ff. 97 Plummer, Luke (1911/81964), 57. 98 Hasler, “Das Herzstück der Bergpredigt” (1959). 99 Smit Sibinga, “Exploring the Composition of Matth. 5–7” (1994), 176, n. 189, lists philosophers from Hegel to Ricœur. 100 Tholuck, Commentary (1869), 23ff. Karl Lachmann laid the foundation in “De ordine narrationum in evangeliis”, TSK 8 (1835), 570–590, and Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte (1838), applied it on the SM. 95

3.5 The Search for Key Texts

265

the centre and the structuring principle of the following sections. Hubert Pernot101 argued along the same lines early in the last century and more recently e.g. Bornkamm and Guelich.102 It is particularly tempting because it structures the problematic passage Matt 6,19–7,12, the sayings “without any logical or real relationship”.103 One can even argue that the whole SM is interpreted in light of the Lord’s Prayer: Matt 5,3–12 interprets the first petition (Kingdom of God), 5,17–48 the second (on the will of God), 6,1–18 the third (on holiness), 6,19–34 the petition of daily bread, 7,1–12 on forgiveness and finally 7,13–27 on “lead us not into temptation”. Other scholars have a more modest approach and see the Lord’s Prayer as the heart of the SM without making it to a key to the outline.104 3) Matt 5,20 (5,17–20) as key text. Most scholars try to find the key to the outline within Matt 5,13–20, mostly seeing 5,17–20 as the key to the composition, which presupposes a more polemic setting for the SM. The question of the Law and the relation to Judaism is then the main issue in the SM.105 As in the last editions of Aland’s Novum Testamentum graece, many scholars isolate Matt 5,20 somewhat from 5,17–20. They see Matt 5,20 as real ‫כלל‬, ‘headline’, for at least the Antitheses,106 but often also for the whole of the SM. Taken together with the obvious key sentence in Matt 6,33, ‘justice/righteousness’ becomes the key term and main theme. This was clearly seen in the liberal exegeses of H.J. Holtzmann107 and J. Weiß.108 J. Jeremias and others have repeated their conclusion.109 Matt 5,17 and 5,20 are key texts; Matt 5,17 is the headline of Matt 5,21– 48, and Matt 5,20 summarizes the theme of Matt 6,1–7,12.110 Matt 5,17 and 7,12 with its stereotypical formulation (τὸν νόµον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας or ὁ 101 H. Pernot, Pages choisies des évangiles, Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1925, 76ff; cf. Smit Sibinga, “Exploring the Composition of Matth. 5–7” (1994), 178. 102 Bornkamm, “Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt” (1977/78). Guelich, Sermon (1982), 36– 39, and Grundmann, Matthäus (1968), 204f, hold a similar view. 103 So Herman Hendrickx, The Sermon on the Mount: Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, London: Chapman 1984, 149, and his arguments in favour of the solution (pp. 108, 128f). 104 Smit Sibinga, “Exploring the Composition of Matth. 5–7” (1994), refers to Bousset and Wellhausen. H.D. Betz thinks similarly. 105 McEleney, “The Principles of the Sermon on the Mount” (1979), also idem, “The Unity and Theme of Matthew 7:1–12” (1994), on Matt 7,1–12. 106 C.G. Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels (21927/1968), 496; Zahn, Matthäus (41922), 220; Klostermann, Lukasevangelium (21929), 77ff. 107 Holtzmann, Die Synoptiker (31901), 205. 108 J. Weiß, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments I/1 (1906), 248 (“das eigentliche Thema der ursprünglichen Bergpredigt”). 109 Jeremias, Sermon (1961), 22f (idem, Bergpredigt [1959], 20). 110 Wilson, “A Third Form of Righteousness” (2007), 305ff. Zahn, Matthäus (41922), 179, argues that Matt 5,19 still belongs to the introduction, whereas Matt 5,20 presents the outline to 5,21–6,34.

266

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

νόµος καὶ οἱ προφῆται) frames the so-called corpus of the SM. The golden rule, Matt 7,12 is in many ways a summary of the SM. However, it is so closely linked to the context in Matt 7,1–11 that it is difficult to see it as a key text for the composition. 4) Matt 5,16 (5,13–16) as key text. In rhetorical terms, Matt 5,13–20 is a propositio (see below). From a merely thematic point of view, however, scholars have seen Matt 5,13–16 as the key text. Especially scholars who interpret the SM as disciple-instructions or underline its missionary purpose are inclined to emphasise Matt 5,16.111 The climax in Matt 5,16 is formulated as a purpose (οὕτως … ὅπως), and some of the terms (τὸ φῶς ὑµῶν – ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων – δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑµῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) and themes (τὰ καλὰ ἔργα) are crucial in the rest of the SM.112 The global and missionary aspects point forward to the great climax in Matthew, Matt 28,18– 20. 5) The Beatitudes as crucial text. Normally we can expect to find the key text in the beginning of a book or a sermon. The first and perhaps best candidate is the very first text in the SM. Since Augustine113 the Beatitudes have been seen as the key text that is reflected in most of the following sections of the SM. Many scholars have picked up Augustine’s idea,114 in the last century Friedrich Grawert (1900), Alphons Schenz (1929), Austin Farrer (1954)115 and particularly the British scholar Michael Goulder.116 He thought more consistently than Augustine117 that the Beatitudes are followed up step by step in the rest of the SM.118 Both Goulder and Allison Trites119 also see a correspondence between the Beatitudes and the warnings at the end of the SM. 111

Heiligenthal, Werke als Zeichen (1983), 122f. Nägelsbach, Schlüssel (1916), 29: “Dieser Satz ist das klar hervortretende Thema der ganzen Rede”. Cf. idem, “Die Einheit der Bergpredigt”, NKZ 39 (1928), 47–76. Also Hanssen, “Zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt” (1970), 111, and esp. Burchard, “Versuch, das Thema der Bergpredigt zu finden” (1975), 432, also idem, “Bergpredigt”, EKL3 1 (1986), 433 (ET: “Sermon on the Mount” [2005], 919). 113 Augustine, Serm. Dom. 3,10–4,11. 114 Smit Sibinga, “Exploring the Composition of Matth. 5–7” (1994), 176, n. 5, mentions Fausto Sozzini (1539–1604) who saw both the Beatitudes and Matt 5,17–20 as exordium. 115 Smit Sibinga, ibid., n. 6, mentions Friedrich Grawert, Die Bergpredigt nach Matthäus, Marburg: Elwert 1900, and Schenz, Bergpredigt (1929). Farrer, St. Matthew and St. Mark (1954), 160–174, is most extensive. 116 Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (1974), 250–268, with a table on p. 269. 117 Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount (2004), 21, clarifies the differences between Augustine and Goulder. 118 Carter, What Are They Saying about Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount? (1994), 35– 39, offers an evaluation and makes critical remarks. 119 Trites, “The Blessings and Warnings of the Kingdom” (1992), underlined the importance of the Beatitudes for the structure of the SM and the correspondence with its ending. 112

3.6 ‘Text-constitutions’ and Other Thematic Proposals

267

3.6 ‘Text-constitutions’ and Other Thematic Proposals To operate with just the outline: introduction (Matt 5,3–16) – body (5,17– 7,12) – conclusion (7,13–37), does not provide much help for the exegesis. Thematic approaches can help, however. 1) ‘Text-constitutions’ (‘Textkonstitutionen’) as the key. The perspective will be too narrow if one chooses only one key word or one theme as key to the composition. W. Egger chooses a better track: he lists many ‘Textkonstitutionen’ in the SM,120 especially ‘theocentric’ and ‘Christological’ expressions constitute the text of the SM: God (5,8.9.34; 6,8.24.30), God as the Father (5,16.45.48; 6,1.4.6.8.9.14.15.18.26.32; 7,11.16 – 15 times), the Kingdom of God (5,3.10.19.19.20; 6,10.33: 7,21 – eight times) and the righteousness of God (5,6.10.20; 6,1.33) and the expressions “truly I say to you” (5,18.26; 6,2.5.16) and “I say to you” (5,20.22.32.32.39.44; 6,25.29). The text-constitutions show that anthropologically-oriented key words are also important, like ἄνθρωπος (5,13.16.19; 6,1.2.5.14.15.18; 7,9.12), heart (5,8.28; 6,21) or ποιεῖν (5,19.32.36.46.47 – 6,1.2.3 – 7,12.17.18.19.21.22.24. 26), seeing/eye (5,16; 6,1.2.4.6.16.22). The analysis of the ‘text-constitutions’ can only be a first step. It provides an overview. The setting of the key sayings in the argumentation is the decisive step. 2) Themes as subsections (περί-structure). The SM can be perceived as a series of topics. In his influential commentary on the SM, Strecker offered an outline based on a περί- (Latin: de) structure,121 which is possible at least in the so-called ‘body’ of the speech. Many themes occur, but Matt 5,17–7,12 has a clear structure through Matthew’s distinct subdivisions (5,17–20; 5,21– 48; 6,1–18; 6,19–7,12).122 It is the style of wisdom literature to have sparse bridges to the next section. The argumentation is, however, extremely clear from one section to the other. Only Matt 6,28 is introduced with the formula περὶ (ἐνδύµατος). Justin reads the Antitheses and some other texts as topoi, as part of school discussions or polemical discourses between schools.123 In his First Apology 120

Egger, “Faktoren der Textkonstitution in der Bergpredigt” (1978). Strecker, Bergpredigt (21985), lists thirteen topics, and in fact for every unit Strecker had more of the form-critical than the rhetorical approach. 122 Because of the inclusion in 5,17/7,12 (νόµος καὶ προφῆται); H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 50–58, sees the ‘body’ as the “central section; on the way of life”, but thinks ‘warnings’ (7,13–23) follow before the conclusion. Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount (2004), 25f, operates with six units, and the body is the four units in 5,17–7,12 on “the higher righteousness”. 123 Justin finds in Matt 5,38–48 two school discussions with separate topics: the first has the theme of “long-suffering and being servant to all” (περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἀνεξικάκους εἶναι καὶ ὑπηρετικοὺς πᾶσι). The theme of “for the benefit of all” (περὶ δὲ τοῦ στέργειν ἅπαντας) is 121

268

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

he refutes some false accusations by quoting “a few of the precepts given by Christ himself”, using about ten περί-paragraphs,124 mostly from the SM. Justin sees the rhetorical setting for the saying. The ten themes demonstrate the moral power of Christianity. 3) Mixing categories (formal, thematic, rhetorical). G. Theißen divides the SM mainly according to form: introduction (5,3–16), programme (5,17–20), Antitheses (5,21–48), piety rules (6,1–18), social paraenesis (6,19–7,11), programmatic summary (7,12), conclusions (7,13–27).125 Many scholars mix form with thematic approaches. R. Guelich defines the three parts: the blessing of the Kingdom (5,3–16), the greater righteousness (5,17–7,12), the alternatives (7,13–27).126 Similarly, E. Lohmeyer has: new people – new teaching – new promises.127 L.M. Faust combines thematic and stylistic divisions, operating with seven strophes (archa, 5,3–16; metarcha, 5,17–20; katatropa, 5,21–48; metakatatropa, 6,1–18; sphragis, 6,19–7,23; epilogos, 7,24–27). He sees the Lord’s Prayer as the key (omphalogos, 6,7–15), and every part has three aspects: to love God, the neighbour and the cross.128 Tholuck, H.D. Betz and J. Fitzmyer mix thematic and rhetorical categories (exordium; peroratio), probably because the thematic issues are dominant and because they as specialists on rhetoric remain unconvinced about the rhetorical structure.129

3.7 Literary Approaches The aesthetic dimension was subordinate to a historical perspective in sourceand form-criticism. Already redaction-criticism evaluated this dimension higher, and it is a major issue in structural analysis,130 text-linguistical and rhetorical approaches. Aesthetics is not a question of aesthetics alone. The literary means lead to the meaning and purpose of the text.

the issue here. Justin, 1 Apol. 16,1, refers to the theme of anger (περὶ ἀοργήτους) and he quotes the first antithesis. 124 Baasland, “Die περί-Formel” (1988), esp. 82f. 125 Theißen, “Urchristliches Ethos” (2005), 214f. 126 Guelich, Sermon (1982), 39. 127 Lohmeyer, Matthäus (41967), 9 (“Das neue Volk – Alte und neue Tora – Alte und neue Gerechtigkeit – die neue Gerechtigkeit – die neue Verheißung”). Similarly, Lioy, Decalogue (2004), 98 (joy – law – direction). He takes the whole ‘body’ as the principle. 128 Ludwig M. Faust, in Monica Dorneich (ed.), Vaterunser-Bibliographie, Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 1988, 11–64, here 15f. 129 Fitzmyer, Luke (1981): introduction, proposition, righteousness of Scribes, righteousness of Pharisees, righteousness of Christians. 130 Kodjak, Structural Analysis (1986), 37–40.

3.7 Literary Approaches

269

3.7.1 Numbers as Key to the Composition The use of numbers is the key to many writings in the Graeco-Roman world and also in the Hebrew Scriptures. This tool is indispensable in oral traditions, and already form-criticism recognised numbers as keys to the composition. Especially the numbers two, three and four are used in folklore, in Hebrew literature and in ancient Graeco-Roman rhetoric. Redaction-criticism and literary criticism see numbers as typical for the author of Matthew – and for the SM. The most ‘Matthean’ parts, Matt 6,1–18 (three piety rules) and 5,21–48 (two times three theses/antitheses), have the number three. The same has the ‘Q-material’ in Matt 6,25 (three questions), 6,25.31.34 (three µεριµνᾶτε/µεριµνήσητε), 6,28 (αὐξάνουσιν, κοπιῶσιν, νήθουσιν), 7,7f (αἰτεῖτε, ζητεῖτε, κρούετε). In the Inaugural Speech we have three (plus one) beatitudes, and at the end there are three threats for the house (ἡ βροχή, οἱ ποταµοί, οἱ ἄνεµοι).131 D.C. Allison goes a step further and opts for a configuration of the SM based on the threefold pattern.132 Many interpreters have in fact seen the triads as the key: M.-J. Lagrange and J. Dupont assumed that the three main parts in the SM have to be divided again into three.133 Like Allison, Glen H. Stassen found fourteen triads in the SM, assuming that the triads are structuring principles in the main body of the SM.134 131 Matthew also has the number three elsewhere (e.g. three temptations, 4,1–11) and fourteen as structural principle (Matt 1,1–18, has both numbers three and fourteen). Cf. Mitton, “Threefoldness in the Teaching of Jesus” (1963/64). W.C. Allen, St. Matthew (31912), LXV, finds compositions of many numerical groups: triads (6,1–18; 6,19–7,6; 3+3 in 6,10–13), but also the numbers two, five and seven. 132 Allison, “The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount” (1987), 438: “The most obvious fact about the Sermon on the Mount is that it is built around triads”. On p. 63 he presents the whole outline: the SM starts with 3x3 beatitudes, (two-three with city images) statements about discipleship, and then the three main pillars: Jesus and the Torah, 5,17–48 (5,21ff has 2x3 antitheses), the Christian cult, 6,1–18 (triad), and 6,19–7,12 (with the triads 6,19–24 and 7,1–6). The SM concludes with three warnings, 7,13–27. Allison argues even more strongly in his “The Configuration of the Sermon on the Mount and Its Meaning”, in idem, Studies in Matthew, Interpretation: Past and Present, Grand Rapids: Baker 2005, 173–216, and Davies/Allison, Matthew (1997), 61–64, like W.C. Allen in his ICC-commentary from 1912, 37f. 133 Lagrange, Matthieu (21923), 77: The three parts (5,17–6,18 on Christian righteousness, 6,19–7,12 the practical application, and 7,13–27 the warnings) all have three steps of argumentation. Dupont, Béatitudes I (1958), 175–184 (cf. 125–174) about his own and his predecessors’ attempts. He goes from the main division into three parts: introduction (5,3– 16), main body (5,17–7,12) and conclusion (7,13–27), to a division of the main body into three parts, but he combines this with a thematic approach. 134 Stassen, “Grace, Deliverance in the Sermon on the Mount” (1992), and more extensively in “The Fourteen Triads of the Sermon on the Mount” (2003).

270

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

Th. Soiron had long before seen the limitations of a consistent triadic structure. He finds the number seven equally important for the structure of the SM.135 The focus on triads or other numbers, however, leads not to any real understanding of the text.136 Ernst von Dobschütz might be more correct when emphasising that ‘stereotypes’ and numbers in general (eight beatitudes, six antitheses, three piety rules, etc.), rather than a specific number, are important in the SM.137 3.7.2 Chiasms and a Concentric Structure Chiasms occur often in ancient literature, and in 1942 Nils W. Lund documented their role in the New Testament.138 Matthew has in general more chiasms than the other evangelists. Even the great speeches have this compositional pattern: Matt 5–7

Matt 10

Matt 13

Matt 18

Matt 23–25

1,937 words crowd/disciples

640 words disciples

929 words crowd/disciples

639 words disciples

2,221 words crowd/disciples

Daniel Patte structures the chiasms primarily as thematic units:139 A 5,3–10 (‘I-Thou’-sayings) B 5,11–16 (vocation) C 5,17–19 (conditions) D 5,20; 6,1 (introductions) E 5,21–47; 6,2–18: The overabundant righteousness D 5,48; 6,19–21 (conclusions) C 6,22–7,12 (conditions) B 7,13–20 (vocation) A 7,21–27 (‘I-Thou’-sayings)

A better way is to see the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6,9–13) as the heart of the SM and as the very centre of a chiastic composition. U. Luz does so, and he finds a very elaborate symmetric pattern.140 135

Soiron, Bergpredigt (1941), 120f; the three main parts (5,17–48; 6,1–34; 7,1–23) all have seven paragraphs. Bultmann, GST, 348f, 381f, states that numbers can be structural principles, but he criticised Soiron from a form-critical point of view (TLZ 43 [1918], 246; Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 24 [1926], 118 on Soirons Logia Jesu [1916]). 136 Thom, “Dyads, Triads and Other Compositional Beasts in the Sermon on the Mount” (2006), broadens the perspective. 137 Dobschütz, Matthäus (1928), 338–349, esp. 342ff. 138 Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament (1942/1992); cf. Lohr, “Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew” (1961), 424–427. 139 Patte, Matthew (1987), 60–65, summarized, p. 65. Cf. idem, Discipleship according to the Sermon on the Mount (1996), 207. Cf. Combrink, Matteus (2007), 48, with Matt 6,1–18 as the centre. He also emphasises the triads. 140 Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 249–256, 259–260.

271

3.7 Literary Approaches

The observation that most of the corresponding passages have exactly141 the same length, i.e. the important passages 5,21–48 and 6,19–7,11, strengthens this view. One could ask: did Matthew really count the letters? The correspondence between the introduction/Beatitudes and conclusion, Matt 7,13–27, speaks in favour of this approach, and even more so the correspondence between 5,17 and 7,12, both mentioning the “Law and the prophets”. The Lord’s Prayer is the centre representing the ‘depth structure’ in the SM: Frame 5,1f Introd. 5,3– Concl. 16 Key words Main teaching On piety Lord’s Prayer

7,28f 7,13– 27 5,17– 20

7,12 5,21– 48

6,19– 7,11 6,1– 6(8)

6,16(14)– 18 6,9–13

The theme of ‘the Kingdom of God’ and of doing the will of God (Matt 6,10), is both the theological and mathematical centre of the SM. However, to see the Lord’s Prayer as the heart of the SM does not necessarily mean that the Lord’s Prayer must be perceived as a compositional principle, and Luz has to stress many arguments in order to reach this artificial composition.142 3.7.3 Structuralism: Text-linguistics in Matthew, but not in the SM? Text-oriented models have increasingly been used in exegesis since the 1970s. They are often blamed for their naivety and inappropriate concentration on the text as such. The formalism and the diversity of methods employed under the umbrella of ‘structuralism’ are problematic. 1) From discourse analysis to structuralism. A first step was taken in Pretoria, inspired by the classical scholar J.P. Louw and his ‘discourse analysis’.143 Later on, text-linguistical methods144 and reader-response theory have been applied to the SM. The latter will be applied in § 4, but it is in general easier

141 Both have 56 lines in Nestle’s edition, NTG27. On chiasm: Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament (1942/1992); Breck, Shape of Biblical Language (1994). 142 For a broader criticism, cf. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People (1992), 298. 143 Johannes P. Louw, “∆ΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ in the Sermon on the Mount”, Neot. 1 (1967), 35–41, marks the starting-point; Du Toit, “Analysis of the Structure of Mt 4,23–5,48” (1977). Cf. Lohr, “Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew” (1961), 408–419. 144 Egger, “Faktoren der Textkonstitution in der Bergpredigt” (1978).

272

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

to apply this approach to the narrative of Matthew than to the speeches.145 Studies of the SM based on the so-called structuralism by e.g. A. Kodjak and D. Patte, have hardly provided any new insights.146 2) Unique speech or Matthew’s product? The relationship between the SM and Matthew as a whole has some impact on the analysis of the composition in the SM. How far has the author influenced the composition of the SM? Style, grammar and vocabulary in the SM are not typical for Matthew, and the SM demonstrates that the SM/‘Matthew’ is not consistent in this respect. He can give variations instead of stereotypes; the perfect triad of 6,1–18 is interrupted three times: 6,7f; 6,9–13; 6,14f. He adds parables to the strictly formulated antitheses (5,23f; 5,25f; 5,29f; 5,46f). The Beatitudes are almost entirely stereotyped, but he adds Matt 5,11f. Matthew handles his sources respectfully, especially the Marcan traditions (= 5,13ff; 5,18; 5,23f; 5,29ff; 6,14f). He uses them in crucial texts: in the propositio (5,13–20), in the Antitheses and as addition to the Lord’s Prayer. The SM/Matthew seems to work with Q in the same way as Matthew worked with Mark: both in the structure and in the style/formulations he elaborates on what his sources designed. The SM is not ‘Matthew’s’ literary and theological effort. The Inaugural Speech had more or less the same composition, which Matthew has treated as respectfully as he treated Mark. Matthew elaborated on his sources with his characteristic techniques. It is important to see how different the five speeches in Matthew are composed. The SM has indeed a totally different rhetorical construction compared to the other four speeches.147 Matt 13 extends Mark 4 with seven parables, and gives this sermon a very sophisticated structure.148 Sophisticated is Matt 18 also.149 Matt 24,32f.40ff–25,45 has seven parables also, extending Mark 13,28ff, but the structure is as sophisticated as in the seven-structure in Matt 13 or the seven woes against the Pharisees in Matt 23 (extending Mark

145 Cf. the Pretoria-project, also Powell (ed.), Methods for Matthew (2009), esp. 44–82 (“Literary approaches and the Gospel of Matthew”). 146 Kodjak, Structural Analysis (1986). Cf. Patte, Discipleship according to the Sermon on the Mount (1996); idem, Challenge of Discipleship (1999). 147 P.F. Ellis, Matthew (1974), analysed all speeches (pp. 31ff, 46ff, 59ff, 67ff, 77ff). 148 Vorster, “The Structure of Matthew 13” (1999). 149 The two big parables in Matt 18 (18,9–14 and 18,22–35) give structure to the whole instruction, as W. Pesch correctly argued, “Die sogenannte Gemeindeordnung Mt 18” (1963); idem, Matthäus als Seelsorger (1966). He divided the chapter into two parts and both parts have a parable as their climax (18,12–14; 18,23–35). The conscious use of parables is the same, but it has a totally different composition. Maisch, “Christsein in Gemeinschaft (Mt 18)” (1991), 250f, similarly suggests four parts (18,1–5.6–14.15–20.21– 35). The σκάνδαλον-motif is used in both speeches (5,29f; 18,7), but differently. More so the use of ‘brother’ (5,21f; 18,15) and of the perspective of ἐκκλησία (18,7, cf. 16,18) gives the speech a much more disciple-oriented perspective than in the SM.

3.8 Arguments in Favour of a Rhetorical Structure

273

12,38–40).150 The disciple speeches in Matt 10 and the eschatological speech, Matt 24,1–39, have a different rhetorical character. They extend Mark 6,7–13 and 13,1–27, so Mark provides the frames not only for these speeches, but also for Matt 13 (= Mark 4) and Matt 18 (= Mark 9,33–50). These two have the nature of interruptions, as have many Hellenistic speeches and the speeches in Luke/Acts.151 This means that the SM is unique, untypical for Matthew. Its rhetoric is based on the Inaugural Speech, but is more developed.

3.8 Arguments in Favour of a Rhetorical Structure John Chrysostom and Augustine – both rhetorically trained orators – read the SM as a rhetorical speech. They did not make things more difficult than necessary and saw the SM as sermo, as a beautiful piece of rhetoric. Later on, the focus was primarily on ethical and theological argumentation, both in medieval study, and in exegeses by Luther, Calvin and other reformers in the 15th and 16th centuries. Authors like Thomas Aquinas and Calvin were open to the rhetorical argumentation as well: Calvin thought the SM consisted of summaries of speeches given on different occasions (“the doctrine of Christ … collected out of his many and various discourses”).152 In the Enlightenment period the emphasis on sciences and facts, compelled scepticism against a rhetorical approach. To perceive the SM as rhetoric (speech), attributed the SM a low rank. It was better to see the SM as a collection of ethical sentences, put together in a more or less arbitrary way.153 It took some time before rhetorical criticism was accepted. H.D. Betz, the pioneer of rhetorical analysis in New Testament research, is more concerned with source-criticism than rhetorical criticism. He denies that the SM is a rhetorical speech. W. Petersen, who investigated the rhetoric of the SM, comes to the same conclusion: he finds rhetorical qualities in nearly every text, but the SM is not really a speech and it does not as a whole follow the concepts of a classical speech.154

150

Garland, Intention of Matthew 23 (1979), 8–23 about its complex structure. The examples in Matt 23,18ff have a more cultic character than Matt 5,34ff. The examples in the Antitheses refer to wisdom traditions, and the attitude toward the Scribes and Pharisees is substantially sharper compared with the SM. 151 M. Dibelius, Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte (61968), 84f. 152 Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (above, p. 45, n. 181), 259. 153 So Petersen, Zur Eigenart des Matthäus (2001), 359: “Die Bergpredigt erscheint zum großen Teil als eine Sammlung von Mahnworten, die Vorbilder in der alttestamentlichen Weisheitsliteratur … haben”. 154 Petersen, ibid., 355ff, 379.

274

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

After exegetes had lifted their voices in favour of rhetorical criticism,155 the real breakthrough came when two classical scholars, G.A. Kennedy156 and J. Thom,157 made a rhetorical analysis of the SM as a deliberative speech.158 1) The SM as a deliberative rhetorical composition. Scholars today are more inclined to see both the SM and SP as sermons, – or better extracts of sermons; if we read the SP in Luke as a sermon, it will take us about four minutes, whereas the SM in Matt 5–7 lasts ten to twelve minutes. The deliberative genre is the oratory of parliamentary and popular politics. Protreptic oratory is used more widely. This latter type looks into the future, gives advice, admonishes, persuades to follow the right way. Addressee Time Place Theme Function

Judicial speech

Deliberative speech

Epideictic speech

Judge/people Present (and past) Courtroom/City gate Law, guilt, judgment To accuse or defend

People Future (and present) Agora/public Decision-making Exhortations, warnings

Individuals, group Past Ceremonial rooms Honour Praise, laudatio

Deliberative rhetoric invites the audience into the speech, using examples,159 exclamations, anastrophe and questions. The real issue is what is good for the people just now and in the future. When the goal is to motivate, exhortations and warnings become essential. The SM is doing exactly this. The SM starts (Matt 5,3–16) almost as an epideictic speech by praising certain people, and Matt 5,17–48 has many elements of a judicial speech. The SM is, however, unmistakably a deliberative speech; clearly so at the end. Matt 7,13–17 uses parables as peroratio and has a protreptic pattern. The deliberative rhetoric looks into the future, and the questions in the peroratio are: There are two gates and two ways leading in totally different directions. The decision is literally of life importance at a crossroad. The SM from the very beginning wants to give advice, admonish and persuade people to follow 155 Dupont, Béatitudes I (1958), 197f; Kremer, “Die Bergpredigt – Weisung Jesu Christi” (1979). Hengel, “Die Bergpredigt im Widerstreit” (1983), 57 (= 2007, 395), argued: “Die vorzügliche Disposition zeigt deutlich – ähnlich wie eine antike Rede – fünf Teile”; Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament (1990), 82–85: “designed to support his depiction of Jesus as the inaugurator of a new ethic of righteousness” (81), and he calls the SM a “deliberative speech” (85). 156 Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric ([1980/]21999), 126ff, then idem, New Testament Interpretation (1984), 44–63. 157 Thom, “Justice in the Sermon on the Mount” (2009). 158 Nils Neumann, “Die Anschaulichkeit der Rede Jesu: Ein Beitrag zur Rhetorik der Bergpredigt”, in Donald Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (BETL 243), Leuven: Peeters 2011, 621–636, focuses only, but correctly, on the use of metaphors (ibid., 622–627) and the form of evidentia in the SM (ibid., 631–636). 159 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation (1984), 46, notices correctly that the phrase συµφέρει σοι in Matt 5,29f is characteristic of classical deliberative oratory.

3.8 Arguments in Favour of a Rhetorical Structure

275

the right way. Simplifications and exaggerations make the message clearer and emotionally richer. Exaggerations and parables challenge people. Antithetical formulations (Matt 5,17–20; 5,21ff; 6,2ff; 6,19.25; 7,1.6, about 40 verses), anastrophe and correctio (theses and antitheses, 5,21–48; 6,2–18), do the same. The SM sometimes addresses the audience directly; terms like προσέχετε (“beware”, 6,1; 7,15) or ἐµβλέψατε (“look”, 6,26) and the plural (5,11f.13– 16, etc.) or singular ‘you’ (5,22.29f.39ff; 7,3ff, etc.) are frequently used. 2) Arguments in favour of a rhetorical approach. There is today a growing consensus that the SM (and the SP = Luke 6,20–49160) has to be seen as a piece of rhetoric.161 It has more and more become an alternative to the understanding of the SM as a collection or epitome.162 From Demosthenes and Cicero to present-day political speeches, the outline of a deliberative speech is flexible, but it normally includes the following elements: – The exordium prepares for certain themes or key terms and provides a horizon or perspective that is necessary for the following messages; – the propositio conveys the crucial message; – the argumentatio lists different arguments, referring to the Law, to piety, to rules of conduct, using examples, quotations and appropriate themes; – the peroratio wants to briefly repeat, and challenge the audience to make decisions, through clear alternatives (7,13f.16–20.24–27) and admonitions (7,15.21–23). The SM is obviously such a deliberative speech. Scholars who follow the rhetorical path will often disagree when it comes to details and exact composition. 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 peroratio. J. Thom has a better proposal,163 and along a similar path I have proposed the following outline:164

160 Wolter, Lukasevangelium (2008), 245: “dem rhetorischen Genus deliberativum … zuzurechnen”. 161 Zeilinger, Zwischen Himmel und Erde (2002), 20–27 (“Matthäus und die Rhetorik”); Fitzmyer, Luke (1981), 628f, has exordium and propositio, 162 It might be the reason for H.D. Betz’ rejecting or ignoring a rhetorical reading of the SM. 163 Thom, “Justice in the Sermon on the Mount” (2009), esp. 315f: 5,3–16 exordium; 5,17–20 propositio; 5,21–7,12 probatio; 7,13ff peroratio. Similarly, another Stellenbosch New Testament scholar, H.J. Bernard Combrink, “The challenge of overflowing righteousness: To learn to live the story of the Gospel of Matthew”, in Jan G. van der Watt (ed.), Identity, Ethics and Ethos in the New Testament (BZNW 141), Berlin: De Gruyter 2006, 23–48, here 33–36. 164 Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 32f and passim, arguing that Matt 5,12/13– 16 ist ‘transitus’ to the real proposition (pp. 71f).

276 Exordium Propositio

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition Probatio (Argumentatio)

Arg. I Arg. II Beatitudes Keywords Antitheses Antitheses 5,3–10 5,12–16 on relation- on piety + 5,11f 5,17–20 ship 6,1–18 5,21–48

Arg. III On anxiety On priority 6,19–34

Peroratio Arg. IV On reciprocity 7,1–12

Conclusion 7,13–27

The exordium and peroratio (beginning and concluding parts) introduce many of the key words: Kingdom of God, righteousness, will of God, hearing and doing. The propositio includes 5,16 (even 5,13–16) and 5,17–20.165 The probatio has four steps of argumentation, which means that the importance of the Lord’s Prayer for the composition or the statistical equal length of 5,21– 48 and 6,19–7,12 or other patterns must not be overemphasised. Rather, the composition is strictly rhetorical, combined with an elaboration of the love commandment: neighbour (5,21–48) – God (6,1–18) – God (6,19–34) – neighbour (7,1–12). Some scholars see Matt 5,13–16 (particularly 5,16) as the propositio, but more scholars suggest Matt 5,17–20 (particularly 5,20) as propositio. Matt 5,17–20 presents a perfect propositio for the ‘Antitheses’. Matt 5,17 and 7,12 form an obvious inclusio. Matt 5,17–20 is, however, hardly the propositio for Matt 6,1–7,12, and we have therefore included Matt 5,12–16 in the propositio. Matt 5,12 has the very first imperative and functions perfectly as the beginning of the propositio, due to its form and its content (the joy and the possible reward), and its close links to 5,13–16.

The argumentatio (5,21–7,12) has four separate parts with seemingly tiny bridges between 5,48/6,1, 6,18/19 and 6,34/7,1. There are, however, some stylistic and thematic links between the four parts. Matt 5,21–48 and 6,1–18 both have the antithetical form, whereas Matt 6,19–7,12 is structured by the four imperatives. The thematic links are equally strong; all four parts illustrate the double commandment: Matt 5,21ff; 7,1ff the commandment to love your neighbour and Matt 6,1ff; 6,19ff the commandment to love God. Why the four topics? They are indeed suitable in a deliberative speech and the actual themes are appropriate in a foundational discourse, dealing with right attitudes towards humans (5,21–48) and God (6,1–18) and with priority (6,19–34) and reciprocity (7,1–12). The discourse balances between polemical corrections (5,21–48; 6,1–18) and basic teaching (6,19–7,12), between exhortations and admonitions.

165 The exordium elaborates on a shorter text in the Inaugural Speech, and the Inaugural Speech also has the ‘bridge’, Matt 5,12, to the propositio. Matt 5,12–16 is the first part of the propositio, and Matt 5,17–20 its second part, – or an excursus (παρέκβασις) to the propositio in Matt 5,(12)13–16. Matt 5,17–20 (and particularly 5,20) as a second part of the propositio introduces the ‘Antitheses’, 5,21–48. This announcement of the proofs should be called πρόθεσις.

3.9 The Orality of the SM: The SM as Oral Performance

277

The division of the SM’s argumentatio into four parts is not uncommon in recent scholarship. However, the awareness of the parables and the rhetorical argumentation makes the role of Matt 6,19–34; 7,1–12 and the four steps of argumentation much clearer: 5,(17–20.)21–48

6,1–18

6,19–34

7,1–11(12)

Right interpretation of the Scriptures Antitheses On true norms Love of neighbour

Right interpretation of piety Antitheses On true reward Loving God

Right relation to earthly goods Antithetical forms On priority Loving God

Right measures and right gifts Antithetical forms On reciprocity Love of neighbour

The first two parts follow the exordium (5,3–12/16), and the last two are followed by the peroration. This consequently corresponds with the two different groups of forms used in the SM: promise/acceptance or refutation (Beatitudes, I-sayings and judgment-sayings, etc.) and statements/exhortations (questions, imperatives, parables, etc.). Matt 7,13–27 serves as a perfect peroratio. It has entirely the character of a parable, and the six or seven either/or-parables make the alternatives clear. There are three obvious objections to this approach: It might be too Hellenistic – in spite of the immense Hellenistic influence on Jewish writings from 200 BCE to 100 CE, we have no parallel to the SM. However, most of the rhetorical style in the SM can be found in Jesus Sirach, 4 Maccabees and other Jewish texts. Secondly, the proposals seem to be too complicated and imply that Jesus (and Paul) had read rhetorical handbooks. The rhetorical plan with exordium, propositio, argumentatio and peroratio, is, however, commonplace. It is largely the structure of most speeches. A third objection, that this proposal is too text-oriented, tells us that the question of text-models is an important one. It is possible and necessary to combine a source-critical and a rhetorical approach. Both are important, but if we ignore the rhetoric we are unable to follow the line of argumentation.

3.9 The Orality of the SM: The SM as Oral Performance If Jesus was the speaker, one could try to re-translate the SM into Hebrew or Aramaic and reconstruct even the ‘poetry of our Lord’ (C.F. Burney).166 These fascinating attempts will always be hypothetical. One should rather concentrate on the literary text as such, but not only from the standpoint of literacy. The composition should also be analysed from the standpoint of hearing. 166

37.

C.F. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord (1925), or Jeremias, Theologie (1971), 5f, cf.

278

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

Orality must be a fundamental perspective. The rhetorical approach fits perfectly into this perspective, together with two or three other observations: 1) The Swedish school and C.H. Lohr. To see the composition in the light of orality has always been the hallmark of ‘tradition-criticism’ in the socalled Swedish school (I. Engnell, H. Riesenfeld, B. Gerhardsson). They argue that the prophetic forms and the sayings of Jesus have an oral character.167 Charles H. Lohr applied a similar perspective to Matthew in 1961:168 Some of the oral techniques in Matthew’s narratives (foreshadowing – retrospection, etc.) are not present in the SM. Other oral techniques are the same in ‘Matthew’ and the SM: – inclusio, 5,1f and 7,28f; 5,3 and 5,10; 7,15 and 7,20 – chiasm/symmetry169 – triads (see above, 3.7.1.) – key words (δικαιοσύνη, ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν, ποιεῖτε, µὴ µεριµνᾶτε or προσέχετε, 6,1; 7,15, etc. – stereotypes/repetitions/refrains (5,3–10; 5,14f; 5,21–48; 6,1–18; 6,25–34; 7,24–27) – grouping of similar material (5,3–10; 5,13–16; 5,17–20; 5,21–48; 6,1–18; 6,19–21; 6,25–34). Lohr also mentions antithetical statements. They dominate the whole speech.170 We do not have the higher or sublime style that Aristotle, Theophrastus and later Longinus describe.171 The SM conveys oral communication, and the literary style fits in with this type of communication. 2) The analysis of B.B. Scott/M.E. Dean.172 Making a sound map of the SM seems rather strange today. In antiquity it was commonplace. Nearly all texts were read aloud and performed in front of an audience or a group of students. Silent reading rarely happened.

167

Ivan Engnell, “Traditionhistorisk metod”, SBU II (1952), 1429–1437. C.H. Lohr, “Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew” (1961), 408–419. 169 C.H. Lohr, ibid., 427f, takes examples from Matthew as a whole. 170 Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), see index; Vorster, “The Structure of Matthew 13” (1999). 171 Aristotle, Rhet. III,2–12. Theophrastus, On style (ἀρεταὶ τῆς λέξεως), must be reconstructed from Cicero’s last work on rhetoric, Orator, but extensively in De or. III,25– 52.149–208, and not so much from Theophrastus, Characters, ed. James Diggle, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004; Longinus, Περὶ ὕψους, cf. George A. Kennedy, “Theophrastus and Stylistic Distinctions”, HSCP 62 (1957), 93–104; James I. Porter, The Sublime in Antiquity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2016 (on the debates before Longinus, pp. 1–56). 172 Scott/Dean, “A Sound Map of the Sermon on the Mount” (1996), 311. 168

3.9 The Orality of the SM: The SM as Oral Performance

279

This kind of research had its heyday a hundred years ago.173 It was overturned by historical questions, and both form- and redaction-criticism excluded this approach. Sound is important in the framework of orality and this corresponds perfectly with a rhetorical approach. Ancient texts were read aloud and the art of recitatio was celebrated in Roman culture, and the SM is according to Matt 7,28 λόγοι. Scott/Dean confirm that the characteristics of orality are present in the SM.174 3) Codex format and the smaller units. The oral recitatio could, however, not be taped/streamed. It had to be transformed into a scroll or rather the codex form. This format is not suitable for longer literary sentences and complex argumentation. Codex pages require longer sequences to be shortened, stylistic features must be simpler, and priority is given to aural rhythm. Conclusions. The composition of the SM is mostly seen as Matthew’s achievement and as his style – as a product of a literary skilled theologian around 80–90 CE. This paragraph challenges that view fundamentally. The Inaugural Speech in Q has for Matthew the same authority as the Marcan text, and he adds to it in the same way and with similar literary techniques as elsewhere. He includes other Q-texts in the framework of the Inaugural Speech and seldom changes the saying when he changes the order of them. Many Q-sayings in Luke’s ‘Travelogue’ are, as we have seen, more identical with the SM (Matt 6,9–13.24.25–32; 7,7f, etc.) than most of the sayings that are taken from the Inaugural Speech. Most scholars tend to see the SM as writing with some literary and substantial theological ambitions and do not pay much attention to the question of genre. The SM does not belong to the genre of ‘paraenesis’, or catechism etc., but has in fact the same genre as the Inaugural Speech: it is a deliberative speech, and the outline generally follows the principles of ancient rhetoric for this kind of speech. The influence from Hebrew rhetoric is visible in the parables, the ‫טוֹב‬-sayings, smaller units, etc., but the SM basically follows the classical patterns of deliberative and protreptic speeches. The prooemium is extremely important. The Beatitudes lay down the premises for the rest of the speech. The content of the exordium is primarily the surprising new entrance requirement to the Kingdom of God. The themes are 173

Wilhelm Schmidt, Der strophische Aufbau des Gesamttextes der vier Evangelien (PHAW), Wien: Holzhausen 1921; Roland Schütz, “Die Bedeutung der Kolometrie für das Neue Testament”, ZNW 21 (1922), 161–184, based on the works of Friedrich Blass, “Zur Frage der Stichometrie der Alten”, Rheinisches Museum 24 (1869), 524–532, and “Stichometrie und Kolometrie”, Rheinisches Museum 34 (1879), 214–236; Charles Graux, “Nouvelles recherches sur la stichométrie”, RevPhil 2 (1878), 97–143. Cf. Schenz, Bergpredigt (1929), who measured the number of words and length of the sentences. 174 Scott/Dean, “A Sound Map of the Sermon on the Mount” (1996), 357–361.

280

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

joy – even in persecution – and to be like prophets, salt, light, etc. (Matt 5,12– 16). The propositio starts in 5,12 and ends in 5,20. Together with the themes of law/commandment and righteousness in 5,17–20, Matt 5,13–16 provides the horizon for the rest of the speech and deals with doing the will of God. Scholars who have seen the Beatitudes and Matt 5,16 and 5,20 as the key are in fact correct, but a rhetorical approach gives this view a solid foundation. The argumentatio (5,21–7,12) has four steps, basically developing the double love commandment. The first step (the so-called Antitheses) confronts authoritative commandments/ethical devices. The second, Matt 6,1–18, confronts three Jewish (and universal) piety rules. Matt 6,19–34 and the fourth step, Matt 7,1–12 confront the basic philosophical-ethical issues of priority/ anxiety and reciprocity. The last part of the speech, the peroratio in Matt 7,13–27, shows the protreptic character of the speech; starting with the classical way/gate motif and admonishing the audience to watch out (7,15), it shows two alternative ways of behaving, ending with the images of the tree/root and the foundation on solid ground.

3.10 A Comparison with Luke The structure of the Inaugural Speech is common to the SM and the SP, starting with the Beatitudes and ending with concluding parables. It is more than a general, formal outline (introduction – body – conclusion). 3.10.1 Possible Headlines for Luke 6,20–49 The headlines which scholars give to Luke 6,20–49 are not always deeply rooted in their interpretations. They indicate, however, aspects of the evaluation and interpretation of the text. The name ‘The Sermon on the Plain’175 tells us next to nothing. Some call Luke 6,20–49 the ‘Sermon at the Mount’.176 Other headlines also give very general descriptions, like “die Lehrtätigkeit/die fundamentale Unterweisung der Jünger (‘Feldrede’)”.177 This and other genre designations are oriented toward the historical Jesus, like “Jesus’ teaching”,178 “Jesus as a humanitarian teacher”,179 “Jesus forms a 175

German: ‘Die Feldrede’, cf. Schweizer, Lukas (1986), 78–84; Bovon, Lukas (1989), 288–343; Eckey, Lukas-Evangelium I (2006), 288–329. 176 Schürmann, Lukasevangelium I (41990), 323ff (“Die Rede am Berge”); Radl, Evangelium nach Lukas I (2003), 200 (“Die Rede am Berg”). 177 H. Klein, Lukasevangelium (2006), 242ff; G. Schneider, Lukas I (31992), 149–163 (“Jesu grundlegende Rede”); Wolter, Lukasevangelium (2008), 245–260 (“Die Rede Jesu”). 178 Bock, Luke I (1994), 548f. 179 Gundry, Luke (2010), 249–253, here 249.

3.10 A Comparison with Luke

281

receptive audience into a people of God’s realm”.180 The same is implied when the focus is more on the audience, like “the life of the Israel of God”,181 “the status and practices of Jesus’ community”, etc.182 3.10.2 A Rhetorical Structure of Luke? Can the SP really be seen as one speech?183 Luke has three different introductions (6,20.27.39), but even so, most scholars see it as one speech with exordium (6,20–26: Beatitudes and Woes), argumentatio (6,27–38: paraenesis) and peroratio (6,39–49). C.F.G. Heinrici and E. Klostermann observed this, giving the three parts headlines like Prophetic teaching (6,20–26), Wisdom teaching (6,27–38) and Poetic teaching (6,39–49).184 M. Wolter has a similar division, and sees the SP correctly as deliberative speech.185 The SM and the SP are difficult to compare from a rhetorical point of view. Both 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.186 Matthew extends – according to his normal procedure – the saying Matt 5,12/Luke 6,23 to a real propositio, clearly implying a deliberative speech. Luke

Matthew

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

A. 5,3–12: exordium Beatitudes plus salt/light sayings B. 5,12(13)–20: propositio C. 5,21–7,12: argumentatio 5,21–38: Four antitheses 5,39–47: On retaliation/loving 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/loving enemies 6,36: Mercy of God as model

6,37: On judging D. 6,39–49: peroratio (Parable speech)

180

Carroll, Luke (2012), 144f. C.P. Evans, Saint Luke (1990), 322–340. 182 Green, Luke (1997), 260–282. 183 Cf. Nolland, Luke I (1993), 293 (“A Sermon for disciples”). 184 Heinrici, Bergpredigt I (1900), 143f; Klostermann, Lukasevangelium (21929), 77f (“prophetisch, gnomisch, parabolisch”). 185 Wolter, Lukasevangelium (2008), 245ff, finds three parts with increasing length (6,20–27.28–38.39–49). 186 Aristotle, Rhet. III,13 (1314a/b). 181

282

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

M.-J. Lagrange and J. Dupont saw a clear rhetorical structure in the SP,187 and more recently J. Kremer and F. Bovon have applied rhetoric to parts of the SP.188 Dupont saw more clearly a rhetorical structure, but Dupont and Kremer applied rhetoric only to parts of the SP.189 Bovon and more recently M. Wolter190 have elaborated further on this aspect in their commentaries. 3.10.3 Luke’s Composition: Subdivision into Two, Three, Four or Five Parts?191 Content and genre are mostly the basis for the division.192 1) The division into three parts. Beatitudes, commandments and parables are the three parts according to the redactional comments in the SP: 6,20: καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ ἔλεγεν. 6,27: ἀλλὰ ὑµῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν 6,39: εἶπεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς. According to this subdivision the following names should be given: The headline for Luke 6,20–26 is mostly “Blessings and Woes” (‘Seligpreisungen und Weherufe’). Some alternatives are suggested: “Two kinds of men”,193 “Gottes Parteilichkeit für die Armen”, etc.194

187 According to Lagrange, Luc (1921), 183, Luke 6,20–26 is “exorde” and 6,46–49 “peroration”. Luke 6,27–38 and 6,39–45 are two steps of the argumentation. 188 Kremer, Lukasevangelium (1992); Bovon, Lukas (1989) = Luke I (2002). 189 Dupont, Béatitudes I (1958), 187, and M.-J. Lagrange think similarly. The parts have increasing length. 190 Wolter, Lukasevangelium (2008), 245ff, sees SP correctly as a deliberative speech in three parts: blessings/woes – arguments – (and sees correctly reciprocity as the main theme) – parabolic speech. 191 Based on pre-texts and tradition-criticism one has to ask: Can 6,39.40.41f be linked to the previous speech? Is Luke 6,46 linked to 6,42ff or 6,47ff? Is 6,47–49 an isolated text? Are there links between the parables in 6,39ff? 192 Bock, Luke I (1994), 566ff (Paraenetic call; Fourfold call to love your enemy; Four illustrations – commandment of love – three illustrations of radical love – summary on love 6,35 – love and the standard of mercy 6,36, four exhortations on judgment), 609ff (parabolic call to righteousness, fruit and wise building); Wiefel, Lukas (1988), 128–141, has nearly the same. Talbert, Reading Luke (1982/2002): 6,20–26: transcending the times, and pp. 71ff he divides the second part into five units: 6,27f.29–31.32–35.36–38.39–45 (ABA 6,39f; 6,41f; 6,43–45) and the final part 6,46–49; Topel, Children of a Compassionate God (2001): the Woes; the Love Command (6,27–36); and the Critique of Judgment (6,37–42). 193 I.H. Marshall, Luke (1978), 245ff. 194 Schweizer, Lukas (1986), 77–80.

3.10 A Comparison with Luke

283

The headline for Luke 6,27–38 is mostly “Love of enemies and other matters”195 or “Love and mercy”,196 or “The call to love of enemies and nonjudgmental generosity”,197 or simply “On love” (Agape – the heart of Jesus’ ethical teaching).198 Another perspective offers the headline “Giving and receiving”199 or “die Aufhebung des Prinzips der ethischen Reziprozität”.200 The headlines for Luke 6,39–49 vary more, but they often focus on the disciples, like “The inward character of disciples” or “The measure of a disciple” or “The importance of what Jesus teaches and the need to act upon it”.201 More like the ending in the SM, Plummer and others call this text “The judgements which await the members of the Kingdom”.202 The subdivision 6,20–26/27–38/39–49 is not undisputed among scholars who find three parts in the SP.203 Other subdivisions are possible, either 6,20–26; 6,27–36; 6,37–49,204 or 6,20–26; 6,27–42; 6,43–49, or 6,20–26; 6,27–45; 6,46–49.205 There are, however, competing alternatives to the ‘three parts’ solution: 2) Two parts. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (6,20–38; 6,39–49)206 and Luke T. Johnson (6,17–35: The prophets’ public preaching; 6,36–49: prophetic wis195 Bovon, Lukas (1989), 306ff (“Feindesliebe und anderes”); Garland, Luke (2012), 272 (“Loving the enemy”). 196 I.H. Marshall, Luke (1978), 257ff; Wiefel, Lukas (1988), 133ff (“Aufruf zu Feindesliebe und Barmherzigkeit”). 197 Nolland, Luke I (1993), 291ff. 198 J.R. Edwards, Luke (2015), 191–207 (“costly discipleship”). 199 Green, Luke (1997), 269–275. 200 Wolter, Lukasevangelium (2008), 254ff. 201 I.H. Marshall, Luke (1978), 267ff, and Green, Luke (1997), 275ff. 202 Plummer, Luke (1911/1964), 192–194. 203 Green, Luke (1997), suggests the following outline: Blessing and Woes (263ff), the measure of a disciple (275ff). I.H. Marshall, Luke (1978), has: Two kinds of men (245ff); the inward character of disciples (267ff). C.P. Evans, Saint Luke (1990), 324ff, and Garland, Luke (2012), 271ff; Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. 1, Philadelphia: Fortress 1986, 205ff, simply follow Luke’s threefold scheme, whereas Nolland, Luke (1993), interprets the outline more: 6,20–26: Beatitudes and Woes, 6,27–38: The importance of what Jesus teaches, and 6,39–49: the need to act upon it. 204 J.R. Edwards, Luke (2015), 193–196 (Blessings and Woes, 6,20–26), 196–202 (Agape – the heart of Jesus’ ethical teaching, 6,27–36), 202–207 (Ethics within the family of faith, 6,37–49). 205 Plummer, Luke (1911/1964), 176–194 (6,20–26: The Qualification necessary for Admission to the Kingdom, 178–183; 6,27–45: Requirement: Duties to be performed by those who are admitted to the Kingdom of God, 183–190; 6,46–49: The judgments which await the members of the Kingdom, 190–194); Schürmann, Lukasevangelium I (41990), 325ff (“Seligpreisungen und Weherufe”; 341ff: “Die neue Weisung”, 6,27–45 – 379ff: 6,27–37 “Das Liebesgebot”, 6,38–45 “Das Liebesgebot als einziger Heilsweg”, 6,46–49 “Schluß”). 206 Engberg-Pedersen, “Giving and Doing” (2009), 269f.

284

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

dom) proposed this outline.207 Both have profound historical and philosophical arguments for this subdivision. 3) Four or five parts. The proposals for subdivisions in four or five parts take the final parables as the peroratio, or they cancel the division in 6,39 and see incisions in 6,35.36.37 or 6,43. 6,20–26; 6,27–38; 6,39–45; 6,46–49208 6,20–26; 6,27–37; 6,38–45; 6,46–49209 6,20–26; 6,27–36; 6,37–42; 6,43–49210 6,20–26; 6,27–35; 6,36–45; 6,46–49.211

If scholars have five parts, it is: 6,20–26; 6,27–36; 6,37–42; 6,43–45; 6,46– 49.212 Do the subdivisions tell us anything about the author’s literary aspirations, or are they there to meet the reader’s need for systematizing? 3.10.4 Principles for Finding a Clear Composition and Subdivisions Few of the great many solutions to the outline of the SM have been applied to the SP. Luke’s structure is – compared with Matthew – somewhat more complicated and sophisticated.213 1) Chiasm? Word count and chiasm must be considered: Luke 6,36 is close to the centre (277 – 290 the centre). The chiasm of 6,31 and 6,36 underlines 207

Johnson, Luke (2006), 105ff and 112ff. Schmithals, Lukas (1980), 79–90 (6,20–26: “Seligpreisungen und Weherufe”; 6,27– 38: “Liebevolles Geben”; 6,39–45: “Die Irrlehrer”; 6,46–49: “Täter des Wortes”); Radl, Evangelium nach Lukas I (2003), 366–437 (6,20–26: “Seligpreisungen und Weherufe”; 6,27–38: “Feindesliebe und Rechtsverzicht”; “Wohltätigkeit und Barmherzigkeit”; 6,39– 45: “Gegen Selbsttäuschung und Falschheit”; 6,46–49: “Schlußmahnung; tun, was Jesus sagt”). 209 Merklein, Jesusgeschichte (1994), 86–95, divides into four units: Luke 6,20–26 – 6,27–36 (positive) – 6,37–42 (negative) – 6,43–49 (criterion); Schweizer, Lukas (1986), has the division 6,20–26: “Gottes Parteilichkeit für die Armen”; 6,27–36: “Das zentrale Gebot der Liebe”; 6,37–42: “Die Liebe als Brüderlichkeit”; 6,43–49: “Wurzelgrund oder Felsgrund”. 210 Stein, Luke (1992), 197–216: 6,20–26 (Beatitudes and Woes); 6,27–36 (Love of One’s Enemies); 6,37–42 (Judging Others); 6,43–49 (Two Foundations). 211 H. Klein, Lukasevangelium (2006), 242 (6,20–26: “Seligpreisungen und Weherufe”; 6,27–35: “Verhalten zu den Außenstehenden”; 6,36–45: “Verhalten zu den Gemeindegliedern”; 6,46–49: “Eschatologischer Abschluss”). 212 G. Schneider, Lukas I (21984), 149ff (6,20–26: “Seligpreisungen und Weherufe”; 6,27–36: “Von der Liebe zu den Feinden”; 6,37–42: “Vom Richten”; 6,43–45: “Warnung vor falschen Lehrern”; 6,46–49: “Schlussgleichnis”). Fitzmyer, Luke (1981), 638ff (6,20– 26: exordium; 6,27–36: Love even your enemy; 6,37–42: Judge not one another; 6,43–45: the role of good deeds: 6,46–49 the need to act on those words). 213 Stylistic signals like καθώς (6,31.36), πλήν (6,24.35), γάρ (6,23.32.38.43.44.45) and δέ (6,39.40.41.45.47.49 – only in the last part of the SP) must be considered. 208

3.10 A Comparison with Luke

285

it. But the function of Luke 6,36 is open: is it conclusion, headline, bridge or emphatic statement?214 2) Themes and key words? Some terms are repeated and occur in key sentences. In linguistic analyses they are often called ‘text-constitutions’. Three of them are common to the SP and the SM: – ἀγαπάω is used six times (four times in Luke 6,32, plus 6,27.35). The SM has the term five times (including 6,24 = Luke 16,13). – ποιέω – like the SM (at least 12 times) – nine times (6,27.31.31.33.43.43. 46.47.49) – δίδωµι – four times in 6,30.38.38.38 (the SM five times) The SP emphasises certain themes more than Matthew (and probably the IS): – Ἀγαθοποιέω combines the notion of love and doing (three times, 6,33.33.35). – χάρις and µισθός, both three times in 6,32.33.34. Luke more than Matthew has the motif of reward.215 – deals with lending, δανίζειν, three times in Luke 6,34.34.35, plus τὰ ἴσα – Κρίνω and καταδικάζω are both used twice (in 6,37). It is possible to summarize many of these text-constitutions under one umbrella. A fresh approach was provided by T. Engberg-Pedersen, who sees ‘Giving and doing’ as the ‘philosophical coherence’ of the SP.216 Is perhaps ‘reciprocity’ the thematic centre? 3) Numbers. The numbers three and especially four play an important role in the SP: (a) Four blessings and four woes: µακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί, µακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν, µακάριοι οἱ κλαίοντες νῦν, µακάριοί ἐστε ὅταν µισήσωσιν ὑµᾶς οἱ ἄνθρωποι

οὐαὶ ὑµῖν τοῖς πλουσίοις, οὐαὶ ὑµῖν, οἱ ἐµπεπλησµένοι νῦν, οὐαί, οἱ γελῶντες νῦν, οὐαὶ ὅταν ὑµᾶς καλῶς εἴπωσιν πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι

(b) Four exhortations, exemplified with four imperatives: ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς µισοῦσιν ὑµᾶς, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωµένους ὑµᾶς, προσεύχεσθε περὶ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑµᾶς

Four examples: πάρεχε µὴ κωλύσῃς δίδου µὴ ἀπαίτει

214 Is 6,35 conclusion or new argument? Wolter, Lukasevangelium (2008), 259f, sees 6,32–34 as boundary marker, 6,35 as identity marker – and he links 6,36 to 6,32–35. 215 Luke 6,35 has the word µισθός. Luke doubles it through χάρις. 216 Engberg-Pedersen, “Giving and Doing” (2009).

286

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

Luke’s rhetorical interests are visible in the middle section (Luke 6,27–38):217 The most specific introduction in the triple structure of his speech (6,20– 26; 6,27–38; 6,39–49) is 6,27: ἀλλὰ ὑµῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν.218 The 14 imperatives in this short paragraph repeat Luke’s favourite verb ἀγαπᾶν.219 (c) Four exhortations (6,31–36) within a chiastic frame (καθώς, 6,31.36): The two general theological sentences frame the imperatives in a chiastic structure (6,31: καθὼς θέλετε) and 6,36, καθὼς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν): καθὼς θέλετε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς ὁµοίως. εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς, ποία ὑµῖν χάρις ἐστίν; … ἐὰν ἀγαθοποιῆτε τοὺς ἀγαθοποιοῦντας ὑµᾶς, ποία ὑµῖν χάρις ἐστίν; ἐὰν δανίσητε παρ᾿ ὧν ἐλπίζετε λαβεῖν, ποία ὑµῖν χάρις [ἐστίν]; … ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν καὶ ἀγαθοποιεῖτε καὶ δανίζετε µηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες· … Γίνεσθε οἰκτίρµονες καθὼς [καὶ] ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν οἰκτίρµων ἐστίν. ‘The Golden Rule’ is one of the twelve imperatives, but in spite of its place in the middle of six examples, it is like Matt 7,12, the general principle. It has a specific position, both in the chiastic structure and embedded in sayings on retaliation, giving the Golden Rule a clear meaning: 6,30: καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντος τὰ σὰ µὴ ἀπαίτει 6,31: καθὼς θέλετε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς ὁµοίως. 6,32: καὶ εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς … Compared to Matthew, only the two key sentences occur in a different order,220 the Golden Rule,221 and the key sentences about God as model

217 Wolter, Lukasevangelium (2008), 245; Engberg-Pedersen, “Giving and Doing” (2009). 218 Luke 6,20 (εἰς τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ) and 6,39 (εἶπεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς). 219 Used six times. Luke’s repetitions in 6,28.32.37 show the pattern of thought: 6,28: Love your enemies 6,32: Love your 6,37: If you love those who love enemies, you, Do good to those who hate you do good to them if you do good to those who … Bless those who curse you … lend to them … if you lend to those from whom … Cf. ἀγαθοποιεῖν used in 6,33: ἐὰν ἀγαθοποιῆτε τοὺς ἀγαθοποιοῦντας ὑµᾶς, and 6,35: πλὴν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν καὶ ἀγαθοποιεῖτε. 220 Other differences in order are insignificant (like Matt 5,40; Luke 6,39: tunic and cloak?). 221 Matt 7,12 concludes an entire section (7,1–11 or even 5,21–7,11), whereas Luke 6,31 concludes only the argument of enemy-love/non-retaliation (Luke 6,27–30).

3.10 A Comparison with Luke

287

(6,36).222 This implies that Luke links the logia on non-retaliation (fifth antithesis) with the logia on loving your enemy (sixth antithesis). Both key sentences (6,31.36) have an imperative form. These imperatives give Luke’s SP a different character. The structure, the key sentence in 6,35 and many imperatives (6,36.37) emphasise the perspective of reward. The variation of commandments (examples etc.) and general theses yield a clear pattern: the key sentences (6,31.36), the four reward texts (in 6,32– 35.38). (d) Four imperatives (6,37–38): µὴ κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ µὴ κριθῆτε· καὶ µὴ καταδικάζετε, καὶ οὐ µὴ καταδικασθῆτε. ἀπολύετε, καὶ ἀπολυθήσεσθε· δίδοτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑµῖν· µέτρον καλὸν πεπιεσµένον σεσαλευµένον ὑπερεκχυννόµενον δώσουσιν εἰς τὸν κόλπον ὑµῶν· ᾧ γὰρ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε ἀντιµετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν. The metaphorical saying in Luke 6,38 (ᾧ γὰρ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε ἀντιµετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν = Matt 7,2) is a sort of conclusion and demonstrates the conscious structure in the SP.223 (e) The admonitions (2x3 prohibitions) plus final questions (2x2 examples). Parabolic sayings (6,39–44): µήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν; οὐχὶ ἀµφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον ἐµπεσοῦνται; οὐκ ἔστιν µαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον· Τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου· ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ σου, ἔκβαλε πρῶτον τὴν δοκὸν ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλµοῦ σου. Οὐ γάρ ἐστιν δένδρον καλὸν ποιοῦν καρπὸν σαπρόν, οὐδὲ πάλιν δένδρον σαπρὸν ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλόν. οὐ γὰρ ἐξ ἀκανθῶν συλλέγουσιν σῦκα οὐδὲ ἐκ βάτου σταφυλὴν τρυγῶσιν. The five/six parables are listed without applications and transitional comments. 222 Justin conflates Matt 5,48 and Luke 6,36 in Justin, 1 Apol. 15,13; Dial. 96,3: γίνεσθε δὲ χρηστοὶ καὶ οἰκτίρµονες, ὡς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν χρηστός ἐστι καὶ οἰκτίρµων. 223 Engberg-Pedersen, “Giving and Doing” (2009), 267f, 279–287, and his criticism of H.D. Betz’ view in “Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, ABD 5 (1992), 1107–1109 (The SM: Exordium – Central section – Concluding section, and the SP: Exordium – Main body – Peroration in 6,46–49), more developed in idem, Sermon (1995), 51–57, 66–69.

288

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

(f) Final question and two final parables: The two concluding parables illustrate that doing (ποιεῖν) is the issue (6,46–49). Τί δέ µε καλεῖτε· κύριε κύριε, καὶ οὐ ποιεῖτε ἃ λέγω; Πᾶς ὁ ἐρχόµενος πρός µε καὶ ἀκούων µου τῶν λόγων καὶ ποιῶν αὐτούς, ὑποδείξω ὑµῖν τίνι ἐστὶν ὅµοιος· ὅµοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδοµοῦντι … ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας καὶ µὴ ποιήσας ὅµοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδοµήσαντι … 4) Comparison with the SM. The summary statements (Luke 6,31.35.36) and the words on judging/measuring function in the same way, and the wording is similar. The profile of their teaching is different: the SM is more radical, has more warnings, refers to the Jewish Law and Jewish practices, has less reciprocity. The SP refers more to outsiders (rich, enemies) and has the Golden Rule in the middle of the argument (6,31). To conclude: The SP has a clear rhetorical outline, with the trias: exordium – argumentatio – peroratio. The SP lacks, however, a proposition, which is a ‘must’ in a protreptic speech. Luke rather offers three speeches in one: an exordium with an epideictic beginning combined with scolding accusations, continued by ethical exhortations and argumentation in favor of true reciprocity, ending with parables that force to decision-making. The Golden Rule (6,32) and the be-like-God saying (6,36) are basic statements in the argumentation. The numbers play less a role than in the SM with its triads etc., rather the number four has a predominant place in the SP. The rhythm is even stronger than in the SM, and could prove a literary character, but indicates rather oral communication.

Appendix: Orality in Luke? The oral structure/composition of the SP is: 1. Exordium 20

Καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ ἔλεγεν· µακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί, – ὅτι ὑµετέρα ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. 21 µακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν, – ὅτι χορτασθήσεσθε. µακάριοι οἱ κλαίοντες νῦν, – ὅτι γελάσετε. 22 µακάριοί ἐστε – ὅταν µισήσωσιν ὑµᾶς οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ ὅταν ἀφορίσωσιν ὑµᾶς καὶ ὀνειδίσωσιν καὶ ἐκβάλωσιν τὸ ὄνοµα ὑµῶν ὡς πονηρὸν ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου· 23 χάρητε ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ καὶ σκιρτήσατε,

Appendix: Orality in Luke?

ἰδοὺ γὰρ ὁ µισθὸς ὑµῶν πολὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ· κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίουν τοῖς προφήταις οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν. 24 Πλὴν οὐαὶ ὑµῖν τοῖς πλουσίοις, – ὅτι ἀπέχετε τὴν παράκλησιν ὑµῶν. 25 οὐαὶ ὑµῖν, οἱ ἐµπεπλησµένοι νῦν, – ὅτι πεινάσετε. οὐαί, οἱ γελῶντες νῦν, – ὅτι πενθήσετε καὶ κλαύσετε. 26 οὐαὶ – ὅταν ὑµᾶς καλῶς εἴπωσιν πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι· κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίουν τοῖς ψευδοπροφήταις οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν. 2. Argumentatio 27

Ἀλλὰ ὑµῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν· ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς µισοῦσιν ὑµᾶς, 28 εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωµένους ὑµᾶς, προσεύχεσθε περὶ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑµᾶς. 29 τῷ τύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱµάτιον καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα µὴ κωλύσῃς. 30 παντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντος τὰ σὰ µὴ ἀπαίτει. 31 Καὶ καθὼς θέλετε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς ὁµοίως. 32 καὶ εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς, ποία ὑµῖν χάρις ἐστίν; καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἁµαρτωλοὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶσιν. 33 καὶ [γὰρ] ἐὰν ἀγαθοποιῆτε τοὺς ἀγαθοποιοῦντας ὑµᾶς, ποία ὑµῖν χάρις ἐστίν; καὶ οἱ ἁµαρτωλοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν. 34 καὶ ἐὰν δανίσητε παρ᾿ ὧν ἐλπίζετε λαβεῖν, ποία ὑµῖν χάρις; καὶ ἁµαρτωλοὶ ἁµαρτωλοῖς δανίζουσιν ἵνα ἀπολάβωσιν τὰ ἴσα. 35 πλὴν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν καὶ ἀγαθοποιεῖτε καὶ δανίζετε µηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες· καὶ ἔσται ὁ µισθὸς ὑµῶν πολύς, καὶ ἔσεσθε υἱοὶ ὑψίστου, ὅτι αὐτὸς χρηστός ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀχαρίστους καὶ πονηρούς. 36 Γίνεσθε οἰκτίρµονες καθὼς [καὶ] ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν οἰκτίρµων ἐστίν. 37 Καὶ µὴ κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ µὴ κριθῆτε· καὶ µὴ καταδικάζετε, καὶ οὐ µὴ καταδικασθῆτε. ἀπολύετε, καὶ ἀπολυθήσεσθε· 38 δίδοτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑµῖν·

289

290

§ 3 Decomposition or Composition

µέτρον καλὸν πεπιεσµένον σεσαλευµένον ὑπερεκχυννόµενον δώσουσιν εἰς τὸν κόλπον ὑµῶν· ᾧ γὰρ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε ἀντιµετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν. 3. Peroratio 39

Εἶπεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς· µήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν; οὐχὶ ἀµφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον ἐµπεσοῦνται; 40 οὐκ ἔστιν µαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον· κατηρτισµένος δὲ πᾶς ἔσται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ. 41 Τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, τὴν δὲ δοκὸν τὴν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ ὀφθαλµῷ οὐ κατανοεῖς; 42 πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου· ἀδελφέ, ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ σου, αὐτὸς τὴν ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ σου δοκὸν οὐ βλέπων; ὑποκριτά, ἔκβαλε πρῶτον τὴν δοκὸν ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλµοῦ σου, καὶ τότε διαβλέψεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου ἐκβαλεῖν. 43 Οὐ γάρ ἐστιν δένδρον καλὸν ποιοῦν καρπὸν σαπρόν, οὐδὲ πάλιν δένδρον σαπρὸν ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλόν. 44 ἕκαστον γὰρ δένδρον ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου καρποῦ γινώσκεται· οὐ γὰρ ἐξ ἀκανθῶν συλλέγουσιν σῦκα οὐδὲ ἐκ βάτου σταφυλὴν τρυγῶσιν. 45 ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας προφέρει τὸ ἀγαθόν, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ προφέρει τὸ πονηρόν· ἐκ γὰρ περισσεύµατος καρδίας λαλεῖ τὸ στόµα αὐτοῦ. 46 Τί δέ µε καλεῖτε· κύριε κύριε, καὶ οὐ ποιεῖτε ἃ λέγω; 47 Πᾶς ὁ ἐρχόµενος πρός µε καὶ ἀκούων µου τῶν λόγων καὶ ποιῶν αὐτούς, ὑποδείξω ὑµῖν τίνι ἐστὶν ὅµοιος· 48 ὅµοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδοµοῦντι οἰκίαν ὃς ἔσκαψεν καὶ ἐβάθυνεν καὶ ἔθηκεν θεµέλιον ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν· πληµµύρης δὲ γενοµένης προσέρηξεν ὁ ποταµὸς τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν σαλεῦσαι αὐτὴν διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδοµῆσθαι αὐτήν. 49 ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας καὶ µὴ ποιήσας ὅµοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδοµήσαντι οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν χωρὶς θεµελίου, ᾗ προσέρηξεν ὁ ποταµός, καὶ εὐθὺς συνέπεσεν καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ ῥῆγµα τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης µέγα.

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount: A New Approach Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian and every speaker know that the audience has an immense impact on the message. The speaker has to design the message in order to please, to challenge, to provide the information the audience needs, etc. Reflection on the situation and needs of the audience was therefore part of the inventio in rhetoric: the preparation and selection of arguments, selection of examples, etc.1 In the whole speech the audience is more or less present in the presentation. We can see how far the speech wants to please, persuade, inform or challenge the audience. What about the SM? Jesus’ historical audience had not too much in common with the audience around 80 CE in Joppa, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, etc., the communities in Italy, Egypt after 325/390 CE – or the multicultural audiences today. If the audience determines the message, what impact have changes of an audience of the SM? We do know a great deal about the first audience, but the debates go still on: Did Jesus have a particular group of disciples or a general audience in mind? Was it a speech to Jews, a separate or particular group among the Jews? Were some gentiles included? We know less about the communities who heard/read copies of Matthew for the first time. Did those who designed the SM or the Inaugural Speech consider the changes in the audiences? A basic question must be raised independently of all changes in time and place: Is the SM disciple-ethics or ethics for a general audience? Does the SM formulate “universal ethical statements” or is it a sectarian ethos? Is it an either/or?2 Recent scholarship gives contradictory answers, due to different approaches and premises. 1

Aristotle, Rhet. I,3 (1358bff), II,12.17 (1388b–1391b); Cicero, Or. Brut. 37; Quintilian, Inst. III,8,1,38. Cf. more recent rhetorical efforts, Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca, New Rhetoric (1969), 17–40. 2 Dale C. Allison, jr., “The Problem of Audience”, in idem, Resurrecting Jesus, New York: T&T Clark 2005, 27–55, here 33–47. “Jesus may Himself have taught on two levels” (ibid., 33). Allison argues in the same way as Aukrust, “Bergpredigt II” , TRE 5 (1980), 618–626: Both radical and moderate demands (“ermäßigte ethische Forderungen”) occur in the SM.

292

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

1) The Audience of the SM. One cannot approach ancient and modern texts in the same way. Historical and purely literary texts must also be treated differently. The challenges for the interpreter are still similar. In the case of the SM, one should differentiate between ‘audience’ (listeners) and ‘addressees’ (readers) and between the level of orality and the level of literacy. On the level of orality, one operates with audience/listeners, while on the level of literacy we do not so much speak of audience as of addressees and readers. It can be visualized in the following way.3 Rhetor or Author

Text

Audience or Recipients

teacher/‘fictitious’ author

Jesus

IS

audience

real/implicit author

‘Matthew’

SM

addressees/ readers

Jews, Galileans disciples or Pharisees, Scribes, etc. Matthew’s community or general addressees

Is the basic question how to reconstruct the historical audience of the SM? Or have exegetes since redaction-criticism raised the correct question: whom is Matthew addressing? The relation between Jesus’ historical audience and Matthew’s real readers is indeed a crucial problem. In order to reconstruct the historical audience of the SM, the context is extremely important, both the historical context and the framework in Matthew. This framework is formed by Matthew, and the question is: does it really reflect the historical context, or rather the situation in Matthew’s community around the year 80 CE? 2) Reception theory. ‘Reader’ is a slippery term which might mean the real reader, intended reader, or super-reader, informed reader, ’ideal reader’, etc.4 Similarly, ‘author’ can be both a real and a ‘fictitious’ author. In ancient oral texts, the author is often more real than what literary critics call the real or implicit author. The so-called reader-response analysis has provided clearer categories and better tools for this effort. After the first publication from the Konstanzschool (H.R. Jauß, W. Iser, M. Fuhrmann) fifty years ago,5 reception-criticism or reader-response criticism6 has been applied in New Testament scholarship 3 The categories are developed further in Hannelore Link, Rezeptionsforschung (UTB 215), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 21980, 25–28, 39–42. She differentiates between “fiktive, implizite, reale Leser” also. 4 Particularly Iser, Implied Reader (1974). 5 Hans Robert Jauß, Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwissenschaft, Konstanz: Universitäts-Verlag 1967; idem, Ästhetische Erfahrung und literarische Hermeneutik, vol. 1, München: Fink 1977 = ET, Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutics, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 1982; Iser, Act of Reading (1978). 6 Stanley E. Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1980; idem, Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies,

4.1 The Theological Question

293

also.7 Reception-criticism and reader-response criticism are not the same method. They may have some interests, perspectives and tools in common, but the tools have been applied differently and are constantly re(de)fined. What kind of reader-response criticism is useful in SM-research? 6) The procedure. The question of audience will be illuminated from four perspectives. The first ([a]–[c]) are traditional approaches, the last one ([d]) is partly a fresh approach. (a) Both exegetes and theologians answer the question on the basis of the content of the SM (§ 4.1). (b) The frame in Matt 5,1f; 7,28f and Luke 6,20; 7,1 refers – correctly or incorrectly – to the historical audience of the SM. The frame can be analysed both on the level of orality and on the level of literacy, as part of Matthew’s literary strategy in the SM (§ 4.2). (c) To establish a comprehensive approach the impact of sources and genre must be considered (§ 4.3). (d) So-called ‘audience-criticism’ was introduced in the 1960s as a tool for redaction-criticism. The recent reader-response analysis provides a better tool for analysis. Is it possible to define a new approach to the sayings in the SM from an ‘audience’ perspective?

4.1 The Theological Question This question of audience has intrigued the interpreters from the very beginning. The so-called radicalism in the SM,8 in fact most of the ethical sayings and not only the extreme radical demands, speaks in favour of interpreting the SM as disciple-ethics: only devoted persons/disciples could fulfil this radical ethos.

Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press 1989; Norman Holland, Readers Reading, New Haven: Yale University Press 1975 (using psychological insights), and in France: Roland Barthes, Essais critiques, Paris: Éditions du Seuil 1981 = ET, Critical Essays, Evanston: Northwestern University Press 1981; idem, L’aventure sémiologique, Paris: Éditions du Seuil 1985 = ET, The Semiotic Challenge, Berkeley: University of California Press 1994. 7 James L. Resseguie, “Reader-Response Criticism and the Synoptic Gospels”, JAAR 52 (1984), 307–324; Robert M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark, Minneapolis: Fortress 1991. The first seminar in the Society of New Testament Studies on reception theory and the New Testament took place in Trondheim 1985. This tool has been applied on Matthean texts and in the general analysis of the Gospels (esp. Luke/Acts), but not on the SM as such. 8 It is particularly linked to the question of audience. G. Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (1988), 15 (“Fragestellung”), starts with the question of audience and moves immediately to the question of radicalism.

294

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

The answer cannot be given on the exegetical level alone. Theologians (or philosophers/competent readers) have often profound reflections on this topic. 4.1.1 A Brief History of Research before 1650 For the Jew Trypho 9 in the second century CE and the majority of Christian interpreters, the answer is clear: only a specific group of disciples are addressed. For many exegetes this question of audience and the answer discipleethics are the very keys to understanding the SM and the most important issue in research on the SM.10 The interpretation in the Early Church reflects the fact that Christians in the beginning were a minority, and as such they could practice the ethos of the SM. After Constantine, Christians became the majority, and the universal character of its ethos came into focus, and was seen within the framework of Hellenistic ethics. Augustine argued that the SM promoted a new type of virtue-ethics, and John Chrysostom saw in the SM a new politeia that transcends the politeia of Plato.11 A new development began after 529, when Benedict’s Rule and monastical exegesis assigned the radical demands a central role. The monasteries wanted the eremites to practice the ethos of the SM.12 This ethos was not designed for a general audience. Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas developed a theological distinction between mandates and optional counsels and understood the SM as optional counsels for the clergy.13 Luther basically continued the monastic exegesis and introduced a new differentiation: between demands made on the individual Christian, and laws of society. Everyone should fulfil the radical demands according to his/her calling in private life, but for the state and its official affairs, other standards exist.14 Calvin had in fact also a double standard, but a different one. During his time as ruler in Geneva he was, as active politician, in open conflict with the principles of the SM. Or did he launch the discussion on compromises in ethics?15 9

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho 10. Programmatic by esp. Bornhäuser, Bergpredigt (21927), 4–21; G. Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (1988). 11 Mitchell, “John Chrysostom” (2007). 12 Esp. Beyschlag, Die Bergpredigt und Franz von Assisi (1955). 13 Cf. Kantzenbach, Bergpredigt (1982), 25ff; Boyd Taylor Coolman, “Hugh of St. Victor”, in Greenman et al. (eds.), Sermon (2007), 59–80. 14 M. Luther, educated as an Augustinian priest, elaborated on Augustine’s concept of the two Kingdoms. Augustine’s major work De civitate Dei was written a long time after his Sermo Domini in monte which he wrote in his youth. 15 Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (above, p. 45, n. 181), 66ff, and Aukrust, “Bergpredigt II” , TRE 5 (1980), 618–626. 10

4.1 The Theological Question

295

The left wing of the reformation (Anabaptists, etc.), on the other hand, tried to live out the radical demands of the SM literally, – as demands to every Christian and to society. This understanding has been suppressed by the established churches and governments for a long time. 4.1.2 The Debates after 1650 After 1650 we can see four distinct positions in theology and exegesis: (a) The SM is an ethos for disciples (individuals, the Church). Pietistic exegesis saw the radical demands of the SM as obligations for every Christian. For John Wesley, Baptists and Pentecostals, the SM expresses what sanctification, holiness and perfection is all about. Liberal exegesis tends to argue in the same way. ‘Secular’ pietism was nourished by the Lutheran tradition and by the scholarly exegesis of their time. Some Catholic scholars criticized their too modern and contextualized interpretation.16 Modern pietistic approaches argue either historically (K. Bornhäuser, G. Lohfink, et al.) or theologically17 in favour of the position that the SM is “a manual for Christian members”.18 Individualistic approaches have been predominant, but many theologians prefer a broader concept of ‘discipleship’; Roman-Catholic and Orthodox Churches19 and also ‘Protestants’20 argue that the Church as such, and not only individuals, are recipients of the demands. D. Bonhoeffer21 and W. Lütgert argued in times of crisis in Germany vehemently for this position: the 16 L. Goumaz, “Le Sermon sur la Montagne constitue-t-il tout l’Évangile?”, RTP 36 (1903), 105–135, criticized the position for being ‘modern and German’ (ibid., 113). 17 Next to G. Lohfink, ‘Evangelical’ theologians, cf. Stott, Christian counter-culture (1978); Carson, Sermon on the Mount (1978); and e.g. Burkhardt, “Die Bergpredigt – eine allgemeine Handlungsanweisung?” (1984) (“nur an Jünger Jesu”, 140), and idem, Einführung in die Ethik, Part 1: Grund und Norm sittlichen Handelns (Fundamentalethik), Gießen: Brunnen 42017, 20 (“nur für Christen”/“spezifisch christliche Ethik”), 165 (“für alle Christen”). 18 So e.g. Paul S. Minear, Matthew, the Teacher’s Gospel, New York: Pilgrims Press 1982, 45. 19 Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom, Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press 1988, 66ff; Vigen Guroian, Ethics after Christendom: Towards an Ecclesial Christian Ethic, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1994, esp. 60ff. Armenian and in general Orthodox theologians often criticise Western individualism and ‘textualism’ for not taking into account the liturgy and Eucharist, e.g. John D. Zizioulas, Being in Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church, Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press 1985, 114f; John E. Thiel, “Theological Responsibility: Beyond the Classical Paradigm”, TS 47 (1986), 573–598, here 580–582. 20 Hauerwas, A Community of Character (1980); cf. Paul Lehmann, Ethics in a Christian Context, Westport: Greenwood 1963, 28f; Wolfgang Trillhaas, Ethik, Berlin: De Gruyter 31970, 18. 21 Bonhoeffer, Nachfolge (1937) = Cost of Discipleship (1949).

296

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

Church had to obey the demands of the SM. Jesus’ commandments should be followed, not the regulations of the Nazi regime. Stanley Hauerwas22 has recently argued similarly: The sayings in the SM are an interpretation of Jesus’ life. Jesus’ life describes what the lives of those gathered by and around him, should be like. The addressees are not just individuals, but the Christian community. There are few parallels to general ethical arguments in the SM, and its theological ethics must therefore be labelled disciple-ethics. (b) The SM had a Jewish audience. The SM must primarily be seen in a Jewish context. The first audience had few listeners without Jewish beliefs and customs. The Bultmann-school used this fact rather polemically in order to underline the Jewish limitations of Jesus’ teaching. On the other hand, A. Nygren saw the SM in a fulfilment perspective and read the SM as a ‘Messianic ethos’.23 Tübingen scholars like M. Hengel, P. Stuhlmacher, and particularly Otto Betz24 and the catholic scholar, G. Lohfink, interpreted the Jewish context similarly. The SM conveys a new Jewish ethos, representing a ‘counter-culture’ (German: ‘Kontrastgesellschaft’).25 K. Wengst has more recently underlined the Jewish roots more, and argues that the SM proclaims Jesus’ ‘Regierungsprogramm’ (‘ruler’s policy’). The speaker is a Jew who addresses Jews.26 This is not an unambiguous statement: ‘Jews’ can mean exclusively Jews, primarily Jews,27 Galilean-type Jews, Jewish Christians, New people of God, few non-Jews, not disciples, etc. (c) The SM has a sectarian ethos. M. Weber’s distinction between ‘church’ and ‘sect’ influenced E. Troeltsch and his work on ‘the Social Teaching of the Christian Churches”.28 He saw the SM as the beginning of an ascetic movement, not as social ethics. The New Testament entails ‘social ethics’ as 22 Hauerwas, Matthew (2006), 58–75 on the SM: the sayings are interpretations of Jesus’ life, “not addressed to individuals, but to the community”, “rather description of the life of a people gathered by and around Jesus” (p. 61). 23 Nygren, “Bergpredigt”, EKL 1 (1956), 392–395. 24 Hengel, “Die Bergpredigt im Widerstreit” (1983); Stuhlmacher, “Jesu vollkommenes Gesetz der Freiheit” (1982); O. Betz, “Bergpredigt und Sinaitradition” (1987). 25 G. Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (1988), 150 (“Sie muß selbst ‘Gesellschaft’ sein, sie muß ‘Gegenwelt’ sein”). However, Lohfink ends up with the perspective of a disciple-ethics. 26 Wengst, Regierungsprogramm (2010). 27 Harrington, Matthew (22007), 76: The sermon places a compendium of Jesus’ teaching before Jews primarily. 28 Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen, 2 vols., Tübingen: Mohr 1912 (ET: The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, 2 vols., New York: Harper 1960). His friend and colleague Max Weber interpreted the SM as ‘Gesinnungsethik’ par excellence, which he contrasted to ‘Verantwortungsethik’. Troeltsch saw the first Christians as ‘sect’, based on a utopian form of religious life.

4.1 The Theological Question

297

soon as it opened for the Stoic tradition. This corresponds partly with a Marxist perspective: the SM did not address the elite and people who oppress others, and the real audience of the SM is the poor and unfortunate. J.D.M. Derrett has argued for an ascetic approach: the radical demands in the SM have ascetic tendencies (sexuality, earthly goods, etc.).29 Jesus addressed his message to those who were willing to give up earthly goods. More influential are G. Theißen’s arguments. He sees the ethos of e.g. Matt 6,25–33 as typical of ‘itinerant radicalism’ (‘Wanderradikalismus’) and contrary to the ethos of the ‘sympathizers’.30 Catholic scholars tend to be most sympathetic to Theißen’s thesis.31 (d) The SM provides a universal ethos. People of other ethical and religious traditions read the SM mostly as a universal ethos, not as disciple-ethics, as a Messianic ethos or as sectarian demands. Gandhi or Tolstoy had no doubt about this question. Philosophers from the Enlightenment period onwards could integrate the SM in their ethical thinking. Recently, P. Ricœur, E. Levinas and K.E. Løgstrup have seen the SM within the framework of a phenomenological ethical reflection. Theologians and exegetes have been more inclined to reject the thesis that the SM has a universal addressee. W. Herrmann’s ethics of consent or e.g. M. Honecker32 and E. Schockenhoff33 probably hold a minority position among theologians, and among exegetes are R. Bultmann – with his ethics of existential decisions –, A. Strobel,34 H.D. Betz among the very few who operate with a broad audience. The majority of exegetes operate with ‘disciples’, ‘the Twelve’, ‘itinerant disciples’, etc. as the audience. Here I will argue in favour of the minority position: the SM is an ethics for would-be disciples, a vision of a Christian politeia and an ethics with universal significance. 29

Derrett, Jesus’ Audience (1973), 139–150; cf. idem, Ascetic Discourse (1989); idem, Sermon (1994). 30 Theißen, “Wanderradikalismus” (1973) = “Itinerant Radicalism” (1975) and idem, Soziologie der Jesusbewegung (1977), 14ff, uses Matt 6,25ff as one of his key texts. This perspective was not really new. Jeremias had in fact the same perspective in Die Gleichnisse Jesu (71965), 212f (= Parables [1972], 214ff). Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition (1989), 33f, argues correctly against this view. 31 Cf. P. Hoffmann who found a similar ethos in the Q-community, Studien (1995), 235ff (“die Boten Jesu”). Cf. Martin Ebner, Jesus – ein Weisheitslehrer? Synoptische Weisheitslogien im Traditionsprozess (HBS 15), Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 1998, 270f, and idem, Jesus von Nazaret (2003), 168f, and Thomas Schmeller, “Die Radikalität der Logienquelle: Raben, Lilien und die Freiheit vom Sorgen (Q 12,22–32)”, BK 54 (1999), 85–88. 32 Honecker, Einführung (above, p. 105, n. 452), 267–284 (“Die ethische Deutung der Bergpredigt”). 33 Schockenhoff, Naturrecht und Menschenwürde (1996) = Natural Law (2003), 255– 279, underlined the universal significance of the SM. 34 Strobel, “Die Bergpredigt als ethische Weisung heute” (1984). Kantzenbach, Bergpredigt (1982), comes finally to the same conclusion.

298

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

The historical and theological question is an important one. Should the SM be interpreted as disciple-ethics, as ethics for a certain group or as universal ethics? If we have to do with an either/or answer, it has huge impact on the exegesis. Perhaps it is better to think in terms of a basic position and then modify a bit and add some nuances?

4.2 The Historical Question – Addressees in the SM and Matthew Recent exegesis often insists that the SM is part of Matthew’s Gospel and must be read in the context of the situation in Matthew’s church around 80 CE. The audience is Matthew’s community in their actual situation. The audience is Matthew’s real audience and no one else. Matthew does not so much reflect the historical audience of Jesus as the real reader and the real author – a perspective which in the last decades implied a revival of the ‘Tendenz’-criticism of the Tübingen-school.35 4.2.1 Who Was the Real Audience for Matthew? It is, however, extremely difficult to detect the real author and his addressees. Is the setting of the author and the addressees really the same?36 Does the community identify themselves with the author? The description of the setting includes geography (provinces), date, ideology (theology), sociology, setting (conflict).37

35

Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (1987), 457: “Da die Bergpredigt in der heute vorliegenden Gestalt auf die Endredaktion des Matthäus zurückgeht, kann sie sachgemäß nur im Kontext und Horizont des gesamten Matthäusevangeliums und somit der matthäischen Theologie und Ethik interpretiert werden.” Even Hengel, “Leben in der Veränderung” (1970/2007), 205f, says similarly that the SM has the following three main topics: “erstens die Forderung, daß Gottes Wille ohne Einschränkung getan werden muß, zweitens der Gerichtsgedanke, der dieser Forderung ihren letzten Ernst verleiht, und drittens die Mahnung an die Gemeinde, die ‘Botschaft vom Reich’ – nicht zuletzt durch den Gehorsam der Tat – in die ganze Welt zu tragen.” 36 Is it really possible to reconstruct the author’s theology from the text? Is the purpose of the Gospel identical with the purpose of the author? Is it clear that the author or the Gospel has only one purpose, or is it a multifaceted work? Or do we see many purposes: storytelling, apologetic, evangelistic, presenting the true meaning of the reality of the Kingdom, etc.? 37 For an overview Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (62007), 291–294, 305– 309; Carter, What Are They Saying about Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount? (1994), 57–61.

4.2 The Historical Question – Addressees in the SM and Matthew

299

(a) The geographical setting is foundational, and this discussion has never reached a clear conclusion.38 The majority thinks Antioch – or ‘Syria’, an extremely imprecise designation – is the place of origin.39 Even ‘Palestine’ (Jerusalem, Joppa, Caesarea) is an option. (b) The ideological setting is closely linked to questions of location and date; categories like Jewish, Gentile Christians, Apocalyptic Christianity, Early Catholicism, etc. flourish – more than Baur’s characterizations: Judaist, Petrine, Pauline Christianity, etc.40 (c) W.D. Davies proposed a specific location for the discussion with Judaism: Matthew responds to the situation after 70 CE and the Yavne/Jamnia meeting, when the Pharisees became the leading group.41 (d) The opposite position became popular in the early stage of redactioncriticism. The addressees are gentiles looking back on the Jesus-events in a Jewish setting.42 This explains the contradictory views and the contradictions in Matthew. (e) P. Vielhauer and G. Theißen see a mixed community behind Matthew, who addresses two parties simultaneously: one party exists within the Synagogue, and the other has separated from the Synagogue and is practising mission to the gentiles. The latter group has a liberal understanding of the Law.43 38 Davies/Allison, Matthew (1997), 138ff, present arguments for a setting in Alexandria, Jerusalem, Caesarea, Phoenicia, East Jordan, Edessa, Syria and Antioch. 39 Matt 4,23 unexpectedly mentions Syria, so even Hengel, “Leben in der Veränderung” (1970/2007), 205: Matthew wrote his Gospel “… gegen Ende des 1. Jahrhunderts in einer stark judenchristlich geprägten Gemeinde Syriens”. 40 According to F.C. Baur’s scheme for historical reconstruction, the audience of Matthew lived in opposition to its antithesis, Pauline Christianity. Matthew’s audience represented a particularly Jewish Christianity with Peter as the main figure. But if one suggests that the addressees were Jews or Jewish Christians, there will be problems with in particular the Great Commission, the antagonism to and criticism of the Scribes/Pharisees and the distant attitude towards the Synagogue. 41 Davies, Setting (1964), 256. Davies/Allison, Matthew (1997), 133–136, read particularly 5,11f.13–16; 5,20ff; 6,1–18 into this context. Strecker, Weg der Gerechtigkeit (1962), 257–269; Stanton, Origin (1987/1992); Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 45–48. Steven Katz, “Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 C.E.” (1984), argued against this position. 42 Some of the reasons are the use of the Septuagint, the lack of knowledge about Jewish matters (e.g. Matt 22,23), the use of the label ‘Jew’ in Matt 28,13. Kenneth W. Clark, “The Gentile Bias in Matthew”, JBL 66 (1947), 165–172; Nepper-Christensen, Matthäusevangelium (1958), 35–75, and more recently Stanton, A Gospel for a New People (1992), 131–139; John P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel: A Redactional Study of Matt 5:17–48 (AnBib 71), Rome: Biblical Institute Press 1976, 7–24; idem, The Vision of Matthew, New York: Paulist 1979, 12–25. 43 Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Väter, Berlin: De Gruyter 1975, 365. Cf.

300

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

(f) Due to the location in Antioch, the ‘urban versus peasant’ debate has been opened. The settled, more conservative Antioch community is the scene for discussions between Christians and Jews, Judaists and Pauline Christians. Peter is also present in this community.44 It is also possible to read Matthew from the perspective of social conflicts (rich–poor, sectarian groups, etc.),45 or to use socio-anthropological tools (household, purity, honour–shame, meals/fellowship). (g) Presently the perspective of ‘parting of the ways’ dominates. The big question is this: is this an extra-muros conflict,46 or does Matthew reflect an intra-muros conflict? If intra-muros, the addressees must be located in a larger city, where Christians and Jews still were perceived as one group. (h) The nearly contradictory sayings on gentiles, the Law, Pharisees, etc. and the strongly polemical sayings47 can reflect a polemic setting. Matthew reflects, according to E. Schweizer, an inner-group conflict between Matthew’s community and a strong charismatic opposition.48 U. Luz finds a community in transition from an inner-Jewish sect to an independent church.49 To sum up: we see here the problem with ‘real addressees’ as audience. It takes us into a jungle of hypotheses. We really do not know much about Matthew’s real addressees. 4.2.2 Arguments against this Approach and an Alternative Theory All these theories are based on a problematic mirror-reading.50 Four arguments are decisive: A mirror-reading is extremely problematic when the text – like Matthew – is story-telling, describing historical events. One can be critical of Matthew as a historian, but Matthew’s endeavours as a historian cannot be overlooked. Secondly, Matthew used sources, at least Mark and Q. Matthew/the SM do not necessarily have the same audience as their sources. Source-criticism is often downplayed when it comes to audience/addressees,

Ingo Broer, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Würzburg: Echter 32010, 115f: “ein judenchristlicher Verfasser in einer gemischten Gemeinde”. 44 Does Matthew really reflect an urban environment? So Schnackenburg, Matthew (2002), 5: “established in a rather large city made up of Jews, Greeks, and other groups of people”. 45 Stanton, A Gospel for a New People (1992), 98ff. 46 David A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation, Downers Grove: IVP Academic 2004. 47 Bacon, Studies in Matthew (1930). 48 Schweizer, Matthäus (1973/41986), 114–119. 49 Schweizer’s student Luz emphasises the reader, Matthäus I (52002), 42–47, but the historical setting is in fact more important, ibid., 84–100. 50 Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 261, 352.

4.2 The Historical Question – Addressees in the SM and Matthew

301

but the redaction-criticism after 1950 overestimated the additions and their specific interpretation of Mark and Q/the Inaugural Speech.51 The SM has – thirdly – many features different from the rest of Matthew and lacks in fact many of Matthew’s features.52 We have no fulfilment of prophecy (German: Reflexionszitate) in the SM. Matt 6,30 refers to Solomon, but without the prophecy-fulfilment perspective; this is totally different from the critical approach in Matt 5,21ff. The notion of conversion is lacking, there is no ecclesiology like in Matt 18,17ff, pagans and publicans are treated totally differently, Matt 23 treats the hypocrites differently, the Christological titles are very different, etc. Alms, prayer, fasting, etc. are mentioned only here, there are no counter-arguments to accusations (1,18ff; 27,64f; 28,11ff), no specific limitations (like 10,5.23; 15,24ff) – contrary to Matt 5,13–16. Matt 28,18ff apparently summarizes the SM, but with a new terminology. 53

Fourthly, the way Matthew handles the disciples and the crowd illustrates the question of addressees which complicates a mirror-reading. ‘Disciples’ are not constituted as a unit before Matt 10,2ff. The general audience, the crowd, is the most significant feature. A clear-cut differentiation between crowd and disciples or between κηρύσσειν (4,17) and δίδασκειν (5,1) is not achieved. Matt 10 and 18 offer – contrary to the SM – instructions to the disciples. There are therefore few common themes between the SM and Matt 10 and 18:54 Content and style are different, and decisive terms like οἱ δώδεκα µαθηταί (10,1; 11,1) are missing. The SM has no word for the relation between the members of the community, which is a major topic in Matt 10 and 18.55

An alternative theory to the mirror-reading of addressees is necessary. In the period of redaction-criticism, K. Stendahl and G.D. Kilpatrick pointed in another direction. Stendahl argued in favour of a catechetical purpose for the entire Gospel of Matthew,56 and Kilpatrick argued similarly for a liturgical setting.57 Not a specific community, but the Church in general, was the addressee. More recently R. Bauckham and L. Alexander58 have offered an 51

Bartsch, “Feldrede und Bergpredigt” (1960). Cf. Baasland, “Matthew’s Elaborations of the ‘Inaugural Speech’” (2020). 53 It summarizes all the speeches, and the terminology is different; we have only διδάσκοντες, perhaps also ἐντολή (cf. τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάµην ὑµῖν), but not βαπτίζοντες … εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος. 54 Most similar is the theme of persecution, Matt 5,10–12 and 10,17.23 (also 23,34–36). 55 Esp. Wick, “Volkspredigt contra Gemeinderegel?” (1998). 56 Krister Stendahl, The School of Matthew & Its Use of the Old Testament (ASNU 20), Uppsala: Gleerup 1954, esp. 20–29. The content shows that the addressees were Christians and mainly Jews. It was hardly a catechism for gentiles, e.g. for a general audience. 57 Kilpatrick, Origins (1946), 59ff. 58 Richard Bauckham (ed.), The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1998, esp. the articles by Bauckham (“For Whom Were Gospels written?”, 9–48) and Loveday Alexander (“Ancient Book Production and the Circulation of the Gospels”, 71–112). Cf. the critical remarks by David C. Sim, “The Gospels for All Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham”, JSNT 84 (2001), 3–27; 52

302

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

attractive alternative approach to theories about a specific Matthean community. Instead of mirror-reading they see a universal addressee as more plausible.

4.3 Audience and the Sources and Forms behind Matthew Is it possible to go behind the SM (see above § 2)? Do the older sayings send signals about ‘the audience’? What is the audience of the Inaugural Speech, of Q and of other sources behind the SM? Does the Matthean Sondergut presuppose a new audience? This is to a certain extent the case. In the saying in the Inaugural Speech, Matt 5,46f, Jesus refers to pagans (ἐθνικοί), publicans (τελῶναι), whereas Luke 6,32–34 has ἁµαρτωλοί three times. Both Matt 6,32 and Luke 12,30 mention the pagans (τὰ ἔθνη), and pagans are evaluated from the standpoint of Jews, especially the Pharisees. The other sayings from Q, including the Lord’s Prayer, fit into this picture. The sayings from Mark do the same. From Mark comes Matt 5,18 about the everlasting Law. Mark 13,30 avoids the term νόµος and Matthew emphasises the term. Luke 16,18 has the saying on remarriage in Matt 5,32 after Mark 13,30, and reflects a typical issue in the conflict with Jewish leaders.

The Matthean Sondergut reflects even more the Jewish context, especially the three piety-rules in 6,1–18. The strange logion in Matt 7,6, and the parable in Matt 5,23f, presuppose Jewish practices, according to traditional exegesis, which is probably not the best exegesis.59 Jews were alienated by some strong sayings in the ‘Matthean Sondergut’. 5,14: the followers are called light of the world (ὑµεῖς ἐστε τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσµου). 6,11: the centre in the ‘the Lord’s Prayer’ has the same universal perspective (γενηθήτω τὸ θέληµά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς), and is not explicitly about the Law.

The theological interests are not at all uniform – some texts have a basically Jewish character, while others express Christology and a universal perspective. To sum up: The listeners are Jewish and may possibly be adherents of Jesus. The radical demands are not addressed to a special group of ascetics, itinerant radicals, etc. The – mainly Jewish – audience consists of ‘would-be’ disciples.

Margaret M. Mitchell, “Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim that ‘The Gospels Were Written for All Christians’”, NTS 51 (2005), 36–79. 59 Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 162–175, and § 9 in this book.

4.4 The Audience in the Frames (Matt 4,17–5,2; 7,28f; 8,1)

303

1) Has the SP – and its sources – the same audience? The frame of the SP is different from the SM (see below). Typical for the SP is the threefold pattern: 6,20: εἰς τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ ἔλεγεν· 6,27: Ἀλλὰ ὑµῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν· 6,39: Εἶπεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς· Two of three parts extend the audience, and the first part already shows a significant extension: The Woes introduce a new audience besides the disciples (6,20): the rich people, and it is indicated that they are Jews (οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν, 6,27). The audience seems to be mixed: some have enough money (6,30f.38), some are ‘hypocrites’ (6,42), some are good, and some are bad (6,43–45). It is a Lucan feature when µαθηταί is used in the rather general saying in 6,40. The Woes and other sayings from Luke presuppose a more mixed group of listeners. The sayings overrule Luke’s redactional frames. 2) A comparison with the Didache. One should compare the SM with Matt 10 and the Didache. Matt 10 provides the really radical disciple-ethics, for a few in a particular situation. The Didache has no specific addressee. It repeats and extends the same radical commandments as the SM in Did. 1,2–3,10 (4,14) and then in Did. 11–15. The first part of the instructions ends in Did. 6,2 with the famous statement: “If it is not possible to be perfect (τέλειος) do the best you can.” The casuistic twisting of the apodictic commandment in Matt 5,48: “Be perfect!” is still an instruction to radical disciples of Jesus.

4.4 The Audience in the Frames (Matt 4,17–5,2; 7,28f; 8,1) The frames are probably rooted in historical reality (see above, § 2.6). If so, the frames tell us much about the original oral setting, the real audience for the teaching of the historical Jesus. G. Lohfink and other scholars concentrate on this perspective. Or do the frames tell us something about the addressees, the Matthean community, also? 1) Complex or unambiguous? The frames and introduction formulas both in the SM and the SP are, however, rather ambiguous (Matt 5,1; 7,28 and Luke 6,20.27.39; 7,1). Matt 5,1f refers both to a general audience (οἱ ὄχλοι) and to the disciples (οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ). In spite of this ambivalence, most scholars tend to choose exclusively one of these alternatives. Luke sees exclusively the disciples as addressees in 6,19 (εἰς τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ), in 6,27.39 just ‘listeners’ (τοῖς ἀκούουσιν) and in 7,1 the people are the listeners (εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ).

304

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

Both frames are complex, and Luke’s frame is particularly so.60 Luke pushes the notion of disciples more. He tells us about the calling of the Twelve before the SP. In Matthew, only four disciples are called before the SM, and ‘his disciples’ (οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ) are first mentioned in Matt 5,1. Not before Matt 10,2 are there twelve (δώδεκα ἀπόστολοι), explaining οἱ µαθηταί (9,37; 10,1). With the notion of ‘his Twelve’ (later 11,1; 20,17) and them being called apostles, something new begins.61 Those who argue for the SM as disciple-ethics tend to ignore the ambivalence. Scholars who see the crowd as the addressees, take the ambivalence in the SM into account.62 Gerhard Lohfink has made the most comprehensive analysis of the frames. He includes an ambivalence, but his final conclusion is that the disciples as counter-society are the addressees.63 For Matthew, the audience is the huge crowd. Matthew as storyteller offers in Matt 1,1–4,16 an introduction to the SM, a historical narration about what happened in the beginning. The Moses analogy is clear in the whole of Matt 1–7, but should not be overstated. The audience, which is introduced in Matt 4,17–25 (and Luke 6,13–19), is complex,64 but consists mainly of Jews.65 Matthew’s community was the addressee, and one might have expected that the image would have been drawn of an inner circle or a more explicit group of gentiles. This is not the case; the disciples are mentioned in 5,1, but only after the rather mixed community of poor, sick people (4,23–25), and people longing for a new future for Israel (4,12–17). Jews are the addressees, and this corresponds with the speech itself: Jesus talked to Jews (5,17–6,18, perhaps including some Pharisees and Scribes, 5,20), but hardly to many gentiles (cf. Matt 5,46; 6,9 ἐθνικοί; 6,32 τὰ ἔθνη).

60

The audience in Luke 6,17 is strange. Luke has the expressions ὄχλος πολὺς µαθητῶν, πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ and also the disciples (5,30.33; 6,1.13 and then 6,17.20) and the Twelve (6,13; 8,1, following Mark 3,14) are seen within the framework of a listening and learning crowd. 61 In the last part and particularly in the passion narrative, the Twelve become more crucial, and that is at the time when they betray him. 62 Both the disciple part Matt 4,18–22 and the crowd part 4,23–25 conclude with the phrase ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ. Matt 4,23 has ἐν τῷ λαῷ, and 4,25 ὄχλοι πολλοὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ∆εκαπόλεως καὶ Ἱεροσολύµων καὶ Ἰουδαίας καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. 63 G. Lohfink, Wie hat Jesus Gemeinde gewollt? (1982), 46f, finds it difficult to differentiate between demands to the disciples and to the whole of Israel. He differentiates even more in his, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (1988), 163. 64 The frame that introduces the SM (Mt 4,17–5,2) has many elements: an introduction (ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο) like in 16,21, and a summary with emphasis on the content (ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς κηρύσσειν καὶ λέγειν· µετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν) and the calling of the first four disciples 4,18–22. In the summary in Matt 4,23–25 the relation to the people is underlined before the introduction, 5,1f. 65 Strongly Wengst, Regierungsprogramm (2010), esp. 19–20 (from a Jew to Jews).

4.4 The Audience in the Frames (Matt 4,17–5,2; 7,28f; 8,1)

305

Matt 4,23–25 is part of Matthew’s broader narrative plan: it presents the outline of the following paragraphs: Matt 4,23: he teaches = Matt 5–7, Matt 4,23c.24c; 4,24b: he heals and they brought the sick to him = Matt 8–9. The two extensive frames, 4,23–5,2 and 9,35–10,5, prepare for the SM and the disciple discourse in 10,6–11,1, respectively. The summary in Matt 4,23– 25 is consciously worked out with a nearly complete chiastic structure: 4,25: καὶ ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοί 5,1a: Ἰδὼν δὲ τοὺς ὄχλους 5,1b: ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος 5,2: ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς 7,29: ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτούς (8,1a: καταβάντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους) 7,28: ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι (ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ) 8,1b: ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοί The inclusio demonstrates clearly that the audience of the SM is the general public.66 Matt 4,25 introduces the people (ὄχλοι) and repeats it in 7,28 and 8,1 (plus αὐτούς 5,2; 7,29). The crowd is obviously the main audience according to Matthew (as in 7,28; 8,1). Even their activities and reactions are observed. 2) The crowd as the audience of the SP/SM. Both Luke 7,1 (ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν πάντα τὰ ῥήµατα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ) and Matt 7,28 say clearly that it was a speech to the crowd. Matthew and Luke show that the first part of Q had a special character. The agreement between Matt 7,27 and Luke 7,1 (‘after the speech to the public’) indicates that this fundamental Qspeech was given to the general public. The formulation in Matt 7,28f is in both Mark and Luke connected to Jesus’ appearance in the synagogue in Capernaum:67 Matt 7,28f ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ· ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραµµατεῖς αὐτῶν.

Mark 1,22 καὶ ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ· ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραµµατεῖς.

Luke 4,32 καὶ ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἦν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ.

Jesus speaks mostly to the crowd, acts among the crowd, and heals vulnerable people from the crowd, according to the first part of the Gospels. Therefore, we basically expect that the crowd is the audience for the SM. Most of the frame indicates that, e.g.: 66

Allison, Sermon (1999), 28, not so clear in Davies/Allison, Matthew (1997), 410f. Luke does not echo the response from the people to the SP. He does so in his report of the negative reaction to the Nazareth speech (4,28ff: ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες θυµοῦ) and the positive reaction in Capernaum immediately afterwards (4,32). 67

306

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

Matt 4,25: καὶ ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοὶ ἀπὸ … Matt 5,1 Ἰδὼν δὲ τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος.

Mark 3,8: πολὺ πλῆθος ἀπὸ … [ἠκολούθησεν] καὶ ἀπὸ …

Luke 6,17: καὶ ὄχλος πολὺς µαθητῶν αὐτοῦ, καὶ πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ ἀπὸ …

The comment that the crowd followed Jesus, dominates in Matt 4–9 (4,25; 5,1; 7,28f; 8,1.18.27; 9,33.35f). Matthew uses the term ὄχλοι almost consistently, whereas Mark 3,8ff and Luke 6,17 have the term πλῆθος πολὺ (τοῦ λαοῦ). The calling of people with dubious work as fishermen says much about them belonging to the ordinary people, and it distances them from the religious Israelites’ thinking in terms of purity. In the framework of Matt 4,23ff, the crowd is obviously the audience, but the addition in 5,1 is remarkable: προσῆλθαν αὐτῷ οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. The double αὐτός shows a special relationship between Jesus and the Twelve which is underlined through their “coming near” (προσῆλθαν). The disciples are important, but to jump to the conclusion that they are exclusively the audience, is to ignore the text in Matthew. The special interest in the disciples is a typical Lucan feature,68 and it should not surprise anybody that Luke emphasises the SP more as words to the disciples. The very awkward formulation ὄχλος πολὺς µαθητῶν αὐτοῦ shows that it was not easy to design the text for this purpose. In Matthew the notion of disciple is so vague before the SM, that the crowd is almost the only feature. Luke uses the term µαθηταί in the saying in 6,40, a saying Matthew does not convey. The feature of ‘rumour’ underlines the crowd as the addressee. Rumour is a common feature in Luke (4,14: φήµη; 4,36: θάµβος; 4,37: ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ). Luke 7,1 also has the phrase πάντα τὰ ῥήµατα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ, but only Matthew and Mark have the expression ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ, Mark 1,28 and Matt 4,24 – his rumour, the rumour about him. 68 The audience in Luke 6,17 is strange. The expression ὄχλος πολὺς µαθητῶν is rare, and obviously Luke has many more than the inner circle of disciples in mind, yet fewer than πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ. The two expressions are parallel with πολύς as the common word. To use ὄχλος for the disciples is unique here, but compared to the parallel word, πλῆθος, ὄχλος is a smaller group of people. Luke follows up with his very precise, but unusual remark: καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ ἔλεγεν. The disciples are the specific audience for the Beatitudes. In Luke the disciples as a group are presented long before the SP (5,30.33; 6,1.13 and then in 6,17.20). More surprising, though, is the fact that Luke presents the Twelve as apostles (6,13, following Mark 3,14) before the SP. That the calling of the Twelve was completed before the SP (6,12–16) gives strong support to the disciples as addressees for the Beatitudes. Later Luke formulated the close relationship with the term οἱ δώδεκα σὺν αὐτῷ (8,1), and surprisingly, there were women around and among them (8,2–4). For Luke it was important to show that the message was addressed to the disciples, albeit within the context of a crowd listening and learning from Jesus.

4.4 The Audience in the Frames (Matt 4,17–5,2; 7,28f; 8,1)

307

Does Matthew differentiate between the terms κηρύσσειν (Matt 4,17.23; 9,35; 11,1; cf. Mark 1,14.38f.45; 3,14; Luke 4,44; 8:1) and δίδασκειν (Matt 4,23; 5,2; 7,29; 9,35; 11,1; cf. Mark 1,21.22; 2,13; 4,1f; 6,2; Luke 4,15.31; 5,3; 6,6)? The last term is mostly linked to the disciples, but the crowd is the audience when Jesus preaches and teaches. The SM uses the term µαθητής,69 not δώδεκα (Matt 10,1; 11,1). Nor has the SM words for the relation between the members of the community, which is a major topic in Matt 10 and 18.70 The dominating audience for Jesus according to Matt 4–9 is the crowd, ὄχλοι (4,25; 5,1; 7,28f; 8,1.18.27; 9,33.35f).71 The healing activity is especially emphasised in the summaries/frames, and this activity is always meant for the crowd or the vulnerable people in the crowd. It is quite remarkable that Matthew has no healing narrative before the SM, whereas Luke has three narratives before the SP (5,12–6,11, plus 6,18f). 3) Chronology. Time and place are closely linked, but generally the evangelists are more concerned with geography than chronology.72 The chronology underlines the same issues as the geography. It is generally vague, except for the notion of Sabbath. Matthew mentions in the summaries 4,23 and 9,35 (and similarly in 12,9; 13,54) that Jesus was preaching in the synagogue (normally on the Sabbath), both in narratives and speeches (6,2.5 – 10,17 – 23,6.34). This underlines that the Jews were the first audience of the SM.73 To sum up: The audience is the crowd, the general public. To interpret the SM as a speech exclusively or primarily to the disciples goes against the clear outline in Matthew. The Jews did not belong to the elite, rather to the poor peasant society, but they were well educated through their synagogues. The leaders in Jerusalem

69 Matthew uses µαθηταί in 5,1; 9,37; 10,1; 11,1. The addition in Matt 5,1 (προσῆλθαν αὐτῷ οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ) is remarkable. The special relationship between Jesus and the Twelve is underlined through the “coming near” (προσῆλθαν). 70 Esp. Wick, “Volkspredigt contra Gemeinderegel?” (1998). 71 Or πλῆθος πολὺ (τοῦ λαοῦ), Mark 3,8ff and Luke 6,17. Mark 6,6b has also περιῆγεν τὰς κώµας κύκλῳ, whereas Luke 4,44 has a general public in synagogues in mind (εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς τῆς Ἰουδαίας). 72 Decapolis (Matt 4,25) is used elsewhere only in Mark 5,20; 7,31. Cf. Mark 3,8 which has: ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύµων καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰδουµαίας καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου and περὶ Τύρον καὶ Σιδῶνα. Luke 6,17 has ἀπὸ τῆς παραλίου Τύρου καὶ Σιδῶνος also, and ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Ἰερουσαλήµ (also Matt 19,1 = Mark 10,1). 73 G. Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (1988), 15–38. Matthew obviously has a deeper theological meaning, and Matt 4,23ff is not just the introduction to the SM. It is also the fulfilment of the prophecy (4,15f): γῆ Ζαβουλὼν καὶ γῆ Νεφθαλίµ, ὁδὸν θαλάσσης, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήµενος ἐν σκότει φῶς εἶδεν µέγα. Matt 4,16 follows Isa 9,1 (LXX) and the tenses are decisive: “see” (imperative) and “has seen” (aorist) and “shall light” (future tense) and “has been lit up” (aorist).

308

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

are absent, and instead the poor are in focus.74 Jesus as a Jew spoke to Jews.75 We should not create any sharp differentiations76 between Israel and Jesus’ disciples, Israel and the remnant of Israel, the actual Israel and Israel as the new, eschatological crowd, Israel and an extended Israel, Israel and the gentiles, the elite in Israel and ordinary people, orthodox Israel and publicans, etc.77 Many features in the text have symbolic value (twelve, mountain, teaching people, the vulnerable expecting salvation), indicating eschatological rather than ecclesiological teaching. Gerhard Lohfink therefore also identifies the audience with the disciples, the Church representing a counter-culture.78 The universal task of Israel as indicated in Matt 4,15.24; 19,1 (= Mark 10,1) means in fact everyone. Lohfink underlines, however, that it is not the individuals or mankind as such who are the addressees.79 Israel as audience represents a mixed crowd, the would-be disciples, and in fact everyone who listens to Jesus – in other words the Jews.80

4.5 The SM in Light of Audience-criticism We often find signals about the audience within a text. Is this the case in the SM also? The hearer, ἀκροατής,81 was an important issue in ancient rhetoric, and the speaker had to gain the hearer’s attention (attentio/attendum), prepare for the reception (docilem parare) because he should move (movere), say good things (benevolens) in a beautiful way (delectare) and he should teach (docere). This was part of what H.R. Jauß called the horizon of expectation 74

G. Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt (1988), 15–38, has correctly empasised the importance of Matt 4,23–25 for the understanding of the SM, not only the Beatitudes. 75 Krieger, “Das Publikum der Bergpredigt” (1986), and G. Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (1988), 199–209, give a response. 76 Matthew limits the perspective by not including Tyros and Sidon, but hardly because Jesus says woe to them (11,21f, also critical in 15,21). The reason is that this land was not part of Zebulon and Naphtali. On the other hand, he does mention Jerusalem and Judea, but compared with all the other places, they are more in the periphery. For Luke and even for Mark, Jerusalem is closer. 77 G. Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (1988), 157, underlines the comprehensive description (“… aus allen Teilen des Landes versammelt. Sie repräsentierten das von Jesus zu sammelnde Gesamt-Israel”): Galilee, ‘North-east’ (Decapolis), ‘South-west’ (Jerusalem und Juda) and ‘South-east’ (Perea). 78 Ibid., 32: “präfigurierende Jüngerkreis” (52), 99ff. 79 The category “disciples” is in fact slippery, cf. G. Lohfink, Wie hat Jesus Gemeinde gewollt? (1982), 50: “Der Adressat der ethischen Unterweisung Jesu ist weder der für sich stehende Einzelne noch die Menschheit als Ganze. Der Adressat seiner Unterweisung ist Israel, beziehungsweise der Israel repräsentierende Jüngerkreis.” 80 Wick, “Volkspredigt contra Gemeinderegel?” (1998). 81 Sylvia Usener, “Hörer”, Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, ed. Gerd Ueding, vol. 3, Tübingen: Niemeyer 1996, 1561–1570.

4.5 The SM in Light of Audience-criticism

309

which every reader has.82 One should not too early jump to conclusions about Matthew’s addressees.83 J.D. Kingsbury thinks that the ‘implied author’ envisages the recipient in Matt 27,8; 28,15 (to this day, ἕως/µεχρι τῆς σήµερον). Matt 24,15 addresses the implied readers (ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω). The implied readers are admonished to identify with the disciples.84 Matt 28,20 asks the would-be disciples to “keep everything I have commanded you” (τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάµην ὑµῖν), probably with reference to the SM (ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ποιήσῃ µίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων, 5,19). Should we treat the SM and Matthew as a whole on the same level? We have no narratives in the SM, which makes a huge difference. We have no references to the readers like in Matt 24–28. We have, on the other hand, a number of references to the listeners. Who are they? Is the implied audience a separate group of people (in-group) and different from the rest of society? Some have interpreted certain passages in the SM in this sense. 4.5.1 Theory and Method A text can be analysed on different levels at the same time. One can e.g. distinguish between ‘the textual, the concrete and the symbolic worlds’ in a text.85 The so-called ‘audience-criticism’ studies the audience on a ‘textual level’, historical criticism reconstructs the historical (‘concrete’) audience, and reader-response criticism constructs the ‘symbolic world’. 1) The traditional, so-called audience-criticism. T.W. Manson, P.S. Minear and J.A. Baird86 developed the so-called audience-criticism somewhat independently from other methods. They documented the similarities and the striking differences between the three evangelists and also both the constancy and the variety in the tradition. The audience in the SM must be compared with Matthew’s four other main speeches. They do have different audiences, but there is a certain pattern: Matt 5–7

Matt 10

Matt 13

Matt 18

Matt 23–25

crowd (disciples)

disciples

crowd and disciples

disciples

crowd and disciples; opponents (23)

82 Iser, Act of Reading (1978), 20–28 (on reconstructing the implied audience). Also idem, How to do Theory, Malden, Mass.: Blackwell 2006, 57–69, is presenting his own theory. 83 Carter, Households and Discipleship (1997), 21ff. 84 In the exegesis of Matthew, Jack D. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, Philadelphia: Fortress 1986, 36–38. More methodologically reflected, Mark Allan Powell, “Expected and unexpected Readings in Matthew: What the Reader Knows”, AsTJ 48 (1993), 31–52. 85 Syreeni, “Separation and Identity” (1994). 86 T.W. Manson in The Teaching of Jesus (1931), 66–68 (overview) and 18ff: the audience influences both “matter” and “method” in the teaching of Jesus. P.S. Minear has made many contributions in articles, and for a more comprehensive view, see Baird, Audience Criticism and the Historical Jesus (1969).

310

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

Matt 10 and 18 give instructions to the disciples/the community, and Matt 13 explains to the disciples the parables that Jesus had told them.87 The SM and Matt 23 refer initially to the disciples, but they soon develop into a general speech with the crowd as addressee. Luke and Matthew have a different audience in nine texts. What impact does it have on the exegesis of the texts that the audience is so different? The obviously vague introduction in Matt 5,1f has always been a challenge for interpreters, so one could ask: do we have only one aspect? Matthew: Public audience

The SP

5,3–12 5,13 5,14f 5,17–20 5,25f 5,31f 6,1.4.8.18 6,9–14 6,19–21 6,22–23 6,24 6,25–34 7,1 7,3–5 7,7–11 7,13–14 7,16–20 7,21 7,22f 7,24–27

6,20–23

Outside the SP 14,34f 8,16; 11,33 16,17 12,58f 16,18 16,14 11,1–4 12,33f 11,34–36 16,13 12,22–31

6,37f 6,41f 11,9–13 13,23–24 6,43–45 6,46 13,26ff 6,47–49

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

Luke is very eager to specify the audiences, not only for a speech. One saying or one parable is enough. To take sayings out of the Inaugural Speech makes it easier for Luke to specify the addressees. Matthew is less concerned about the audience, and he is therefore free to integrate many sayings into the SM.88 87 Mark/Luke have more parables to the people than Matthew, but in the SM the opposite is the case. The parables in general have many different audiences, but particularly three: Mark Matthew Luke

The disciples 1 11 (+ 4) 7 The crowd 3 1 (+ 4) 10 The opponent 1 4 (+4) 88 The explanation one chooses 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, or had Q – like Matthew – a more thematic approach?

4.5 The SM in Light of Audience-criticism

311

This approach has shown that the evangelists, and particularly Luke, were well aware of the significant role of audiences. T.W. Manson, P.S. Minear and J.A. Baird used this insight only on a redactional level, in the context of literacy. They did not integrate the form-critical insight that the smaller tradition had its own structure. 2) Reader-response criticism. It is a general opinion that the term ‘implied reader’ “embodies all those dispositions necessary for a literary work to exercise its effect”,89 but there is hardly anything such as a method for a reader-response analysis.90 It is more like a common effort and a turn from a ‘genetic-historical’ or ‘author-oriented text theory’ to a literary/textual or reception-oriented theory.91 We thus have: real author and audience implied speaker implied audience

Matthew and his community refers to disciples, crowd, Scribes appears as ‘I’ (me), includes ‘we’ referred to as ‘you’ (sing./pl.), everyone

According to W. Iser, there is asymmetry between text and reader,92 and we should look for: the appeals (German: ‘Wirkungspotential’; ‘Appellstruktur’) and spots of indeterminacy (German: ‘Unbestimmtheitsstellen’), gaps to fill in (German: ‘Leerstellen’).93 Matt 7,6; 6,34; 6,22 are some of these ‘open spaces’ that have to be completed, and the SM has many apparently contradictory elements in the text (Matt 5,1ff; 5,13ff; 5,17ff; 5,21ff – 6,19–26). Signals are the use of negations,94 elements that apparently do not fit into the genre (Matt 7,6) and particularly irony and hyperbolic language. 89

Iser, Implied Reader (1974), 34. Idem, Akt des Lesens (1976), 61, speaks about “Rollenangebot für seine möglichen Empfänger”. 90 The variety of approaches, e.g. U. Eco, S.E. Fish with his scepticism in Is There a Text in This Class? (above, n. 6), or Jauß, Aesthetic of Reception (above, n. 5), ends up with Martin McQuillan’s “There is no such thing as Reader-Response Theory”, in Julian Wolfreys, Introducing Literary Theories, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press 2001, 84–97. 91 In a genetic-historical paradigm there is little room for reception theories. From this perspective, Moisés Mayordomo-Marín, Den Anfang hören: Leserorientierte Evangelienexegese am Beispiel von Matthäus 1–2 (FRLANT 180), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1998, has analysed the infancy narratives. Also, Frankemölle, Matthäus (1994), and esp. Carter, Households and Discipleship (1997), 31–39; idem/John P. Heil, Matthew’s Parables: Audience-oriented Perspectives (CBQ.MS 30), Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America 1998; and not least Deines, Gerechtigkeit (2004), 57–67. 92 Iser, Akt des Lesens (1976), 163–179. 93 Ibid., 170ff, 165ff, about displaced or even suppressed information, and we have to look for “im Text ausgesparte Anschließbarkeiten”, “Gelenke des Textes”, “gedachte Scharniere der Darstellungsperspektiven”. Iser assumed in general (Implied Reader [1974], 274), that a “literary work cannot be completely identical with the text, nor with the realization of the text, but in fact must lie halfway between the two”. 94 Iser calls it ‘Negationspotentiale’, indicating the asymmetry between text and reader, Akt des Lesens (1976), 275, 335–338.

312

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

3) Renewal of audience-criticism; combining rhetoric and reader-response criticism. That the speaker had to gain the attention (attendum) of the hearer and prepare him for the reception (docilem parare), is a perspective that reader-response criticism and rhetorical criticism have in common.95 W. Iser differentiates – similarly to rhetorical criticism – between movere, delectare and docere. The three forms are visible in the SM. The speech wants to comfort/say good things (benevolens, Matt 5,3–12), movere (e.g. the 70 imperatives, the Antitheses), delectare (the poetry and literary art in the SM) and docere (the ethical and theological content). The awareness of the audience in classical rhetoric can be studied in Quintilian, Inst. VIII, where he contrasts the plain statements of facts (narration) with the vivid versions, with ἐνέργεια/ἔκφρασις (ἐκφράζειν), the display to his mind’s eye.96 Rhetorical analysis has shown that it is a typical deliberative speech. As oratory of parliamentary and popular politics, the audience is the general public, a mixed group that is found in the open at a public arena. Deliberative (protreptic) oratory has the present situation in mind and exhorts or warns concerning the future. The theme is decision-making. Looking into the future, it gives advice, admonishes and persuades people to follow the right way. It invites the audience into the speech, often reasoning from examples,97 and frequently uses exclamations, anastrophe and questions. It uses simplifications and exaggerations in order to make the message clearer and emotionally richer. The real issue is what is good for the people just now and in the future. The motivating goal makes exhortations and warnings essential. As a deliberative speech the SM appeals to common authorities, and this is the Tanach (Matt 5,17f; 5,21ff and the use of Solomon as Old Testament example, 6,28ff) and the common view of publicans and pagans (5,46f; 6,7f.32). The Jewish speaker thus has a mixed Jewish crowd as his audience. 4) Representative audience? Some modern perspectives. Instead of asking who they are, one could ask, who is missing? Do we have rich people in the audience, or gentiles, or Pharisees and Scribes? How many women were present? We do not know, but a search for possible hints in the text can shed light on the question and even the text itself. In the wake of feminist exegesis, a few studies of this kind can be mentioned. So far the studies have mostly dealt with the notion of God as

95 Usener, “Hörer” (above, n. 81); eadem, “Publikum”, Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, ed. Gerd Ueding, vol. 7, Tübingen: Niemeyer 2005, 452–474. 96 Quintilian, Inst. VIII,4 (amplificandi vel minuendi). In Inst. XI, about performance, the audience is in focus. 97 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation (1984), 46, notices correctly that the phrase συµφέρει σοι in Matt 5,29f is characteristic of classical deliberative oratory.

4.5 The SM in Light of Audience-criticism

313

Father, which is indeed an important feature in the SM.98 Is gender an issue, or are both male and female included in ‘man’ (ἄνθρωπος) and ‘we’, ‘you’, ‘they’, ‘them’?99 It is a paradox that within a seemingly androcentric perspective, the Antitheses and other texts in the SM offer a nearly female ethos. 4.5.2 Application of the Method on the SM The best tool is to disclose the ‘open spaces’ behind every ‘I’, ‘we’, ‘you’, ‘they’, ‘them’, in the text, analysing the role of the ‘I’ and the relation between ‘I’ and ‘you’/‘they’. Sometimes ‘I’ and ‘you’ are united into a ‘we’, sometimes ‘I’ and ‘you’ have a distant relation. ‘You’ can be a general (ὑµεῖς) or a special ‘you’ (σύ). Sometimes we have an ‘I/we’ versus ‘they’ relation. ‘They’ (αὐτοί, etc.) can be positive, neutral and sometimes hostile, and sometimes all these groups are united in the notion of ‘all’ (πᾶς). The most puzzling feature in the text is the use of ‘you’. The occurrence and differentiation between five forms is important:100 You (plural) ὑµεῖς

You (singular) σύ/σου

Everyone (3rd person) πᾶς, ὅς, ὅστις

Near αὐτοί

Distant groups αὐτοί, ἄνθρωπος

Distant groups are more specific people like Pharisees, Scribes, false prophets, hypocrites (ὑποκριταί), publicans and pagans (τελῶναι, ἐθνικοί). 1) The implied speaker in the SM (ἐγώ, µοι, µου). The implied author is silent. There are no signals about a later understanding of a certain text, and no hints for the interpretation of the logia. Time is not insignificant in the SM. The SM provides predictions for the future (5,3ff.11f.18; 7,22), but time does not clarify or introduce a better understanding. The implied speaker does not present himself. To present the speaker is the very function of Matt 4,17–5,2. The speaker appears, however, with an extremely strong voice: In the Beatitudes he has the power to establish rules for who may enter the Kingdom of God. According to Matt 5,11 some suffer for his sake (ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ); and according to Matt 5,17, Jesus’ coming (ἦλθον) is more crucial then the Law and the Prophets. Matt 5,18 introduces the extreme authoritative saying 98 Julian Sheffield, “The Father in the Gospel of Matthew”, in Amy-Jill Levine/Marianne Blickenstaff (eds.), A Feminist Companion to Matthew, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 2001, 52–69, esp. the lists pp. 53–58, ending with a theological conclusion: Father “is virtually exclusively applied to the heavenly father”, which has consequences for the inclusive attitude towards all groups. D’Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father’” (1992), has a broader perspective, showing that ‘Father’ is in contrast to imperial cults (pp. 627–630). 99 Hans-Ulrich Weidemann has turned the focus on the speaker also: Has the speaker an androcentric perspective? Cf. Weidemann, “‘Vergeltet nicht dem bösen Mann!’” (2012), esp. 64–68. 100 In the vast literature on the SM we cannot find any analysis of this linguistic phenomenon. A fourth group, the ‘we-sentences’, is closer to the speaker.

314

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

(ἀµὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑµῖν), and this vocabulary is a significant feature in the first part of the SM (Matt 5,22.25.28.32.34.39.44: ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν, ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν in 6,4.5.16 and simply λέγω ὑµῖν in 6,25.29). In Matt 7,21f he accepts his ascribed authority as κύριε κύριε and accepts that some even do signs and wonders in his name (τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι). He can formulate confessions (ὁµολογήσω) and in common with ‘knowing God’, eternal life will depend on knowing him and being known by him (ἔγνων ὑµᾶς). Matt 7,24.26 concludes that hearing his words and doing them (ἀκούει µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς) has the same status as hearing and doing the will of God. Jesus is the only ‘I’ in the SM. The ‘we’ (ἡµεῖς) – nearly missing: Normally ‘we’ constitutes a certain group, but in the SM ‘we’ is mentioned only in the Lord’s Prayer. They are allowed into the closest relationship to the father (6,11: πάτερ ἡµῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) and the ἡµᾶς (ἡµεῖς/ἡµῶν/ἡµῖν) is repeated eight times in 6,11– 13.101 Does this mean that the group is not established as a we-community? The ‘we’ is in fact constituted through the ‘I’. It is a group established through the foundation given in Jesus’ teaching. The Lord’s Prayer is from this point of view a foundational ritual. The ‘we’ are not the audience, but a community that will be founded in days to come.102 2) Implied audience in the plural ‘you’-sentences. The SM sometimes appeals to the listeners more directly: The implied speaker asks the implied audience for attention (attentio/attendum): Matt 5,11f: “Blessed are you when people insult you (ὑµᾶς), persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad (χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε), because great is your reward (µισθὸς ὑµῶν) in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you (προφήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑµῶν).”103 Matt 5,13f: “You are (ὑµεῖς ἐστε) the salt of the earth and (ὑµεῖς ἐστε) the light of the world.” Matt 5,17: “Do not think (νοµίσητε) that I have come (ἦλθον) to abolish the Law” – a warning more than a refutation, asking the audience to think in a new direction. Matt 5,18.20: “I tell you the truth” (ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν … Λέγω γὰρ ὑµῖν)

101 Matt 6,11f: τὸν ἄρτον ἡµῶν – δὸς ἡµῖν – ἄφες ἡµῖν τὰ ὀφειλήµατα ἡµῖν/ἡµῶν – ἡµεῖς ἀφήκαµεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡµῶν – µὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡµᾶς – ῥῦσαι ἡµᾶς. 102 We-sentences elsewhere in the SM are rare: 6,30 (τί φάγωµεν; ἤ τί πίωµεν; ἤ τί περιβαλώµεθα;) and 7,22f: οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι ἐπροφητεύσαµεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι δαιµόνια ἐξεβάλοµεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι δυνάµεις πολλὰς ἐποιήσαµεν; 103 It ends in 7,23 with the opposite and a false prophecy: οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑµᾶς· ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ οἱ ἐργαζόµενοι τὴν ἀνοµίαν.

4.5 The SM in Light of Audience-criticism

315

Matt 5,20: “Unless your righteousness surpasses (περισσεύσῃ ὑµῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη) you will certainly not enter (µὴ εἰσέλθητε) …” Matt 5,21.27.33.38.43 has “You have heard” (ἠκούσατε) five times.104 Matt 6,1; 7,15 has προσέχετε (6,1: your acts of righteousness) twice – an extremely precise rhetorical signal for a protreptic speech. Matt 6,26.28 has the call to attention: ἐµβλέψατε and καταµάθετε twice. Matt 7,4 is unique with its vocative: ὑποκριτά. Sometimes the pronoun is emphasised, and sometimes it is included in the verb, both in the aorist and the present imperative. The distribution of the 22 imperatives present and 38 imperatives aorist or other imperative forms105 is not decisive here. The remarkable observation is that we have more than 70 imperatives in the 107 verses of the SM. They occur in all parts of the speech, but most of them are part of the narrative or parables/metaphorical sayings. The plural ‘you’ (ὑµεῖς) in general warnings to the implied audience: Some of them give the paragraph their structure, like in Matt 6,19–7,11: Matt 6,19–24 µὴ θησαυρίζετε Matt 6,25–34 µὴ µεριµνᾶτε Matt 7,1–5 µὴ κρίνετε Matt 7,6–11 µὴ δῶτε The sentences in plural ‘you’ form greatly emphasise the positive content of the ethical demands. In Matt 5,3–6,18 we have some positive commandments: 5,16: “let your light shine (τὸ φῶς ὑµῶν) before men, that they may see your good deeds (ὑµῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα) and praise your Father (τὸν πατέρα ὑµῶν) in heaven.” 5,44: The correction of the thesis of ‘you’ (σου) comes immediately: “Love your neighbour and hate your enemy/ies (ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν) and pray for those who persecute you (τῶν διωκόντων ὑµᾶς)” – followed by 5,45: “that you may be sons of your Father in heaven (υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑµῶν)”.106 5,48: “Be perfect (ἔσεσθε … ὑµεῖς τέλειοι), as your heavenly Father (ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν) is perfect.”

104

It is a strange exhortation, leaving open when, how, by whom, for what; did they have a relation to the elders; who that might be, etc. Only a few things about the content are made clear. Most likely it refers to information given in a synagogue, and so the audience would primarily be Jews. 105 The general usage of a present imperative is durative and iterative versus the aorist imperative as ‘punctiliar’ and ‘ingressive’ which has some impact, cf. BDR, 335–337. Next to the conjunctivus prohibitivus (aorist) we have six indicative future. 106 In addition: 5,46f: “if you love those who love you (τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς), what reward will you get? If you greet only your brothers (ἀδελφοὺς ὑµῶν), what are you doing more than others?”

316

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

After Matt 6,19 we have many positive exhortations: 6,20(19): “Store up treasures” (θησαυρίζετε … ὑµῖν, and 6,19: µὴ θησαυρίζετε). 7,2: “In the same way you judge others, you will be judged (κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε)” … “… you measure, it will be measured to you (ἐν ᾧ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε µετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν)”. 7,7: “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find (αἰτεῖτε … δοθήσεται ὑµῖν, ζητεῖτε … εὑρήσετε); knock and the door will be opened to you (κρούετε, ἀνοιγήσεται ὑµῖν).” 7,12: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you (ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν … οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε).” 7,13: “Enter (εἰσέλθατε) through the narrow gate.” The reasons for the commandments (imperatives) have different forms: 6,21: “Where your treasure is, there is your heart … (θησαυρός σου, ἡ καρδία σου).“ 6,24: “No one can (οὐδεὶς δύναται) serve two masters.” 6,26.28: “See how your heavenly Father valuates them” (ἐµβλέψατε … ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν … οὐχ ὑµεῖς µᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν; … καταµάθετε). 7,16.20: By their fruit you will recognize them (ἐπιγνώσεσθε αὐτούς). Two questions: 6,27: Who of you … (τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑµῶν); 7,9: Which of you … (τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑµῶν ἄνθρωπος); The plural ‘you’ thus entails the vision of what discipleship is all about. There is often a close relationship to the implied speaker, to Jesus. On the other hand, by using the singular ‘you’, Jesus distances himself more from people with a false attitude (using ‘you’ plural). He uses very critical and extreme examples. 3) The extreme texts with singular ‘you’. The switch between the singular ‘you’ versus the plural ‘you’ is not unique. In most of the paraenetic texts in the New Testament and also in the SM, the 2nd person plural dominates. Distinct plural texts are Matt 5,11–16; 5,43–48; 6,9–14; 6,25–34; 7,6–12; (7,15–23). The singular form in the σύ-texts is specific for the SM and not only for Matt 6,1ff. The two forms are intertwined in Matt 6,1–18 in a special way. The later textual tradition may indicate that this is more or less an arbitrary adjustment.107 The same pattern can be observed in Matt 5,33–37; 6,19–21; 7,1–5.

107

Erich Klostermann, “Zum Verständnis von Mt 6,2”, ZNW 47 (1956), 280f: “schon früh ist der Singular in v. 2 aus falscher Angleichung an v. 3 in den Text gekommen”.

4.5 The SM in Light of Audience-criticism

317

The somewhat surprising use of singular ‘you’ might be a riddle, but it provides one answer to a major question in the research on SM: how to understand the radicalism and the extreme sayings in the SM. We will see that nearly all of the extreme sayings have ‘you’ in the singular. The ‘you’ basically reflects the form of the Decalogue, as we have it in the two commandments in the SM, Matt 5,21.27. The Decalogue, the Shema, the commandment of ‘neighbour love’ (Lev 19,18) have influenced the usage of σύ in Matthew. The relation between σύ and God is always emphasised, and σύ has a paraenetic force. Σύ/σε/σοί/σου is used 17 times with reference to God the Father (ὁ πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ἀποδώσει σοι), and God is called πατήρ σου here (elsewhere πατήρ ὑµῶν). However, in the SM singular σύ occurs mostly in parables and in extreme examples. The σύ-pattern in metaphorical texts in the SM can only be compared with the usage of σύ in many of the parables. This feature occurs 30 times in the parables and examples in the ‘Antitheses’, 5,21–48 (1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th antithesis): Matt 5,23–24: six times: σου – σου – σου – σου – σου – σου Matt 5,25–26: three times: σου – σε – σοί Matt 5,29–30: 12 times: σου – σε – σου – σοί – σου – σου – σε – σου – σοι – σου – σου Matt 5,33.36: twice: σου – σου, changed to ὑµῶν in 5,37 Matt 5,39–42: six/seven times: σε – [σου] – σοί – σου – σε – σε – σου The most consistent usage can be found in Matt 6,1–18, using the form 19 times. Matt 6,1–18 is part of a larger pattern and in this respect is not unique in the SM. The only unique feature is the emphatic position of σύ/σοῦ δέ in Matt 6,3.6.17: Matt 6,2–4: seven times: σου – σου – σου – σου – σου – σου – σοί Matt 6,6–7: six times: σύ – σου – σου – σου – σου – σοί Matt 6,16–18: six times: σύ – σου – σου – σου – σου – σοί Later in the SM: the σύ-form occurs 13 times: Matt 6,19–21: twice in 6,21: σου – σου Matt 6,22–23: five times: σου – σου – σου – σου – σοί Matt 7,3–5: six times: σου – σῷ – σου – σου – σου – σου Σύ as brother and adversary: A sermon to the disciples could have been a sermon to ‘brothers’. ‘Brother’ has a variety of meanings in the Tanach that makes a restriction to ‘disciples’ impossible. In Deuteronomy ‘brother’ means something like a fellow Jew.108 Here, however, we find the notion that 108

Frankemölle, Jahwebund (1974), 178ff. Cf. Norbert Lohfink, who in studies of Deuteronomy – in condensed form in “Gottesvolk als Lerngemeinschaft: Zur Kirchenwirk-

318

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

ἀδελφός σου is a person at some distance from the community. Both the SM and the SP use the term in Matt 7,3–5 (= Luke 6,41–43): ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου – πῶς ἐρεῖς τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου – ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλµοῦ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου (both have the term four times). Matthew has the term in the first antithesis and also in the adjuncted parable. The commandments in the first antithesis are extreme (5,22: πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόµενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ; 5,23: ὃς δ᾿ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ῥακά). To leave everything for the sake of forgiveness (5,23f: ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔχει τι κατὰ σοῦ … ὕπαγε πρῶτον διαλλάγηθι τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου) is a hyperbolic exaggeration.109 Σύ in other challenging texts: The next texts, Matt 5,29f and 5,39–42, exaggerate even more. Σύ/σε/σοί/σου occur here 12 times, and to gouge out your eye or cut off your arm if the eye and the arm cause you to sin, is even stricter than Sharia. It is a hyperbolic exaggeration that can only be compared with the so-called non-violence text Matt 5,39–42, where ‘you’ (σύ, etc.) is used six or seven times.110 In the rest of the SM the relationship to the neighbour is more peaceful, like in Matt 6,1–18: not to announce with a trumpet (µὴ σαλπίσῃς ἔµπροσθέν σου) or “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (µὴ γνώτω ἡ ἀριστερά σου τί ποιεῖ ἡ δεξιά σου). It is also paradoxical, even if it sounds normal, to “go into your (store) room and close the door” and “to put oil on your head and wash your face” (ἄλειψαί σου τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ τὸ πρόσωπόν σου νίψαι). There are also less extreme texts with a singular ‘you’, like Matt 6,21 (σου is used twice, ὅπου γάρ ἐστιν ὁ θησαυρός σου, ἐκεῖ ἔσται καὶ ἡ καρδία σου) and 6,22f (ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου – τὸ σῶµά σου) ending up with a reflection on the possibility that the light turns into darkness (τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν). Ἀδελφός – a distant group: It is rather surprising that ἀδελφός denotes a distant or even outside group. In Matt 5,47 it has more of its normal meaning (ἀδελφός = physical brother, kinship) and perhaps also in 5,22. However, in 5,23f it is a parallel to 5,25f (ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχύ), and it denotes a person you have a complicated relationship to, or even an adversary. The ‘brother’ has something against you (ἔχει τι κατὰ σοῦ, 5,23f, used twice). lichkeit im Buch Deuteronomium”, BK 39 (1984), 90–100 – underlined the same. Norbert’s brother Gerhard Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (1988), 32–35, 73, etc. focuses on the disciples and identifies church and disciples. In his recent comprehensive analysis (Jesus of Nazareth [2012]), he sees a more complex pattern (pp. 96f), and in ch. 6 (“The many faces of being called”) he “corrects my previous approach” (p. 362, n. 2). 109 Σου is used three times about τὸ δῶρόν σου and once about the mysterious adversary in 5,25: ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχύ, also µήποτέ σε παραδῷ ὁ ἀντίδικος. 110 Matt 5,33–37 also has two ‘you’-references. In analogy with the Decalogue, it has the formulation ἀποδώσεις δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ τοὺς ὅρκους σου, and refers to µήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀµόσῃς in 5,36.

4.5 The SM in Light of Audience-criticism

319

In Matt 7,3–5 you have the same complicated relationship: you see his weaknesses (τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, used three times). In the Pauline letters, ἀδελφός is the Christian brother/sister, a member of the actual congregation. The language in the SM is formed by the Deuteronomistic notion of ‘fellow Jew’. 4) The reference to general audiences in the 3rd person (αὐτοί, πᾶς, etc.). (a) The 3rd person αὐτοί: Αὐτός is in fact almost a favourite term in the SM, as we see in Matt 6,33 (τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ) and in 7,24.26 (“doing the words” – ποιεῖ αὐτούς).111 Here it denotes God, like in 5,45 (his sun – ὁ ἥλιος αὐτοῦ) and 6,8; 7,9 (about prayer/asking God: πρὸ τοῦ ὑµᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν/ δώσει ἀγαθὰ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν). The notion of αὐτός can have a positive and including force: in all eight beatitudes (Matt 5,3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10) αὐτῶν/αὐτοί are the recipients of gifts. In Matt 6,1–18 αὐτοί occasionally denotes somebody/something you can at least partly identify with (6,1.5.16, their reward, 6,7, their πολυλογία, and also 6,2.5.16). Αὐτός occasionally has a neutral meaning, like in the parable Matt 7,24.27 (αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν). It points to something near the acting person,112 like in Matt 5,22 (τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ), 5,28f.30.31f (women, wife), 5,28 (his heart), 5,35 (his head). Most significant is the ‘Golden Rule’, 7,12 οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς. It may be a friend or a foe: the same attitude is required. Αὐτός also has negative connotations, however. It refers to an outside group: 5,39: 5,41: 6,1.2: 6,8: 6,26:

ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱµάτιον· καὶ ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει µίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε µετ᾿ αὐτοῦ δύο. µὴ ποιεῖν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς· µὴ οὖν ὁµοιωθῆτε αὐτοῖς οὐχ ὑµεῖς µᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν;

Aὐτοί often denotes somebody you should keep your distance from: Matt 5,25.40 (his adversary); 6,7.8.16.26; 7,6.23 (confess before them); αὐτοί are persons who trespass (τὰ παραπτώµατα αὐτῶν, 6,14) or refers to false prophets (7,15) and their fruit (7,16.20; ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν αὐτῶν). The term ἐπιγνώσεσθε αὐτούς (7,16.20) does not explicitly address the ‘you’ in order to give them a lesson in botany. Instead, Jesus warns them rather sincerely. (b) The very general ‘everyone’ (πᾶς, ὅς, etc.): The universal address is significant in many πᾶς-sentences. They often deal with negative attitudes: 111 For further discussion on the remarkable formulation, see Strecker, Bergpredigt (21985), 44f. Idem, Weg der Gerechtigkeit (1962), 154ff, nearly overlooks the pronoun. The phrase in the Golden Rule (οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς) occurs in both Matthew and Luke. 112 The usage is neutral and more distant when it concerns a lamp (5,15), birds (6,27), the glory of Solomon (6,29), the evil of a day (6,34), pigs (7,6), a gate (7,13f).

320

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

The πᾶς in the parable in Matt 5,15 (λάµπει πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ) can be given a universal or a restricted meaning. The first option should be preferred. Ὅστις, ὁ, etc. also denote ‘everybody’. The universal address is basic. Matt 5,19: ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ Matt 5,21: ὃς δ᾿ ἂν φονεύσῃ Matt 5,22: πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόµενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ὃς δ᾿ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ὃς δ᾿ ἂν εἴπῃ· µωρέ Matt 5,28: πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυῆσαι αὐτήν Matt 5,31: ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ Matt 5,32: πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυµένην γαµήσῃ Matt 5,39: ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει … Matt 5,41: ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει Matt 7,24.26: Πᾶς … ὅστις ἀκούει µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ (µὴ) ποιεῖ One could add Matt 7,9f (ὃν αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρτον) and 7,23: οἱ ἐργαζόµενοι. Some πᾶς-sentences deal with gifts and producing fruit:113 Matt 7,8: πᾶς γὰρ ὁ αἰτῶν λαµβάνει … Matt 7,17: πᾶν δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖ … Matt 7,19: πᾶν δένδρον µὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται. Matt 7,21: οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων µοι … ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ πατρός µου. Matt 7,24: πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιεῖ … Matt 7,26: πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ µὴ ποιῶν … The ὅς/ὅστις-sentences are close to the πᾶς-sentences:114 Matt 5,19: ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ µίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων … Matt 5,19: ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ … Matt 7,24 ὅστις ᾠκοδόµησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν … Matt 7,26 ὅστις ᾠκοδόµησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄµµον … In addition, two τίς-parables should also be mentioned: Matt 6,27: τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑµῶν µεριµνῶν … Matt 7,9: τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑµῶν ἄνθρωπος … Nearly 25 sayings offer a universal perspective. The universal sayings often have conditional formulations, but they are in fact as unconditional as the 113 The general 3rd person imperative addresses the audience: Matt 5,16: οὕτως λαµψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑµῶν … and 5,37: ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑµῶν … 114 We have seen (above, p. 180, n. 191) m.Abot 3,17 as a close parallel (“Anyone whose wisdom is greater than his deeds … anyone whose deeds are greater than his wisdom”), but there are more, e.g. m.Abot 4,23: “… he who learns. When a child … he who learns from an old man.”

4.5 The SM in Light of Audience-criticism

321

apodictic sayings. This is why they give no reasons for their descriptions of right behaviour. In these sayings, the correct standard for a Jew should be enforced. The following sentences describe a standard below what is expected from a Jew. 5) The implied audience as a distanced, ideal audience. Even if there is no in-group, we can at least identify certain groups Jesus has a distant relationship to. He can even warn against some of them. Ἄνθρωπος means everyone, but also an outside group: Ἄνθρωπος means πᾶς, ὁ, ὅστις, certainly everyone. The expression τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑµῶν ἄνθρωπος in 7,9 shows this clearly. Ἄνθρωπος is nearly synonymous with ‘neighbour’ (6,14f). It is therefore used in the Golden Rule (7,12: πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς). We see the general address in the ἄνθρωπος-sayings. With eleven occurrences this term is significant in the SM. Matthew uses the term frequently, but the usage in the SM is slightly different.115 Matt 5,13: ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων Matt 5,16: ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων Matt 5,19: τοὺς ἀνθρώπους Matt 6,1.2.5.16: ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς Matt 6,14f: τοῖς ἀνθρώποις – τοῖς ἀνθρώποις Matt 7,9: τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑµῶν ἄνθρωπος Matt 7,12: οἱ ἄνθρωποι Already in 5,13f we see an extremely universal horizon, salt of the earth, light of the world. The salt can be obstructed, hampered and hindered in its given function. If it is useless, it will be thrown ‘outside’ (ἔξω) and rejected by men (καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων). The light must shine for men (5,16: οὕτως λαµψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑµῶν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑµῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα) in this world. The followers of Jesus should teach men (5,19f: διδάξῃ οὕτως τοὺς ἀνθρώπους) and practise righteousness (6,1), to the benefit of men, but not for the sake of praise and to be seen by men (6,1.2.16.18). In the Golden Rule (7,12) ἄνθρωπος has the same universal meaning: it is the ‘you’ we meet everywhere in this life. Others with a distant relationship to the speaker: In Matt 7,11 these people are called ‘evil’ (ὑµεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες). In the same category is ὀλιγόπιστοι, ‘people of little faith’ in Matt 6,30 and perhaps also the hypocrites in Matt 115 Ἄνθρωπος is mostly a neutral term (Matt 4,4; 8,9 etc.); there are good and bad people (12,35 vs. 13,28), and ἄνθρωποι are mostly people one hardly knows, Matt 9,9.32; 10,32f (ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων); 12,10f or at the end Matt 26,72; 27,32.57. Matt 10,17 warns against men (προσέχετε δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων). The Christological term ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, which Matthew emphasises (8,20; 9,6; 10,23; 11,19, etc.), is therefore extremely interesting. The disciples’ task is to be ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων, 4,19.

322

§ 4 Audience in the Sermon on the Mount

6,1–18 (οἱ ὑποκριταί, and ὑποκριτά, 7,5). The ‘hypocrites’ in Matt 6,2.5.16 are often understood as Pharisees, because they give alms and they pray and fast while being seen on the streets and in the synagogues. Even disciples can turn out to be ‘hypocrites’, and the audience is asked to distance themselves from the Scribes and Pharisees, Matt 5,20. This logion is so important that scholars have made it to the very key word in the SM.116 The Pharisees are mentioned only in the first and the last speeches in Matthew: Matthew 5,20

(10)

(13)

(18)

23,2.13.15.23.25.26.27.29

The Pharisees are not the audience of the SM. They are referred to in Matt 5,20 as negative examples. In the narratives, outside the speeches, the Pharisees are only occasionally friendly, and in Matt 23 they are Jesus’ opponents: Matthew 3,7 (Q)

9,11.14.34

12,2.14; 12,24.38 (both Q)

15,1.12; 16,1.6.11.12

19,3; 21,45; 22,15.34.41

27,62

In the SM, Pharisees and Scribes are closer to Jesus than gentiles and publicans are. The publicans are mentioned twice: 5,46: οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσι 5,47: οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; The distance to pagans is even bigger. They are definitely in a wrong position:117 Matt 5,47: Do not even pagans (οἱ ἐθνικοί) do that (τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν)? Matt 6,7: When you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans (οἱ ἐθνικοί). Matt 6,32: The pagans (τὰ ἔθνη) run after all these things.118 To see the difference between good and better, or between good and evil, is the point in Matt 6,25–33. The pagans are thus negative examples to a greater extent than the Pharisees, but none of them are the ‘audience’. The rhetorical function as negative examples is obvious. Much worse than the pagans are the publicans and of course the Pharisees and Scribes. The false prophets represent the real danger to the would-be dis116

A broader review is provided by Detlev Dormeyer, “Die Rollen von Volk, Jüngern und Gegnern im Matthäusevangelium”, in Rainer Kampling (ed.), “Dies ist das Buch …”: Das Matthäusevangelium; Interpretation – Rezeption – Rezeptionsgeschichte. FS H. Frankemölle, Paderborn: Schöningh 2004, 105–128. 117 Cf. Matt 6,26: οὐχ ὑµεῖς µᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν; 6,30: οὐ πολλῷ µᾶλλον ὑµᾶς, ὀλιγόπιστοι (“O you of little faith”); 118 Matt 6,32 summarizes through πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα and the verb ἐπιζητοῦσιν. This is the transition to the key verse 6,33 (ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν).

4.6 Concluding Remarks

323

ciples. One should watch out for them: προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν (7,15). Does this mean that the would-be disciples could be called prophets?119

4.6 Concluding Remarks An historian must investigate the audience of the historical Jesus. This must be analysed on the level of orality. Who the addressees/readers of Matthew the evangelist are is a secondary question. For theologians and exegetes who study the SM in the context of literacy, the conclusion is mostly that the SM is disciple-ethics, the ethos for devout followers, ascetic movements, ‘itinerant radicals’, etc. Some arguments are valid and point in this direction. ‘Disciple’ is therefore given a very narrow meaning, partly in order to make the radical demands meaningful. Redaction-criticism, sociological analysis and others tend to see the speech in the same perspective. There are, however, more signals in the text that point in a different direction. The Jewish setting must firstly be underlined: a Jew delivered the speech to Jews living in a mixed environment distant from Jerusalem. All this speaks against the mirror-reading of the frame, assuming that the frame reflects the situation of the Matthean community, most likely in Antioch. The only reference point is the reference to Syria in Matt 4,24. The frame tells us nothing about the situation, the conflicts and challenges. On the level of orality, the picture is much clearer. A rhetorical and a reader-response analysis proved persuasively that the SM is addressed to a broader audience. A refined audience-response criticism demonstrates that not only general sentences like Matt 7,12 indicate a broader audience, but so does in fact the whole speech. The open term ‘crowd’, used in Matt 4,25; 8,1, indicates a broader audience, and the Woes in Luke 6,24ff do the same. The SM is universal ethics and is not addressed just to the disciples or to an elite. The sayings mostly presuppose a general audience. The plural ‘you’ (ὑµεῖς), every one (πᾶς, ὅς, ὅστις) signals a general addressee. It is strange that the singular ‘you’ (σύ/σου) does not denote an inner group. They are rather like αὐτοί, ἄνθρωπος to whom one has a distant relation. The last words point to a nearer group which includes the devoted disciples. The audience is basically every man of goodwill,120 the message is addressed to would-be disciples. A new reader-response analysis searching for signals in the speech itself proves that the SM has a universal addressee.

119 120

See below, § 5.8.2. Krieger, “Das Publikum der Bergpredigt” (1986), 112–115.

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount: An Ethos for Pilgrims and Prophets/Sages “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried.”1 There is some truth in G.K. Chesterton’s exaggeration. The SM is indeed found difficult. It is ‘moral mountain-climbing’ (L. Ragaz), and Reinhold Niebuhr formulated the dilemma in the following way: How can an impossible ethical ideal have any relevance?2 The SM has not been ‘left untried’. Movements and devoted individuals have indeed tried to fulfil its commandments. They are often called ‘radicals’, because they want to live out the ‘radical’ commands. The question is: What does ‘radical’ mean? In a book on a ‘radical philosophy of life’ the term ‘radical’ must be clearly defined.

5.1 The Problem of ‘Radicalism’: What Is It? ‘Radical’ is a modern term. In the second century CE, the demands in the SM were not called ‘radical’, but rather extreme and unrealistic. Justin Martyr let the Jew Trypho make the following statement: “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.”3 The asceticism and the first monasteries were eager to disprove this accusation. The goal of ‘monastic’ movements was to fulfil the ethos of the SM. The question, as early as in the fifth century, was this: Can this ethos be lived out extra or just intra muros monasterii? The radicalism of Jesus has been a problem, if not the problem4 – inside and outside the monasteries, inside and outside the churches. 1

Gilbert Keith Chesterton, What’s Wrong with the World?, Kindle ed., loc. 364. R. Niebuhr, Moral Man (1932); idem, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics (1935); Goppelt, “Problem der Bergpredigt” (1968); cf. Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (1987), 462; Schnackenburg, “Die Bergpredigt Jesu und der heutige Mensch” (1967), 117: “… wie schwierig und schwerwiegend die Frage der Erfüllbarkeit ist”. 3 Justin, Dial. 10. 4 Frederick C. Grant, “The Impracticability of the Gospel Ethics”, in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne. FS M. Goguel, Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé 1950, 86–94; T.W. Manson, Ethics and the Gospel (1962), 58–68; Ernst Lerle, “Realisierbare Forderungen der 2

326

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

However, Matthew and Luke did not see the ‘radicalism’ as a problem. The SM is the foundational speech, and a foundational speech can hardly be an unrealistic speech. It cannot be utopic. It must be possible to act according to its demands, or at least have the ethical demands as an ideal or a programme. Radicalism is not the problem, but one of the problems in scholarship of the SM. How much and how far does this issue of radicalism dominate in the SM? Is ‘radicalism’ restricted to the demands or in fact to the ‘Antitheses’? Is impracticability versus practicability a too narrow perspective? Is an either/or answer possible? Both the form (hyperbolic forms, antitheses, etc.) and the content of ‘radical’ statements (on property, marriage, fasting, love, relationships) must be considered. The question of impracticability5 (German: ‘Realisierbarkeit’) is often used in order to replace the term ‘radicalism’. Are the radical demands feasible, and can they be fulfilled (be realized), are they viable, realistic, etc.? The modern term ‘radical’ has prevailed. 1) The term ‘radical’. The notion of ‘radical’ is vague and slippery. The meaning differs from one science to another, and has a variety of meanings in political science, in which it is a key term. Complex terms are problematic, because the definition, the evaluation, the aspects and areas of usage will vary a lot.6 The term ‘radical’ became a theological term after it was developed in political philosophy following Enlightenment. In the nineteenth century it was an honourable label, used by liberals in their opposition to the conservatives. To be liberal means being independent from ‘tradition’, being willing to have drastic changes and struggle for progress. In the twentieth century it had more mixed connotations because the revolutionary movements in the first decades tended to monopolize the term. In the last decade the word was exploited by radical Islamists. The notion of ‘radical Islam’ has uncovered tensions in the term: conventional versus revolutionary, moderate versus extreme, progressive versus absolute, etc. In times when moderation is advocated in the media, people want to avoid the extreme, fanatical positions, and the term is discredited.

Bergpredigt”, KD 16 (1970), 32–40; Luck, Die Vollkommenheitsforderung der Bergpredigt (1968); Jost Eckert, “Wesen und Funktion der Radikalismen in der Botschaft Jesu”, MTZ 24 (1973), 301–325; Günther Schmahl, “Gültigkeit und Verbindlichkeit der Bergpredigt”, BibLeb 14 (1983), 180–187. Thaddeus Matura, Gospel Radicalism: The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Maryknoll: Orbis 1984. 5 The German – artificial – term ‘Realisierbarkeit’ focuses on the same thing: that the commands in the SM are difficult or not possible to be put into practice. 6 Cf. “Radical (ideologist)” in Encyclopædia Britannica, 10 January 2020.

5.1 The Problem of ‘Radicalism’: What Is It?

327

However, ‘radical’ is still a popular term in New Testament scholarship. ‘Radicalism’ is characteristic of Jesus, according to many scholars.7 Bultmann formulated this very sharply, and scholars inside and outside the Bultmannschool followed his interpretation. Radical and radicalism are used on the one hand as positive terms: as the opposite of ‘conservative’, ‘traditional’, ‘Pharisaic’, etc.8 On the other hand, the terms have mixed connotations, meaning consistent, extreme, unrealistic, etc. Bruno Schüller has correctly criticised this terminology, both on philosophical and exegetical levels.9 In scholarly literature ‘radicalism’ has at least five aspects: (a) On demands: The term is equal to absolute when focusing on the demands as norms, meaning consistent, without modification, etc. The opposite is casuistic, legalistic, measurable (German: ‘Meßbares’), etc.,10 everything that modifies the absolute demands.11 We frequently see this usage in liberal and existentialistic theology (by R. Bultmann).

7

G. Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (1988), 65–98, makes an extensive analysis, on Bultmann pp. 67–69. 8 Bultmann was more precise, however. He defined ‘radical’ and ‘conservative’ based on their interpretation of the Law: Jesus opposes the Scribes and Pharisees and offers a ‘radical’ interpretation of the Law. This view oversimplifies the matter, and is very disputable from a historical point of view, not only in the eyes of Jewish scholars. 9 B. Schüller, both theologian and philosopher, in his “Zur Rede von der radikalen sittlichen Forderung” (1971) and in his exegetical study of Matt 5,22 in “Zur Interpretation der Antithesen der Bergpredigt” (1989), cf. his “Zur Problematik allgemein verbindlicher ethischer Grundsätze” (1970) and Die Begründung sittlicher Urteile (1973). G. Lohfink follows his way of argumentation closely in Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (1988), 65–98, and in idem, “Gesetzerfüllung und Nachfolge: Zur Radikalität des Ethischen im Matthäusevangelium”, in Helmut Weber (ed.), Der ethische Kompromiß: Studien zur theologischen Ethik, Freiburg: Herder 1984, 15–58. 10 Schüller, “Zur Rede von der radikalen sittlichen Forderung” (1971), lists five different meanings of the notion of ‘radical demand’. He sees even a deontological norm as a possible interpretation. Bultmann would restrict the latter interpretation, and his main perspective was that Jesus makes an absolute demand. Some would think the so-called Antitheses are going ‘back to the roots’. 11 Hans Steubing, Der Kompromiss als ethisches Problem, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1955; Dieter Walther, “Zur Behandlung des Kompromißproblems in der Geschichte der evangelisch-lutherischen Ethik”, KD 4 (1958), 73–111; Wolfgang Trillhaas, “Zum Problem des Kompromisses”, ZEE 4 (1960), 355–363; Helmut Weber, “Der Kompromiß in der Moral – Zu seiner theologischen Bestimmung und Bewertung”, TTZ 86 (1977), 99–118; Joachim Wiebering, “Kompromiß als christliche Kategorie”, ZEE 23 (1978), 296–306; Aukrust, “Bergpredigt II” , TRE 5 (1980), 618–626. Johannes Gründel, “Die Bergpredigt als Orientierung für unser Handeln”, in Rudolf Schnackenburg (ed.), Die Bergpredigt – utopische Vision oder Handlungsanweisung?, Düsseldorf: Patmos 1982, 81–112, illustrates the necessity to compromise with reference to Matt 5,33–37.

328

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

(b) On attitudes/positions: The attitude comes before the demands. Bultmann’s main concern was concepts and man’s attitude. The notion of ‘obedience’ should be understood in a radical way. Here Gerhard Lohfink uses the term ‘perfect’ (Matt 5,48) in the meaning of whole/undivided, etc., not about persons and personal development, but about attitude.12 (c) On people: ‘Radical’ often means devoted. The disciples are followers who willingly sacrifice even basic needs. In this sense ‘radical’ can be similar to rigorous, ascetic, fanatic, etc. The audience, Jesus’ first disciples, early Christian groups (Matthew’s community, etc.)13 were challenged to live according to the radical message. (d) Focusing on goals: The term can mean to be extreme. Disciples are putting this world aside in order to reach a higher goal. Their goal is not moralistic, not partial, not worldly, but the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, holiness and perfection. (e) On origin/foundation: The Latin radix = ‘root’ is etymologically the ‘root’ of the term. John the Baptist seems to be radical in this sense of the word (cf. Matt 3,10: “The axe is already at the root – ῥίζα – of the trees”). When Jesus in Matt 19,5 refers to “the creator from the beginning” (ὁ κτίσας ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς), he makes this pattern of thought explicit. Similarly to ‘radicals’ in Hebrew words, ‘radicalism’ presupposes that there was a given structure in the beginning. As such the term became important in the anthropology of Helmuth Plessner (1892–1983); for him ‘radical’ meant the intentionality of a given a priori.14 Therefore, ‘radical’ entails an opposition to outgrowths, excrescences, faulty development, decay, etc., which make a clear message indistinct and blurred. In this book ‘radical’ has an openness to many of these aspects. In this book, ‘radical philosophy of life’ means primarily a consistent attitude based on a foundational philosophy of life. 2) Procedure. The history of research is in this case extremely illuminating. It demonstrates the huge efforts to solve what many scholars define as the problems of the SM. Theologians and exegetes have cooperated in a joint effort to solve them. In the first part (§ 5.2–4) this will be analysed from a general theological perspective. The latter part (§ 5.5–7) will make some exegetical remarks on the problem. 12

Bultmann, Jesus (1926/1964), 68; G. Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (1988), 69–

75. 13 Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Das Liebesgebot Jesu als Tora und als Evangelium: Zur Feindesliebe und zur christlichen und jüdischen Auslegung der Bergpredigt”, in Hubert Frankemölle/Karl Kertelge (eds.), Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus. FS J. Gnilka, Freiburg etc.: Herder 1989, 194–230, 222: “Die Bergpredigt ist für Matthäus grundsätzlich realisierbar”. 14 Helmuth Plessner, Grenzen der Gemeinschaft: Eine Kritik des sozialen Radikalismus, Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp 2002, 14–17, 110. Plessner inspired Knud E. Løgstrup, Norm und Spontaneität, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1989, 6–38.

5.2 Remarks on the History of Research: Ways to Escape Radicalism

329

5.2 Remarks on the History of Research: Ways to Escape Radicalism The tendency to see the extraordinary demands as the problem, can be dated to the liberal era about 1900.15 The radical demands were then considered as obsolete and outdated, because they originated in a particular historical period or had particular persons in mind. A reductionistic view has dominated since then. The keyword has been ‘only’: the SM is ‘only for’ … and the intention is always to reduce the radicalism of the demands.16 J. Jeremias finds three ways of avoiding the radicalism,17 J. Roloff finds four (a relativistic, radical, privatizing and Christological interpretation)18 and P. Lapide seven ways,19 whereas Clarence Bauman in the most comprehensive history of research makes ‘only’ the key word for the whole history of research.20 Bauman balances this ‘only’-aspect correctly with scholars’ positive formulation of what the SM is all about. 5.2.1 Demands for a Particular Time This type of reductionism has many forms. It has to do with chronology and sometimes with more than that: with ‘period’, ‘experienced time’. 1) Interim-ethics. A. Schweitzer’s understanding of the SM has often been misunderstood. Scholarship refers mostly to his licentiate thesis, in which he successfully used the term ‘interim-ethics’21 for the extreme commands. The apocalyptic catastrophe demands a radical ethos, and this ethos was designed only for the time before the immediate coming of God’s reign. They had to be transformed into moderate demands after the prophecy of the coming of the Kingdom had failed. The result is extreme reductionism: only for this period of time the radical demands had meaning.

15 Fiebig, “Sinn der Bergpredigt” (1929/30); Traub, “Problem der Bergpredigt” (1936), esp. 193; Goppelt, “Problem der Bergpredigt” (1968); Roloff, Neues Testament (1977/ 4 1985), 7–16; Aukrust, “Bergpredigt II” , TRE 5 (1980), 618–626, and more comprehensively in Mennesket i samfunnet: En sosialetikk, vol. 1, Oslo: Forl. og Kirke 1965. Anders Nygren was very precise in EKL 1 (1956), 394: “… die außerordentlich zugespitzten Forderungen und die Frage, ob und wieweit sie überhaupt in einem Dasein wie dem unseren verwirklicht werden können”. 16 Bornkamm, Jesus (1954/151995), 202–204, introduced this approach. 17 Jeremias, Bergpredigt (1959)/Sermon (1961), 7–16, who lists three main opinions: perfectionism, the theory of the impossible ideal, and interim-ethics. 18 Roloff, Bergpredigt (1985), 107–122. 19 Lapide, Bergpredigt (1982)/Sermon (1986), ch. 1. 20 Bauman, Sermon (1985). 21 Schweitzer, Messianitäts- und Leidensbewußtsein Jesu (1901/31956), 10 (21ff). He was a 26-year-old recruited soldier when the idea for his licentiate came to him.

330

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

However, in his earliest and later sermons22 and in his book ‘Reverence for life’, the SM represented a positive impulse for ethical thinking.23 Schweitzer has in fact a broader understanding of the SM than many of his contemporaries (cf. § 1.3.6), like the famous liberal politician, Friedrich Naumann, who had been eager to include Christian ethics in his society and after a visit to Palestine in 1908 changed his views: Jesus’ radical teaching was part of this archaic society and could not be part of a modern society and ethics. Ernst Troeltsch took the ethics of primitive Christianity more seriously, but came to a similar conclusion: The idealistic anarchism and the communism of love in the SM and Early Church were totally inappropriate as ethics in the modern world. 2) Ethics for a society in the future. The particular time can also be located in the future. Karl Marx quoted Matt 6,19–21 and other texts as a model for a communist society, and as important utopian ethics.24 Similarly, Karl Jaspers saw the SM as absurd utopian demands intended for a better future,25 and the Jewish philosopher, Hans-Joachim Schoeps, argued comprehensively for this position.26 It is perhaps not too far-fetched to see dispensationalism (pre-millennialism) in this context. Like Schoeps the dispensationalists think the radical demands belong to a ‘chiliastic reign of Christ’.27 3) Radical demands – only for the sake of conversion. ‘Time’ here means the time before Christ, or the time when individuals struggle to obey the Law – without Christ. Based on Gal 3,24 (ὁ νόµος παιδαγωγὸς ἡµῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν = the Torah as our disciplinarian until Christ), the Lutheran Reformation developed the teaching about the second usage of the Law. Lutheran

22

Albert Schweitzer, Werke aus dem Nachlaß: Predigten 1898–1948, ed. Richard Brüllmann, München: C.H. Beck 2001. 23 Albert Schweitzer, Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben (1916), Karlsruhe: Müller 1947; ET: The Teaching of Reverence for Life, London: Owen 1966. 24 In Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels, Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe I: Werke und Schriften bis Anfang 1844 nebst Briefen und Dokumenten, Berlin: Marx-Engels-Verlag 1927, 232–257, here 246. 25 Jaspers made his comments to Nietzsche’s understanding of the SM in Karl Jaspers, Nietzsche: Einführung in das Verständnis seines Philosophierens, Berlin/Leipzig: De Gruyter 1936, and especially in Nietzsche und das Christentum, Hameln: Seifert 1938. 26 H.-J. Schoeps, “Jesus”, in idem, Aus frühchristlicher Zeit, Tübingen: Mohr 1950, 212–220, here 214: “Wenn das Reich kommt, wird mit diesem Äon auch das jüdische Gesetz ‘aufhören’ – übertreten zu werden. Es wird wirklich auch in seinem radikalsten Sinne zu erfüllen möglich sein, weil alsdann Sollen und Können, Gesetz und Tun, Gottes Wille und des Menschen Wünsche zusammenfallen werden.” 27 Matt 22,30 argues totally differently.

5.2 Remarks on the History of Research: Ways to Escape Radicalism

331

theologians like Carl Stange28 and exegetes like Gerhard Kittel,29 saw in fact the Pauline teaching of righteousness by faith as the solution. The SM, as preaching on repentance, regularly has this effect. The commandments of the SM are, however, not designed for this purpose. 5.2.2 Demands ‘Only’ for Particular People A sharp division between ‘time’ and ‘people’ cannot be drawn. ‘Radical people’ are found in many periods of church history. 1) Monastic interpretation. Since 529 CE and the Benedictine Rule, the radical demands were part of the monastic communal life. The Franciscans applied the radical demands in a new way, and the Belgian Benedictine Rupert de Deutz (1075/1080–1129) expressed in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew that the radical demands were designed for the monks and not for everyone. Thomas Aquinas’ thinking had the strongest impact, particularly his distinction between praecepta and consilia. He understood the radical demands of the SM as consilia (paupertas, castitas, celibacy, and in general obedientia), as virtues for the few and not for people living outside the monasteries.30 In 1257 the Franciscan Bonaventure was awarded his doctoral degree in Paris – together with Thomas Aquinas. In debates concerning the radical lifestyle of the ‘Mendicants’, he developed his ‘Christian mysticism’.31 Jesus did not address the SM to the imperfect crowd, but to the disciples who have decided to reach the peak of perfection.32 The monks should be the ideal Christians who lived a life of perfection, with stricter laws, no oaths (only the monk’s vow), chastity, celibacy, poverty, no private property, etc. Some people outside the monasteries wanted to emulate the monastic lifestyle outside the cloisters. The Cathars, Waldesians, Bogomilians in the 11/12th century (and the Anabaptists in the 16th century) practised a radical ethos. The laity practised poverty and protested against oaths, local legislation, military service, etc. Joseph Klausner similarly saw Matt 5,43ff, 5,39ff, 5,33ff as possible for monks, but not for ordinary people.33 He agreed at this point with G. Fried28

Stange, “Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt” (1925), and Runestam, “Das ethische Problem der Bergpredigt” (1927). 29 G. Kittel, “Die Bergpredigt und die Ethik des Judentums” (1924/25), 582: “Das Problem der BP heißt: die Paradoxie einer Forderung, die erhoben ist zu rigoroser und radikaler Absolutheit.” 30 Thomas of Aquinas, STh I–II, 107,2; 108,4. 31 Bonaventure, Apololgia pauperum, c. 3. 32 Goppelt, Die Bergpredigt und die Wirklichkeit dieser Welt (1968), 16. 33 Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (above, p. 23, n. 66). Jesus’ exaggeration of Jewish commands is something new.

332

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

lander, who saw these extreme demands (and Matt 5,29f; 6,19–21; 7,6) as typical for Jesus, finding this kind of perfectionism simply un-Jewish.34 2) The concept of the two kingdoms. The Reformation continued the scholastic differentiation between the laity and the leading group, now comprising not the monks but only the clergy. The radical demands of the SM could be lived out also outside the monasteries, but only by individuals. It is not an ethos for the society. This differentiation between individuals and the state (German: ‘Obrigkeit’) became crucial after the Renaissance and particularly in the time after the Enlightenment and in modern society. The two-kingdoms (better two-perspective) concept could easily be misinterpreted in the sense of autonomy (German: ‘Eigengesetzlichkeit’) from the state. It is rather about having two perspectives, and the concept has prevented interpreters from seeing the SM as a political programme. No ‘Christian’ party has ever proposed the SM as their political programme. For most exegetes and theologians this differentiation is one – but only one – premise for their approach. 3) Demands for weak people. Friedrich Nietzsche offered a different and harsh description of the SM. He saw the demands as impossible, irrational, inhuman, unnatural and unmanly, and thought that the attitude of resentment characterizes the SM from the Beatitudes onwards. The SM is ethics for the weak and incapable and not for strong, skilled, determined men.35 Nietzsche moved the perspective from a particular time to particular individuals. Some people devalue the sayings and see them as commands only for psychologically insane persons. Only few people have taken seriously the radical demand in Matt 5,29f about cutting off the arm, and they lived in a mental asylum. If the Christian congregations perceived them literally, they would be “reduced to a community of disabled persons”.36 4) Ascetic interpretation. Since Origen of Alexandria and the desert monks, the ascetic understanding of the SM has had a great impact. J.D.M. Derrett has recently defended this interpretation of the SM.37 34

Friedlander, Jewish Sources (1911). Friedrich Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra, III 21, in idem, Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. VI/1, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1973, 260. For an extensive treatment, Henri de Lubac, Le drame de l’humanisme athée, Paris: Union Gén. d’Éd. 1944; Gerd Theißen, “Urchristliches Ethos – ein ‘Sklavenaufstand der Moral’?”, in Ute E. Eisen/ Heidrun Elisabeth Mader (eds.), Talking God in Society: Multidisciplinary (Re)constructions of Ancient (Con)texts. FS P. Lampe, vol. I (NTOA 120a), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2020, 180–199. 36 Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 354f; Weder, Rede der Reden (1985), 117 (“… zum finanziellen Kollaps der Invalidenversicherung führen”). The text is not often a theme for scholarly research. Exceptions are Niederwimmer, Askese und Mysterium (1976), 30–32; Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche (1977), 74–77; J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Law in the New Testament: Si scandalizaverit manus tua abscinde illam (Mk ix,42) and comparative legal history”, in idem, Studies in the New Testament, vol. I, Leiden: Brill 1977, 4–31. 37 Derrett, Ascetic Discourse (1989); idem, Sermon (1994), also Jesus’ Audience (1973). 35

5.3 History of Research II: Radical Demands as Illustrations

333

In his first attempt of a sociological approach, G. Theißen saw the radical demands as intended for a group of ‘itinerant charismatics’.38 He thinks these demands did not represent a general ethos in early Christianity. The corresponding group of ‘sympathizers’ had a different ethos.39 After the time of the Didache the ethos of ‘itinerant charismatics’ more or less disappeared before it was transformed into the ethos of monks.40 Many scholars have focused on Matthew’s additions to the Inaugural Speech, and some like Ethelbert Stauffer41 think that these additions reflect a particular Jewish-Christian group living close to Qumran and the Pharisees. It represents a ‘re-judaizing’ of Jesus’ message. The Antitheses are particular to Matthew, and in recent times, many scholars want to locate these sayings in a certain ‘Matthean’ community at the end of the first century.42 5) Sectarian ethos. W.A. Meeks does not have Jesus’ teaching in mind, rather the Matthean community, and he labels the ethics of ‘Matthew’s’ SM as sectarian. The perfectionist ethos “consists in the demand that prudential and publicly enforceable rules be set aside altogether”.43 Nearly all Christian communities, but especially the Matthean community, have a sectarian ethos. If this is true, why did the majority church place Matthew’s Gospel with its radical SM-ethos first in the New Testament?

5.3 History of Research II: Radical Demands as Illustrations Many scholars have been eager to find the ethical-theological principles behind the extreme demands and vivid descriptions of the SM. Some scholars find only one principle, others find several general principles (on love, truthfulness, non-violence, being genuine, etc.).

38 Theißen, “Wanderradikalismus” (1973 = “Itinerant Radicalism” [1975]), and idem, Soziologie (1977), 14ff = Sociology and the Jesus Movement (1989), 9ff, uses Matt 6,25– 33 as key text. He adds a psychological perspective: it is about defeating the aggression through self-stigmatizing and about taking a different attitude to power. 39 Cf. Ebner, Jesus von Nazareth (2003), 173 on Matt 5,39ff: “Jesus greift Erfahrungswerte auf, projiziert sie aber in die spezifische Situation der Wanderradikalen”. 40 Theißen’s arguments are criticized by Wolfgang Stegemann, “‘Hinterm Horizont geht’s weiter’: Erneute Betrachtung von Gerd Theißens These zum Wanderradikalismus der Jesusbewegung”, in Peter Lampe/Helmut Schwier (eds.), Neutestamentliche Grenzgänge. FS G. Theißen (NTOA 75), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2009, 76–95. 41 E. Stauffer, Die Botschaft Jesu: Damals und heute, Bern: Francke 1959, 36–40. 42 Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian Jewish Community (1994), 94–101 (community life in Matt 5–7). 43 Meeks, Moral World (1986), 139.

334

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

1) Radical demands – ‘only’ in order to replace juridical arguments with ethics. Radical demands are often attributed a merely rhetorical function. They want to make it clear that a juridical and an ethical meaning should not be confused.44 True ethics means a total commitment, which is the real meaning of the Antitheses. True ethics see the true meaning of telling the truth (Matt 5,33), of loving one’s neighbour (5,43ff). A legal argumentation will always end in casuistic rules, and basic ethical principles can easily get lost in detailed casuistic rules. 2) Radical demands – only illustrations of ethics/an ethos. In order to avoid ‘casuistic’ thinking, Wilhelm Herrmann interpreted the radical demands as expressions of the attitude and will to do good.45 Behind the concrete and extreme demands, one has to seek for the right mindset (‘Gesinnung’). He refers especially to the Antitheses that apparently refer to mindset and not to laws or to teleological arguments. Mindset also provides a new motivation for doing good. Similarly, Otto Baumgarten saw the attitude of love and the heart devoted to God behind the commandments of the SM.46 The content of the love commandment must be applied in new situations. Martin Dibelius advocated a similar view, but after 1920 he underlined the theological aspects more: The very concrete imperatives in the SM illustrate an ethos, namely the “ Urkunde eines neuen Seins”,47 offering impulses for the new being.48 3) Radical demands – ‘only’ illustrating Christology. Karl Barth and Eduard Thurneysen49 found Christological teaching in the SM. It is a teaching on 44

Schüller, “Zur Rede von der radikalen sittlichen Forderung” (1971), 324. W. Herrmann, Die sittlichen Weisungen Jesu (1966), here 232f: “Jesus wollte … die Menschen darüber hinwegbringen, mit ihrer Sittlichkeit im Recht stecken zu bleiben … Jesus hat vielmehr das klar machen wollen, daß wir überhaupt durch kein Wort von außen erfahren können, was gut sei, sondern aus uns selbst die unveränderliche Richtung unseres Wollens erzeugen müssen”. It is about “das einfache Bemühen, die Gesinnung zu erfassen, aus der diese wunderbaren, schrecklichen und freundlichen Worte gequollen sind”. 46 Baumgarten, Bergpredigt und Kultur der Gegenwart (1921), 117: “Ueber allen Einzelheiten steht eben die ganz einzigartige Reinheit, Innerlichkeit, Feinfühligkeit der Gesinnung, das, was man im tiefsten Sinn das Ethos nennt.” He finds in Matt 6,1–18 the inward and the sublime ‘Humanitätsideal’. 47 M. Dibelius, TLZ 49 (1924), 348, in his criticism of K. Bornhäuser’s interpretation of the SM. 48 M. Dibelius, Geschichtliche und übergeschichtliche Religion im Christentum, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1925, one year before Bultmann published Jesus. 49 Thurneysen, Bergpredigt (1936), 7: “Wenn … gilt, dass Jesus, Jesus selber und allein der wirkliche Inhalt des Evangeliums ist, dann ist dieser Jesus und Jesus allein auch der ganze Inhalt der Bergpredigt. … Dann ist der Bergprediger die Bergpredigt.” Also K. Barth in Kirchliche Dogmatik, vol. II/2, Zollikon-Zürich: TVZ 51974, 766ff: The SM is “entscheidend Anzeige, Proklamation, Beschreibung und Programm”, and “Der neue Mensch ist Jesus als Bringer und Herold des Reiches” (ibid., 768). 45

5.3 History of Research II: Radical Demands as Illustrations

335

the true Jesus. The demands are basically unrealizable, but they are fulfilled in Jesus’ life and atonement. Jesus fulfilled the radical demands, and the SM is therefore a message about grace. On this basis one can hear the challenge to obedience. 4) Radical demands – ‘only’ aggravation of Torah (‘Toraverschärfung’). The radical demands supersede the commandments in the Tanach. This is apparently the meaning in some or all antitheses. The Antitheses intensify and strengthen the commandments on killing, marriage and loving one’s neighbour. The way a Jew gives alms, prays and fasts must also be surpassed. This reading was partly a consequence of the exegesis of Matt 5,17ff compared with Jewish patterns of thought,50 and of comparison with the rediscovered Qumran texts.51 5) Radical demands – sharpening wisdom ethics. According to Jürgen Becker, the eschatology of Jesus sharpens the wisdom tradition (“verschärfende Betonung des sozialen Ethos”).52 Gerd Theißen thinks, similarly, that eschatology gives the wisdom ethics a more radical tone.53 The intensification of the norm (‘Toraverschärfung’) means that the SM transforms the everyday-life ethos taught in wisdom literature. 6) Radical demands – ‘only’ illustrating the will of God. Rudolf Bultmann, who was W. Herrmann’s student, introduced a theological perspective more thoroughly in a school-building way.54 Bultmann’s position was in the end very similar to Herrmann’s,55 but Bultmann would not represent “sittlichen Idealismus” and rejected the limitation to the mindset alone. One cannot separate mindset and deed,56 and the theological argument is decisive: the

50 Werner Georg Kümmel, “Jesus und der jüdische Traditionsgedanke”, ZNW 33 (1934), 105–129, here 121–127; Günter Röhser, “Jesus – der wahre ‘Schriftgelehrte’: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der ‘Toraverschärfung’ in den Antithesen der Bergpredigt”, ZNW 86 (1995), 20–33. 51 Herbert Braun introduced the term in his analysis of the Qumran texts, “Beobachtungen zur Tora-Verschärfung im häretischen Spätjudentum”, TLZ 79 (1954), 347–352. Stendahl, Meanings (1984), 85–97, esp. 88ff. 52 J. Becker, Jesus von Nazaret, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1996, 358ff. 53 Theißen/Merz, Der historische Jesus (1996), 323–330 and 335–339 = Historical Jesus (1997), 361–363, 373–378. 54 Bornkamm, Jesus (1956/1960), and Meeks, Moral World (1986), underlined that the will of God “is not an abstract perfection, for the rules laid down here belong to the realm of everyday”, but “Matthew provides no code of behavior” (Meeks, ibid., 139f). Similarly, Jacob Jervell, Da fremtiden begynte, Oslo: Land og kirke 1967, 68. 55 So Traub, “Problem der Bergpredigt” (1936), 209: “Seine Betonung des radikalen Gehorsams ist schließlich dasselbe, wie Herrmanns Betonung des freien Gehorsams”. 56 Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (above, p. 23, n. 66), 352f.

336

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

demands make “the will of God clear”57 and show that a decision is required.58 Hans Weder has a similar approach: the demands give at most directions, and the key is the principle of ‘limitlessness’ (German: ‘maßlos/grenzenlos’).59

5.4 History of Research III: Radical Demands Are Real; They Are Impulses for an Ethos The programmatic words in Matt 5,13–16 claim that the would-be disciples are the salt of the earth and light of the world, and that their good works are decisive. There must be good reason for not taking the commandments in the SM as real demands. If we do not practise the programmatic words, the propositio in Matt 5,13–16 results in a torso. 1) Radical demands as utopian but practicable ideas. Leo Tolstoy claimed that the demands in the SM should be taken literally and blamed the majority churches for not acting accordingly.60 The Christian societies with oaths, property, taxes, military service, jurisdiction, etc. contradict the SM. Tolstoy’s anarchist programme has always challenged the exegesis: does a literal understanding imply this conception? If not, what kind of hermeneutics should be used? At the beginning of the last century many theologians and movements like ‘Social Gospel’ in the US and religious socialism in Europe saw the SM as the solution to their current crises. Their purpose was the opposite of an anarchist agenda. In times of crisis radical demands seem to be more appropriate. Leonhard Ragaz included – in a European context – Schweitzer’s radical eschatological perspective also, and offered a comprehensive exegesis based on this view. He saw the Beatitudes as guidelines, anticipations, as images of the future for poor people. The radical demands are appropriate because a radical change is required. The realization of the immediate future is the

57

Bultmann, Jesus (1926/1964), 82: “stellen [sie] den absoluten Charakter der Forderungen Gottes ins Licht” and ibid., 86: “ihr Sinn ist der, in der Entscheidung zu stehen vor Gott, vor die Forderung des Willens Gottes gestellt zu sein, den es im konkreten Moment zu erfassen, dem es zu gehorchen gilt”. 58 Ibid., 86: In the admonitions about property, marriage, fasting, etc., the understanding of virtue is important: “Nicht ein Zustand, in den man durch sein Handeln gelangen könnte, gilt als gut, sondern allein die Tat ist gut oder schlecht.” 59 Weder, Rede der Reden (1985), 153ff; Braun, Jesus (1969), 64, 124f. 60 In his personal document “Mein Glaube” (1885) and later developed in the pamphlet “Du sollst nicht töten” (1900).

5.4 History of Research III: Radical Demands Are Real

337

intention with the radical demands, even though he saw them as ‘moral mountain-climbing’ (‘sittliche Bergsteiger’).61 In Latin America, Liberation Theology and grassroots organizations applied the SM directly as a text in their actual situation. Martin Luther King provided new inspiration to these movements.62 The Jewish scholar P. Lapide suggested that in the SM, utopian ethics is transformed into practical ethics.63 Against all kinds of reductionism he interpreted the demands as realistic, as a challenge to make society a better place and to overcome insufficiency and faultiness. Imitatio Dei is a main issue for a Jew and should be thoroughly part of one’s life. As a Jew, Jesus had this conviction. A variety of ideologies and theologies come to the same conclusion: the (nearly) literal meaning of the SM is the best. 2) Radical demands – parts of Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom. Theologians and exegetes add a theological premise: the radicalism is part of Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom. Even the Jewish scholar Schalom Ben Chorin understood the commandments of the SM as rules for the coming Kingdom. Since the 1930s this exegesis has become very common in Germany. In spite of Windisch’s protest against this theological exegesis, J. Schneider, H.D. Wendland,64 W. Schmauch65 and more recently, L. Goppelt, offered this type of exegesis. Goppelt underlined that what Jesus taught on the coming Kingdom should be demonstrated in good works.66 The radical demands express “die neue Ausrichtung des ganzen Menschen”,67 based on the teaching of the Kingdom of God, on faith and a new understanding of God. The context of the SM indicates and sets the premise for the right understanding. The Roman-Catholic scholar Romano Guardini agreed: the SM is “ der 61

Leonhard Ragaz, Gedanken: Aus vierzig Jahren geistigen Kampfes; ausgewählt von Freunden, Bern: H. Lang 21951, 104. 62 Martin Luther King, A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr., San Francisco: Harper 1986. 63 Lapide, Bergpredigt (1982)/Sermon (1986). 64 J. Schneider gave his study the same title as Windisch’s famous book, Sinn der Bergpredigt (1937); H.-D. Wendland, Die Eschatologie des Reiches Gottes bei Jesus, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1931, and later in his Ethik des Neuen Testaments (1970), esp. 8–22. 65 The same opinion is expressed by Werner Schmauch, “Reich Gottes und menschliche Existenz nach der Bergpredigt”, in idem/Ernst Wolf, Königsherrschaft Christi: Der Christ im Staat (TEH 64), München: Kaiser 1–21958, 5–19: to overlook the demand to act with reference to “das Problem der Erfüllbarkeit” means “aus dem Zusammenhang der Bergpredigt ausbrechen” (ibid., 10). 66 Goppelt, “Problem der Bergpredigt” (1968), 26, comes close to the traditional Lutheran position: “Wer diese Worte hört, muß gestehen: So sollten wir eigentlich sein, und doch können wir nicht so sein. … Dieser Widerstreit, im Grunde die Frage nach der Realisierbarkeit, ist das Problem der Bergpredigt.” 67 Ibid., 38.

338

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

Angriff Gottes auf die Welt”, a heavenly invasion of the world.68 This perspective dominates in the most recent exegesis. Just one example: Richard Burridge thinks imitating Jesus is the consequence of his proclamation of the Kingdom of God.69 The majority of scholars base their interpretations of the radical demands on Matt 6,33 (“seek the Kingdom and his righteousness”). This authentic Jesus-saying is the key. 3) Radical demands for renewal movements and a contrast society. Is the audience of the SM exclusively the disciples?70 Many theologians and exegetes argued that it was not the general crowd, but devoted disciples who were the addressees of the SM. Revival movements based on Luther’s,71 Calvin’s, Wesley’s and not least pietistic exegesis practise this type of interpretation.72 Methodist and Catholic scholars, who tend to link the radicalism to the concept of perfection (τέλειος in Matt 5,48) do so even more. An argument in favour of this exegesis is the Jewish interpretation in some Targums. Here Lev 19,18 is included in the understanding of the Shema (Deut 6,4f).73 Imitatio Dei is the key in many texts in the Tanach, as it is in Matt 5,48. Jewish identity is a counter-culture based on the Shema and similarly is the Christian identity based on both the Shema and on grace and love.74 In the era of a totalitarian society, W. Lütgert75 and his assistant, D. Bonhoeffer argued that the SM is a calling to true discipleship. This was in contrast to the Nazi theologians who handled the SM in a devastating way.76 The protests of Lütgert and Bonhoeffer were squashed in the short term by the brutal Nazis, but their contributions to the interpretation of the SM had a long-lasting effect.

68

Quoting Bornkamm, “Die Gegenwartsbedeutung der Bergpredigt” (1954/2009), here 1283/59. 69 Burridge, Imitating Jesus (2007), 206–209 (203–212). 70 Cf. § 4 in this book (“Audience in the Sermon on the Mount: A New Approach”). 71 M. Luther, “Predigten in Wittenberg 1520–1525”, in WA 10,III, 242–256. 72 Bornhäuser, Bergpredigt (21927), represents this type of exegesis. 73 Deut 8,13 also, cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 268–271 with Jewish texts and modern literature. 74 Lütgert, “Die Bergpredigt als Grundgesetz der Kirche” ([1936/]2009), 132: “Jesus fordert nicht Unnatürliches, sondern er fordert, dass aus allen natürlichen Regungen und Trieben das selbstsüchtige Element, das sich damit verbindet, ausgeschieden wird, dass in allem, was wir tun, das Entscheidende die Liebe, die Rücksicht auf die Gemeinschaft herrscht”. Lütgert emphasised that the divine acts must precede human endeavour, so the Kingdom of God and the gift precede every imperative in the SM. 75 Lütgert, ibid., 132: “Die Erfüllung der BP ist möglich, weil sie notwendig ist. Ohne die Erfüllung des Gesetzes Gottes ist keine Gemeinschaft möglich”. 76 Ludwig Müller, Deutsche Gottesworte aus der Bergpredigt verdeutscht, Weimar: Verlag Deutsche Christen 1936.

5.4 History of Research III: Radical Demands Are Real

339

Since 1970 the evangelical movement grew strong, and they understood the SM as counter-cultural ethics for devoted disciples. J. Stott made perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of the SM from this point of view,77 and in a Catholic context, G. Lohfink founded the ‘Catholic Integrated Community’ in Munich. He argues strongly in favour of the position that the SM designs a contrast society.78 He adds that the SM is not just for the disciples. It is for everyone in the eschatological people of God. Jesus was not only concerned with souls, but wanted a changed society. An ‘Integrated Community’ is a sign of a spiritual revolution. 4) Radical demands – examples of virtue ethics. A Roman citizen around 390 CE who should adjust to the new official religion, would have been alienated when reading the SM, which he would have perceived as a strange Jewish document.79 Augustine and John Chrysostom gave an adequate response: the radical demands expressed virtue ethics (cf. § 1.3.2). In medieval times, this type of ethics transformed certain rules and concentrated them into the four cardinal virtues or certain lists of virtues and vices. This was more based on Plato and Aristotle than on the SM.80 The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers seldom used their key term ‘virtue’ (ἀρετή),81 and Luther and Calvin concentrated on theological ethics in the New Testament itself. Enlightenment scholars had more affinity to virtue ethics, and liberal theologians could use it as a tool in the interpretation of the SM. The ethics of attitude (German: ‘Gesinnungsethik’) was the essence of all its radical demands. The real revival of virtue ethics came in recent years. Many scholars have been inspired by Alasdair MacIntyre’s revival of virtue ethics.82 Stanley Hauerwas,83 Glen Stassen84 and Catholic scholars (e.g. Daniel Harrington)85 would not only allow for virtue ethics as a principle. They find virtues in all the radical sayings in the SM.

77

Stott, Christian counter-culture (1978); idem, Message (1985). G. Lohfink, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? (1993), 67: “Erst innerhalb dieser Koordinaten (an die Kirche/die Jünger gerichtet) kann auch die Erfüllbarkeit der BP bejaht werden”. He later allowed more for what I call ‘a would-be disciple’ pattern. 79 Servais Pinckaers, O.P., The Sources of Christian Ethics, Washington: Catholic University of America Press 1995, 134–167. 80 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1106a–1109b; 1177a–b; 1178a–b. 81 Phil 4,8; 2 Pet 1,3.5 and 2 Clem. 10,1 and in Hermas five times. 82 A.C. MacIntyre, After Virtue, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press 1981. 83 S. Hauerwas, A Community of Character, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press 1980, and his sermon “Living the Proclaimed Reign of God” (1993). 84 Stassen/Gushee, Kingdom Ethics (2003). 85 Harrington/Keenan, Jesus and Virtue Ethics (2002), 61–71. 78

340

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

Ulrich Luz and others tend to concentrate on one virtue, love. Some do it as part of virtue ethics, while some think love is a summary or a minimalistic formulation.86 5) Radical demands – the ontological challenge. Virtue ethics focuses on the acting person. Other ethical traditions focus on the challenge from the person you meet. Schopenhauer’s reflection on compassion (German: ‘Mitleid’) and Schweitzer’s ‘Reverence for life’ had limited influence in theology. The inspiration from phenomenology, I-You-Philosophy and existentialism as well as the works of Emmanuel Levinas had a much broader influence. Some exegetes and theologians (e.g. R. Bultmann87 and K.E. Løgstrup88) picked up these ethical approaches. The ontological reflection on the ‘You’ gave impulses to exegetes like L. Goppelt and H.D. Betz. Goppelt formulated it as a ‘relational ethics’ (‘Beziehungsethik’). He looked for ethical principles behind the concrete ethical sayings. It is all about the relation to God, to the neighbour, to achieve good social relations.89 Betz goes quite correctly behind the formulations in the Antitheses, and asks what are the challenges a person/disciple will face? The Antitheses tell us clearly: the challenges are murder, aggression, infidelity, divorce, oaths, untruth, retaliation and hatred.90 6) Radical demands – and the challenges of aggression, lust, evil. The reason for the radical demands is that would-be disciples should fight radical evil. It is mentioned as a challenge already in Matt 5,11 (µακάριοί ἐστε ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν ὑµᾶς καὶ διώξωσιν καὶ εἴπωσιν πᾶν πονηρὸν καθ᾿ ὑµῶν [ψευδόµενοι] ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ). In 5,21f, aggression and wrath are seen as the beginning of murder, and in 5,27–30 lust is the beginning of adultery. Untruth has its root in evil (ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ, 5,37). To resist evil is the theme of the last two antitheses, and the Lord’s Prayer ends with the petition: “Deliver us from 86 Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 393f, 395–399; idem, “Bergpredigt”, RGG4 1 (1999), 1311; cf. Schrage, Ethik (51989), 80–82; Harrington/Keenan, Jesus and Virtue Ethics (2002), 77ff (“Love as the primary virtue”). 87 Bultmann, Jesus (1926/1964), 76: “Der Wille Gottes ist also für Jesus so wenig ein soziales oder politisches Programm wie ein ethisches System, das von einem Idealbild des Menschen oder der Menschheit ausgeht, oder eine Werteethik … keine Tugendlehre, keine Pflichtenlehre, keine Güterlehre”. Most visible in the article “Das christliche Gebot der Nächstenliebe” (1930 = idem, Glauben und Verstehen, vol. I, Tübingen: Mohr 1933, 229– 244). 88 Levinas, Humanisme (1972) = Humanism (2003); idem, Otherwise than Being (1991), 9ff; Knud E. Løgstrup, The Ethical Demand, Philadelphia: Fortress 1971, here 56. 89 Leonhard Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. I, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1976/31980, 160f (“nach dem Prinzip, aus dem sich der Inhalt des ethischen Verhaltens im Einzelnen ergibt”). 90 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 215–328, in the conclusion to every antithesis; Fiebig, “Sinn der Bergpredigt” (1929/30), 507: “es geht um ein moralisches Handeln, das nichts von Rache, nichts von Vergeltung, nichts von Schikane wissen will”.

5.5 Radicalism – in the Sources of SM/SP?

341

evil” (ῥῦσαι ἡµᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ). To do good is possible for everyone, even for evil people (7,11: ὑµεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες). The realistic appraisal of the human condition requires certain radical demands. To sum up: The SM is meant to be lived out, and these scholars interpret the SM accordingly. There is always a tendency to reduce the concrete demands into general principles. Many scholars manage to combine principles and concreteness. E.g. G. Theißen argues that both an ‘ethics of command’ and ‘an ethics of consent’ (German: ‘Gebots- und Einsichtsethik’) can be found in the SM.91

5.5 Radicalism – in the Sources of SM/SP? A historical interpretation must be based on source-criticism, and therefore a separate analysis of the radicalism within the four layers in the SM and SP must be made. In all layers we find three categories: theological statements (Beatitudes, etc.), ethical sayings and parabolic texts. 1) The basic ‘Inaugural Speech’. The basic core – and probably the oldest traditions – in the SM have entirely radical sayings. (a) The theological statements are extremely radical: – The Beatitudes (Matt 5,3f.5 and Luke 6,20–23) turn the standards upside down. It is the great reversal. – The key statement sounds unrealistic: be like God, imitatio Dei (Matt 5,48; Luke 6,36). – The statement on judgment (Matt 7,1; Luke 6,37f – more elaborate) is more than demanding. These statements frame the radical sayings, and they are in fact the premises for the ethical sayings. The judgment-saying is often labelled as an ethical saying, but the theocentric aspect is dominating. It corresponds with the imitatio Dei-saying. God’s judgment should be the benchmark and prevent a judgmental attitude. (b) The ethical sayings are shocking: – against retaliation, Matt 5,39–42 and Luke 6,27–30 – the key statement: the Golden Rule, Matt 7,12 and Luke 6,31 – love for enemies: Matt 5,43–47 and Luke 6,32–35

91

Theißen, Von Jesus zur urchristlichen Zeichenwelt (2011), 43 (“Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament 1969–2009. Ein Werkbericht über meine Arbeiten”).

342

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

These extreme, radical sayings represent the core of the ‘Antitheses’, and for most readers the core of the SM. Luke lets the ‘Golden Rule’ interpret the ethical sayings: ethical behaviour is to have the perspective and the attitude which you would like others to demonstrate to you. (c) Parabolic sayings: Three parables end the speech: about beam and moth (Matt 7,3–5; Luke 6,41f), about tree and fruit (Matt 7,16–20; Luke 6,43–45), about house on rock/sand (Matt 7,24–27; Luke 6,46–49). The first one is extremely radical, the last two have a wisdom character: What God teaches us through nature, should give direction to our behaviour. The parabolic sayings are protreptic warnings to those who do not have a radical philosophy of life. 2) The double (Q-)Tradition. Only Matthew includes these sayings in the SM. Do they underline the radical sayings in the Inaugural Speech or do they modify them? Luke has all of them in his ‘Travelogue’, which can mean that the SP is something special, or that the teaching of Jesus is perceived as consistent. (a) The theological statements dominate in the double tradition: – the role of ‘Law and Prophets’ in this age (Matt 5,18, cf. Luke 16,17f) – the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6,9–13, cf. Luke 11,2–4) – on treasures and heart (Matt 6,[19f.]21, cf. Luke 12,33f) – not two masters (Matt 6,24, cf. Luke 16,13) – on God’s providence (Matt 6,25–33, cf. Luke 12,22–31) – God gives (Matt 7,9–11, cf. Luke 11,11–13) The theocentric sayings are fundamental, and they are all in accordance with the ‘Law and the Prophets’. They provide the basic conviction behind the ethical sayings in most of the SM. (b) From Q we have relatively few ethical sayings: – on praying/asking (Matt 7,7f, cf. Luke 11,9f) – works, not words or miracles (Matt 7,22f, cf. Luke 13,26f) Both are extreme, radical sayings and come close to theological statements. The first one is mostly interpreted as a saying about prayer, but it alludes rather to the topic of ‘giving and receiving’.92 In the context of this topic in antiquity, the formulation here is extremely radical. (c) Two parabolic sayings are totally different from other parables in the Inaugural Speech. – two light sayings: Matt 5,14 (elaborated in 5,16); 6,22f (Luke 11,33–36). – parable on forgiveness (Matt 5,25f, cf. Luke 12,57–59) The parables illustrate what an attitude without compromises is all about.

92

H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 500f; Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 464–466.

5.5 Radicalism – in the Sources of SM/SP?

343

3) The influence from Mark. Matthew’s reverence for Mark as a source is clear in the narratives and in the sequence and content of the speeches. Matthew assigns the Marcan sayings a significant role: (a) Theological statements underline other themes in the SM. On everlasting words On treasures On forgiveness On measure

Matthew

Mark

Luke

5,18 6,19 6,13.14f 7,2

13,31 10,21 11,25 4,24a

16,17 12,33, cf. Matt 19,22 6,38; Matt 18,35 6,38

All these sayings come close to sayings in Q. From a Jewish point of view these sayings are nearly offensive. Jesus’ words are everlasting in the same way as the Torah; however, his teaching about earthly treasures clashes with the notion of blessings in the Tanach, and people might feel alienated by his radical sayings about forgiveness and measuring. (b) Even closer to Q are the ethical sayings: On remarriage On asking/receiving

Matthew

Mark

Luke

5,31 7,8

10,10f 11,24

16,18; Matt 19,10f 11,9f; Matt 21,23

These sayings have the same radical character. Matt 5,31 is extremely radical compared to Deut 24 and legislation and remarriage practice in a Jewish and Graeco-Roman context. (c) The parabolic sayings have a wisdom style: On salt On lamps On scandals

Matthew

Mark

Luke

5,13 5,14f 5,29f

9,49 4,21 9,43.47

14,34f 8,16 – Matt 6,22 17,1f – Matt 18,6f

The parables are extremely challenging. It is demanding to be salt of the earth and light for people, and the hyperbolic saying about chastity or better reasonableness (σωφροσύνη)93 is excessive in order to rouse emotions. 4) The Sondergut of Luke and Matthew. Both Matthew and Luke add to the common tradition, and even the more elaborate text in Matthew does not modify the radicalism. (a) Matthew’s Sondergut. Texts particular to Matthew, like the term “perfect” (τέλειoς)94 in Matt 5,48, the saying about fulfilment of the Law, Matt 5,17a.19f, or the Antitheses in Matt 5,21–47; 6,1–8.16–18, might 93

So Justin, 1 Apol. 15,14. Matthew did indeed deal with this issue, both in the SM and elsewhere (19,18). Since the Didache the nature of perfection has been a major issue in early Christian writings. Gregory of Nyssa, PG 46, 252–285 (Gregorii Nysseni Opera 8.1, pp. 173–214), wrote a whole book “On Perfectionism”, and it is still among the best treatises on this issue. 94

344

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

indicate that radicalism derives more from Matthew himself.95 The important question is: did Matthew underline or modify the radical sayings? (i) Theological statements add aspects to other sources, and introduce something new in Matt 6,1–8.16–18: – in the Beatitudes, 5,4.7–9, on being meek, pure, a peacemaker (cf. Matt 11,29; 21,5) – in radical expressions on the status and tasks of disciples (5,14a.16: light of the world and good works, καλὰ ἔργα) and on the relation to the Law (5,17.19f) – Radical demands concerning rituals include attitudes towards men (Matt 6,1, etc.), but are mostly about alms (Matt 6,2–4, cf. 23,4.18ff.23f), prayer (6,5–8, cf. 18,19; 23,5ff) and fasting (Matt 6,16–18, cf. 9,14 par.). In addition, we have one or two (cf. Matt 7,6) wisdom-sayings. Matt 6,34, on worrying about tomorrow, is in the first place an exhortation. It reflects a deeper theological and philosophical reflection also (§ 8). (ii) Matthew emphasises ethics, and we have at least three ethical sayings in the ‘Sondergut’: – on anger (Matt 5,22, cf. 18,34; 22,7) – on lust (Matt 5,28) – on swearing/telling the truth (Matt 5,33–37, cf. 23,21f) These ethical sayings are extremely radical and they correspond to ethical sayings in the Inaugural Speech. They unfold the anthropology in the SM. (iii) The ‘Sondergut’ has four parabolic sayings: – on forgiveness (Matt 5,23f, cf. Mark 11,25) – on sun and rain (Matt 5,45) – on pearls before swine; on lavish giving (Matt 7,6) – on wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt 7,15) (b) Luke’s Sondergut. The few additional sayings underline other sayings on judging and measuring from the Inaugural Speech/Mark, and on a tree producing fruit. The demanding saying about ‘a good man’ (Luke 6,45) says that a good man has to produce good works (ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας προφέρει τὸ ἀγαθόν). Most radical are the three woes (Luke 6,24–26) against rich people (πλουσίοι) who enjoy life (ἐµπεπλησµένοι) and give recognition (καλῶς εἴπωσιν) to people who tolerate injustice. To sum up: All sources behind the SM have a radical ethos. The radicalism is not exclusively in the Inaugural Speech. The entire SM expresses the same 95 Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993), 198ff (“Perfectionism and the New Age”), thinks it is “less important in Jesus’ own mission … than it is in the Gospel of Matthew”; Matt 5,21ff does not occur in Luke and Mark. The extreme position is also balanced in Matt 5,23f, etc.

5.6 The SM and the SP – in Isolation and as Parts of the Synoptics

345

radicalism. Nor is the radicalism exclusively ethical. The radical demands correspond with a radical teaching of the Gospel. The radical sayings do not just derive from an early stage, like idealistic sayings that are quietly dropped after a time.96 In fact, radicalism was a permanent feature in Jesus’ teaching. Luke’s ‘Sondergut’ has a different language, but the same features as the SM. All sources contribute to the flow of words in the SM. They speak the same language and have the same radical message.

5.6 The SM and the SP – in Isolation and as Parts of the Synoptics The SM is often separated from the teaching of Jesus elsewhere. Is the SM a collection of the most radical teachings of Jesus? Is the teaching after the SM less radical? The interpretation of the radical demands can easily be dominated by certain principles or by key texts like the Antitheses, crucial sayings like Matt 5,48/Luke 6,36 or the Golden Rule. A more precise analysis is necessary. 1) Modified ethos? In Christian literature, Did. 6,2 provides the first example of a moderate demand: “For if indeed you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord you shall be perfect; but if you are not able, do what you can.” The Didache does not apply this hermeneutic to the teaching of Jesus, who repeats and sometimes strengthens the radical demands in the SM (Did. 1,2–3,10). Later on, exegetes and particularly many theologians have underlined the importance of compromises and moderations in ethics. T. Aukrust and D.C. Allison jr. argue that in the SM we also have a mixture of moderate and radical demands.97 2) Radicalism reflected in the forms. The radicalism of the SM is often associated with the Antitheses. We have seen that similar radicalism can be found in the sources of the SM, and also in the SP and in Q: Even the form and phrases indicate special, radical demands: it is Jesus’ demands; (ἐγὼ δὲ) λέγω ὑµῖν, ἀµήν-sayings, (µίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν) τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων, etc. The clear Christology in these sentences imparts them their character. The SM contains many parabolic and hyperbolic sayings. The same tendency to hyperbolic expressions can be found elsewhere (e.g. “a camel through the eye of a needle”, Matt 19,24). 96

So Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (21913). Aukrust, “Bergpredigt II: Ethisch”, TRE 5 (1980), 618–626, and more comprehensively in Mennesket i samfunnet I (above, p. 329, n. 15), 66–69. Davies/Allison, “Reflections” (1991), 906–908. 97

346

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

3) Radicalism, demands and content. Some sayings after the SM are even more shocking than those in the foundational speech. They mostly cover two areas of life: marriage and earthly goods. These demands are indeed radical: Matthew

Luke/Mark

(Q) 8,18–22 (Q) 10,37f (Mark) 12,46–50 (Mark) 19,16–30 (Mark) 15,4–14 (MattS) 19,10–12

Luke 9,57–62 Luke 14,26f Mark 3,31–35; Luke 8,19–21 Mark 10,17–31; Luke 18,15–30 Mark 7,3–13

extreme demands to followers extreme demands to followers critical attitude towards family against prosperity – asceticism? parents are not important critical to marriage?

The sayings in Luke 9,60ff; 14,26; Mark 3,31ff; 7,9ff demand separation from the family, they speak in favour of celibacy (Matt 19,10ff) or against property (Mark 10,17ff). In all these sayings both the form and the content have a radical character. The issue of radicalism is more than the SM, more than the Antitheses. The problem of radicalism is thus not the problem of the SM: it is a general issue in Jesus’ teaching.

5.7 Radicalism and Rhetoric The last solutions point in the right direction. It is indeed absurd to suggest that more than 70 imperatives and the deliberately formulated commandments in the SM should not be taken seriously. But the modification of the ‘literal meaning’ should not be too arbitrary, and the notions of ‘disciples’, ‘church’, ‘counter society’, etc. are too modern. An historical approach has to find a better way. Must the commandments on oaths, property, military service, etc. be understood literally? Or is it just the form that is so radical? Form and content cannot be separated, and here the form must be focused on first, because the very form constitutes the commands as extremely radical statements. In a rhetorical approach, form and content overlap. 1) Radical demands as hyperbolic, strenuous commands. Many of the indicatives (5,13.14 ἐστε) and examples are exaggerations and should not be taken literally: not only Matt 5,29f, but also 5,22.34–37.39–42 are obvious exaggerations. As hyperbolic parables, Matt 5,23f.25f.45f want to demonstrate what forgiveness, reconciliation and universalism are all about. The radical, drastic sayings have been seen as Jewish expressions,98 or as “oriental

98

Fiebig, “Sinn der Bergpredigt” (1929/30), here 498–502.

5.7 Radicalism and Rhetoric

347

impossibility” (F. Naumann),99 “oriental hyperbole” (Barton),100 as “strenuous commands” (A.E. Harvest).101 The SM seems to use metaphorical language extensively and rhetorical tools like hyperbole as tools for helping people re-think (re-flectare = “ reflect”) certain issues. It is a powerful tool for disclosing aggression, lust, lying and falsehood, unfaithfulness, etc. This energeia-form conveys an intensified, heightened, aggravated meaning (German: Verschärfung) of the fifth commandment in the Antitheses.102 The Antitheses have many of these rhetorical features with obvious elements of humour in order to focus on the dignity of the suffering person. The judge, soldier, merchant and statesman must, on the basis of the love commandment, act in a new way. The exaggerations do not mean that ‘just metaphors’ is the solution. The rhetorical form points in a certain direction. 2) Not all imperatives are of the same kind. The more than 70 imperatives in the 107 verses of the SM must be thoroughly analysed. Many of them – especially in the last part – are warnings, but from Matt 5,12 onwards, many of them are encouraging exhortations. Many important imperative sayings have a positive form (Matt 5,12.37.48; 6,1.20.33; 7,8.12.21), and the authoritative sayings in the SM offer a clear design for living: the Beatitudes provide concrete ethics, both explicitly (Matt 5,5.7.9: οἱ πραεῖς, οἱ ἐλεήµονες, οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί) and implicitly. The new standard is described in the key sentences like Matt 5,19; 7,21.24.26 and in three crucial sayings, all with positive imperatives: 5,48: ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑµεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν. 7,1: µὴ κρίνετε 7,12: πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς. These commandments are the very core of the Inaugural Speech (= Luke 6,36.32.31) and in fact of the ethical teaching in the SM. These proposals are

99 Friedrich Naumann, Briefe über Religion, Berlin-Schöneberg: Buchverlag der Hilfe 1903. 100 George Barton, “The Meaning of the ‘Royal Law’, Matt. 5:21–48”, JBL 37 (1918), 54–65. Cf. Luz/Michaels, Jesus oder Buddha (2002), 80 (referring to Matt 7,3–5 (“überspitzte Formulierung”). 101 Harvey, Strenuous Commands (1990); Kazen, “Emotional Repression” (above, p. 108, n. 464). 102 W. Herrmann used this text and its exaggerations to show that the text gives an ‘internalized ethical’ understanding (German: ‘Verinnerlichung’), in his Die sittlichen Weisungen Jesu (1904/1966). His solution is attractive: behind murder, anger and mocking words we have the attitude of unforgiving hatred. The Kantian tone, however, makes it too one-sided. 2

348

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

not prescripts, but examples that give direction and goals more than prescripts. Their aim is to design life rather than to design a code of ethics. 3) Radical commands in the framework of a στάσεις-discussion. Most of the radical demands in the Antitheses (Matt 5,21–48; 6,1–18) seem to refer to Jewish practices. Do the illustrations want to intensify and simplify the Torah or rather abolish casuistic laws? The SM enacts harder commandments than Moses; is the purpose to strengthen, aggravate the Law (German: ‘Toraverschärfung’), to get rid of casuistic practices? The problem with this opinion is that the Antitheses only partly relate to the Tanach and to casuistic laws, and that Matt 5,31f in fact reflects the logic of casuistic arguments, and many of the antitheses have the form of casuistic statements (πᾶς ὁ, ὃς δ᾿ ἄν, ὅστις, ἐάν). It is, however, more appropriate to say that Jesus condenses the Law, and this condensing is an issue not only in Matt 7,12. Matt 5,19 speaks about the smaller commandment and 7,24.26 about “my words”, which is identical with the will of God (7,21ff). The Antitheses also concentrate on certain issues, and Jesus does not appeal to people as a rebel with a liberal agenda. Rather, he offers a prophetical interpretation of the Torah.103 The Antitheses are not polemics against the Tanach as such, even though texts like Deut 24 are criticised (Matt 5,30f and extensively in 19,1–10). The last three ‘theses’ are not quotations from the Tanach. We have to do with quite general ethical issues. Rhetorically speaking, we have debates about ‘status’ (στάσις) or what Quintilian calls quaestiones.104 The importance of rhetorical ‘status’ has often been overlooked in the exegesis.105 Of Hermogenes’ four στάσεις, the relation between the written text and its intention (scriptum et voluntas/scientia, Greek ῥητόν καὶ διάνοια) is applied in the first two and perhaps in other antitheses as well.106 The second status deals with contradicting laws (antinomia, ἀντινοµία). This is the argument behind the third, the fifth and sixth antitheses. The third status deals with different interpretations of existing laws (ambiguitas, ἀµφιβολία). This might 103

Also Ratzinger, Jesus von Nazareth I (2007), 155–160, here 159. Quintilian, Inst. III,6,1ff: Quod nos statum, id quidam constitutionem vocant, alii quaestionem … Theodorus caput … (III,6,2). 105 Ernst Baasland, “Rhetorischer Kontext in Apg 15,13–21: Statuslehre und die Actareden”, in Tord Fornberg/David Hellholm (eds.), Texts and Contexts. FS L. Hartman, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 1995, 191–226, and H.D. Betz, who recognises the importance of the concept, but limits himself to more general remarks, Sermon (1995), 206–208. It is partly also observed by D. Daube, a Jewish scholar and a specialist in Roman law, in New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (1956), 158–163 (four types of questions). 106 Fundamental is Hermogenes’ Περὶ τῶν στάσεων, and further by Cicero, Inv. I,10–16, Quintilian, Inst. III,6,60–68(f). In general Josef Martin, Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft II/3), München: C.H. Beck 1974, 28–51, and applied on the SM, H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 207; cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 287f. 104

5.8 Radical Demands as Ethos for Pilgrims and Sages

349

be the issue in the third, fourth and sixth antitheses. Finally, the fourth status, that the law does not cover every situation in life, means that analogies from a law are drawn to new situations (ratiocinatio, συλλογισµός). The first, second and the sixth antitheses might refer to this principle. The status of laws will always include discussions on certain topoi (murder, marriage, etc.) which we see unfold in the Antitheses. 4) Radical demands and decision-making. A deliberative, protreptic speech makes radical demands. The audience has to choose between two alternatives: life or death or – according to Matt 7,13f – between the wide gate and broad road leading to destruction (εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν), and the small gate and narrow road leading to life (ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν). The decision must be taken, and the small road is the road for those who follow the radical demands. C.H. Talbert has correctly applied this perspective to the SM.107

5.8 Radical Demands as Ethos for Pilgrims and Sages Can the radical demands be explained through their function and motifhistory? Already the exordium and propositio of the SM give three indications: Blessed are the pilgrims and blessed are the persecuted prophets; they are – like sages – salt and light. 5.8.1 The Function of the Radical Demands: Ethos for Pilgrims Pilgrimage is a modern word. The Jewish term was ‫עלה‬, going up to God’s mountain, a term Matthew refers to.108 Jews had to visit the Temple three times a year, or at least once a year.109 Luke and John use the technical term for this custom (κατὰ τὸ ἔθος τῆς ἑορτῆς).110 Not everyone could go up to Jerusalem and through the gates into the Temple. The pilgrims were asked: “who is allowed to enter God’s mountain?” (Ps 24,3: ‫)מִ ֽי־יַעֲלֶ ֥ ה ְבהַר־י ְהוָ ֑ ה‬. The entrance requirements were hard, but only those who fulfilled the requirements would hear: “Lift up your heads, O you gates.”111 It is not insignificant that Matt 5,1 uses the expression ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος as his introduction to the SM, even though the mountain is not the Temple in Jerusalem. Matt 7,13f starts the conclusion of the SM with the exhortation:

107

Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount (2004). Ἀναβαίνω (Matt 20,18 par.). Cf. ἀπέρχοµαι, Matt 16,21, or εἰσέρχοµαι, Matt 21,10.12. 109 (‫שָׁ ֥>שׁ ) ְפּ עָמִ ֖ ים‬, Exod 23,17; 34,23; Deut 16,16; 1 Chr 8,13. Cf. Mic 4,2. 110 Luke 2,43; John 7,8.10, or εἰς τὸ ἱερόν/εἰς Ἱεροσόλυµα, Matt 21,10.12. 111 Ps 24,7 (23,7 LXX): ἄρατε πύλας, οἱ ἄρχοντες ὑµῶν, καὶ ἐπάρθητε, πύλαι αἰώνιοι, καὶ εἰσελεύσεται ὁ βασιλεὺς τῆς δόξης. 108

350

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

“Enter through the narrow gate (εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης); … small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” The Beatitudes in the SM convey the entrance requirements. These Beatitudes, Matt 5,3–10, surprised the audience/reader from the very beginning. They are surprisingly new, and the requirements in Ps 15 and 24 are not repeated, with minor exceptions. A comparison with the pilgrimage requirements in Ps 15, 24 and 118 is illuminating: Psalm 15

24

118

Matthew – πορευόµενος ἄµωµος καὶ ἐργαζόµενος δικαιοσύνην – λαλῶν ἀλήθειαν ἐν καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ – ὃς οὐκ ἐδόλωσεν ἐν γλώσσῃ αὐτοῦ – οὐδὲ ἐποίησεν τῷ πλησίον αὐτοῦ κακόν – καὶ ὀνειδισµὸν οὐκ ἔλαβεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἔγγιστα αὐτοῦ – ἐξουδένωται ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ πονηρευόµενος, τοὺς δὲ φοβουµένους κύριον δοξάζει – ὁ ὀµνύων τῷ πλησίον αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἀθετῶν – τὸ ἀργύριον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔδωκεν ἐπὶ τόκῳ καὶ δῶρα ἐπ᾿ ἀθῴοις οὐκ ἔλαβεν – ἀθῷος χερσὶν καὶ καθαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ – ὃς οὐκ ἔλαβεν ἐπὶ µαταίῳ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ – καὶ οὐκ ὤµοσεν ἐπὶ δόλῳ τῷ πλησίον αὐτοῦ – µακάριοι οἱ ἄµωµοι ἐν ὁδῷ οἱ πορευόµενοι ἐν νόµῳ κυρίου – µακάριοι οἱ ἐξερευνῶντες τὰ µαρτύρια αὐτοῦ ἐν ὅλῃ καρδίᾳ ἐκζητήσουσιν αὐτόν – οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἐργαζόµενοι τὴν ἀνοµίαν ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ – σὺ ἐνετείλω τὰς ἐντολάς σου φυλάξασθαι σφόδρα ὄφελον

5,5.10.20; 6,33 5,8.37 5,22.33ff 5,43ff 5,38ff cf. 5,11f 5,33ff 5,42 5,8 5,27ff; 7,1ff 5,33ff 7,13f 5,8 7,22f 5,19

This overview shows that few requirements are the same. The positive ethical requirements are formulated in a totally new way (Matt 5,6: οἱ ἐλεήµονες; 5,7: οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ; 5,8: οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί). Particularly the two µακάριοςsentences in Ps 118/119 are close to Matt 5,19 (µία τῶν ἐντολῶν) and 7,21.24–27. Few promises are made in the entrance requirement psalms. Ps 15 ends, however, with the following promise: ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα οὐ σαλευθήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. This promise is reflected in the concluding parable in the SM (Matt 7,26 = Luke 6,48: οὐκ ἴσχυσεν σαλεῦσαι αὐτήν). The really new feature in the SM is the eight/nine µακάριος-sentences, and the abundant promises conveyed by the protasis sentences (twice αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν and αὐτοὶ παρακληθήσονται – κληρονοµήσουσιν τὴν γῆν – χορτασθήσονται – ἐλεηθήσονται – τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται – υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται). The gift perspective is predominant because the promises are given to people one does not expect as addressees (οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύµατι – οἱ

5.8 Radical Demands as Ethos for Pilgrims and Sages

351

πενθοῦντες – οἱ πραεῖς – οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην – οἱ δεδιωγµένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης). What is expected from pilgrims is surprising, and even more so the promises that are given to them. This eschatological perspective does indeed shed light on the radical demands in the SM. 5.8.2 Motif-history I: Radical Demands and Analogy with the Prophets The SM has in many ways a prophetic character. Matt 5,11f has often been neglected in the exegesis of the SM. It is perceived as a transitional saying between the Beatitudes and the programme of the SM in Matt 5,13–16. Matt 5,12 (“Rejoice and be glad”) is particularly important because it has the first of more than 70 imperatives in the SM. Matthew, more than Luke, sees the disciples as prophets. In Matt 7,15 he warns against false prophets, and in Matt 7,21f he blames those who prophesy, but do not act according to the prophetic message. These texts are sensational in a time when the concept of ‘an era without prophets’ dominated (Joel 3,1–5; Mal 3,22–24, 1 Macc 4,46; 9,27; 14,41 and Josephus, C. Ap. I,27–41), relatively few prophets were preaching and Jesus’ status as a prophet was at least disputed. The SM connects rather to Joel 2,28f (“I will pour out my Spirit on all people”; ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύµατός µου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκαν). The whole SM illustrates texts like Mic 6,8,112 Hos 6,6 or Isa 58,6f are pretexts behind Matt 6,1–18,113 and the criticism against wealth (6,19ff), against wandering from one side to the other (6,24 and 1 Kgs 18,21; Jer 31,22, etc.) and many metaphors (foundation, Isa 28; rain, storm etc., Ezek 13,11ff; tree, Jer 17,8ff; ‘way’, Isa 40,3.14, etc.; pure/uncircumcised heart, Ezek 36,26; 44,7, etc.) derive from the prophetic tradition. The prophets of the new era should live in accordance with a renewed standard.

The interpretation of the Tanach occasionally reflects the prophetic voice. In common with Matt 19,1–9, Matt 5,31f goes programmatically beyond Deut 24 and emphasises what was in the beginning, Gen 2. Other antitheses have a similar argument. Like the prophets, Jesus is ‘radical’ in his teaching – he is going to the roots.

112

See above, p. 257, and below, p. 439. “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos 6,6) and Isa 58,5ff: “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: Is it only for bowing one’s head like a reed and for lying on sackcloth and ashes? … to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter – when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?” 113

352

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

5.8.3 Motif-history II: Radical Demands as Ethos for Sages According to H. Windisch, Jesus offered wisdom ethics for a new covenant. Windisch argued against the scholarly mixture of historical and theological perspectives; he argued that a commandment is a commandment, an imperative is an imperative. The imperative and commandment should be understood within the framework of sapiential thinking. Subsequently, D. Zeller and others have analysed the form and content of the SM as a wisdom text.114 They have proven affinities to wisdom texts in most sayings of the SM. It is therefore not by chance that the only example from the Tanach in the SM refers to Solomon (6,28f), the prototype of a wise man and the symbol of Jewish wisdom. The ending of the SM demonstrates its sapiential character: Matt 7,24 (“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man …”) and 7,26 (“But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man …”). The imagery is taken from e.g. Prov 24,3: “By wisdom a house is built, and through understanding it is established.” The contrast between wise and foolish dominates Prov 10,1–22; 15 (and many sayings like 29,9 ‫אִ ֽישׁ־ ָח ָ֗כם‬/ἀνὴρ σοφός versus ἀνὴρ φαῦλος). According to wisdom literature a wise man turns away from anger (Prov 29,8; Matt 5,21f), keeps himself under control (Prov 29,11; Matt 5,39ff), holds his tongue (Prov 29,29; 11,12; Matt 5,22.33ff), knows what true property is (Prov 10,2; Matt 6,19ff), practises love and not hate (Prov 10,2; Matt 5,43ff) and listens to advice (Prov 12,15; Matt 7,24ff). One background for Matt 6,1–18 is Prov 15,3 (“The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good”), and similarly Prov 15,11: “Death and Destruction lie open before the Lord (cf. Matt 7,13f), how much more the hearts of men!”

1) Radical demands as ethos for the good man (vir bonus). The sapiential framework should, however, not be restricted to a Jewish setting. The way the wise man is depicted resembles the picture of a vir bonus in a Graeco-Roman (esp. Stoic) context. Quintilian developed in his rhetoric a Stoic treatise on the notion of vir bonus based on a quotation from Marcus Cato: “vir bonus dicendi peritus” (he is skilled in the art of speaking).115 The radical demands sound more problematic in the Constantinian era when Christianity became the state religion. Should only monks in the desert and sectarians practise the ethos of the SM? Some Christians saw the dominating Church as a threat to true discipleship. Two rhetorically trained theologians, John Chrysostom and Augustine, were church leaders who saw this 114

Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche (1977); idem, “Jesu weisheitliche Ethik” (2004); cf. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition (1989); Lips, Weisheitliche Traditionen (1990), 193–256; Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 23–26, 42–44, 630. 115 Quintilian, Inst. XII,1,1, cf. Arthur E. Walzer, “Quintilian’s ‘Vir Bonus’ and the Stoic Wise Man”, Rhetoric Society Quarterly 33 (2003), 25–41.

5.8 Radical Demands as Ethos for Pilgrims and Sages

353

challenge. Chrysostom compared the ideals of the SM with the philosophical views of politeia116 and argued that the SM illustrates what a Christian politeia is like. As an orator he saw clearly the rhetorical composition of the SM, and in his ‘political speech’ (λόγος περὶ πολιτείας) he wanted to demonstrate that the Christian way of life is superior to all other politeiai in the history of mankind.117 In his early work Augustine offered a similar interpretation of the SM.118 For every radical ethical demand he asked: what kind of ethical virtue is illustrated? This approach makes the SM a universal ethical message. Everyone, not only disciples, is challenged. This is the reason why not only Christians see the SM as an impulse for their lifestyle. Gandhi is a well-known example because he understood the SM as an ethical document. His pacifist strategy of satyagraha took the illustrations in Matt 5,39ff seriously; not as practical devices, but as an ethical attitude for someone in a weak position but with a stronger ethical attitude. He saw the political impact of this concept.119 2) Wisdom and philosophical ethics. Jewish sapiential tradition had already in the Wisdom of Solomon and in Sirach – and more so in Philo and Josephus – been in close contact with Hellenistic philosophy. The same contact is reflected in Paul’s writings, and even in Jesus’ teaching. Exegetes have recently seen the potential of philosophical ethics, to a certain extent H. Weder120 and U. Luz,121 but more so H.D. Betz, who thinks that the radicalism of the demands must be understood philosophically rather than theologically.122 Like the philosophically trained interpreters John Chrysostom and Augustine, they see in Matt 5,39–42 ethical principles behind specific rules, and they see that Matt 5,43–47 expresses the very phenomenon of love (Hebrew: ‫ )אהב‬that excludes splitting.123 To combine the notions of 116

John Chrysostom in PG 57 (1862), 225–334 (= Homilies on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, English in NPNF1 10, 91–176). 117 Cf. Mitchell, “John Chrysostom” (2007), 23. 118 Augustine, De sermone Domini in monte, see above, p. 36 with n. 143. 119 Without using any Marxist interpretational tools, cf. Swami Prabhavananda, The Sermon on the Mount according to Vedanta, London: Allen & 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. 120 Weder, Rede der Reden (1985), and in more recent articles in idem, Einblicke ins Evangelium (1992). 121 In his commentary, but more explicit in Luz/Michaels, Jesus oder Buddha (2002), 79–82. According to Luz, Jesus sharpens the wisdom tradition. 122 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 230, 239, 258f, 274, 298: behind the acts of murder, adultery, oaths and retaliation one should look for the reasons for murder, anger, insults, lack of faithfulness and truth, etc. 123 Augustine and John Chrysostom ad loc. More recently Lohmeyer, Matthäus (41967), 144, has formulated it beautifully: where there is love the enemy disappears, and where the enemy dominates love disappears.

354

§ 5 The So-called Radicalism of the Sermon on the Mount

love and foe is indeed unique, and Matt 5,43 also drops the term “as yourself” from the quotation from Lev 19,18 in which the term ‫ כמוך‬marks identity. True identity is to be found in universal brotherhood, and the text argues philosophically and ethically for the principle of generosity. 3) Summary and consequences. The radicalism of the SM is not the problem in SM research; it is one of the problems. In order to avoid the problem, scholarship has too often tried to modify, minimise, sectorise, sectarianise or satirise the SM’s radical demands. However, the extremely radical language challenges our preconceived ideas of what a foundational speech should be like. The radical sayings have an obvious rhetorical and metaphorical character, but to state this does not mean that one minimises the radicalism. The rhetorical and metaphorical character indicates the nature of the saying. It offers radical, and not balanced, universal norms. The Antitheses represent one type of radical sayings, and they have their own rhetorical character, which must be seen in the framework of the rhetorical ‘status (στάσις) theories’. Other radical sayings in the SM demonstrate that radical demands give directions and goals both in extreme situations and in moments of injustice and in everyday life. Empathy, commitment, dedication and devotion are necessary, and this general approach prevents all modifying and minimizing efforts. A complete list of modifying and minimising statements is unnecessary.124 Here follow some: Limitations: The SM is ‘only’

Negations: The SM is ‘not’

only for monks only for the disciples only for an interim period only an ‘attitude’ only applicable in private matters only polemical

not a code of behaviour not a universal ethics not a religious jurisdiction not a political programme not for a government not religious perfectionism

We will never reach understanding through limitations and negations. They can be partly correct, but if only partly – then they are sometimes misleading and sometimes false. Modifying and minimising efforts need positive alternatives. It is certainly difficult to use the ethics of the SM in a political context, but the ethical sayings have implications for every area of life, and not only for individuals.

124

Bauman, Sermon (1985), offers a comprehensive list. Käsemann, “Bergpredigt – eine Privatsache?” (2005), 127–129, gives many examples.

5.8 Radical Demands as Ethos for Pilgrims and Sages

355

The rhetorical character indicates the direction of the sayings and their reach. Limitations: The SM as form

Positive statement: The SM is

parabolic wisdom-sayings spoken to a Galilean audience in the first century

a consistent attitude in difficult situations examples pointing in a certain direction consistent ethical-theological teaching sketchy philosophical discourse

The radical demands are ethical sayings, virtue ethics or ethics of attitude, designed for a politeia based on Jesus’ teaching. The radical demands appeal to every would-be disciple and challenge them to be true pilgrims, to design their lives by analogy to the prophets and sages. ‘Radical’ should not be used in the sense of extreme, unrealistic, etc. or as the opposite of ‘conservative’, ‘traditional’, ‘Pharisaic’, etc. The meaning is consistent, challenging, and rooted in a given pattern of thought. The opposite of ‘radicalism’ would be excrescences, faulty development and decay. The radical demands correspond to the sensational proclamation of the gospel concerning God’s giving attitude. Thus, the radical demands reflect the radical teaching of generosity. The ‘radical’ character of the theological statements (Beatitudes, etc.), ethical sayings and parabolic texts formulates a radical philosophy of life. ‘Radical philosophy of life’ in this book means primarily a consistent attitude based on a foundational philosophy of life, developed in a dialogue with Jewish concepts and patterns of thought. Radicalism is foundational thinking concerning what life is all about.

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount Among the huge number of books and articles on ‘ethics of the SM’ we have relatively few studies on the ‘theology of the SM’. We can still easily get an overview over the literature if we add contributions on ‘eschatology’, or ‘identity formation’, ‘spirituality’, ‘religion’, ‘philosophy’, etc. Some contributions to the religion of the SM study the relation between the SM and Judaism. These studies are particularly important here. To ask for ‘Philosophy of life’ in the SM, might sound too modern, but it relates to Jewish wisdom literature and contemporary Hellenistic philosophy. It prevents us from seeing the relation between theology and ethics as a dogmatic issue. Ethics and philosophy (theology/religion) are intertwined and parts of ‘identity formation’. Recent comparative studies on identity formation do so, and Stanley Hauerwas, who describes the SM as virtue ethics for disciples of Jesus, looks in the same direction. In fact, Hauerwas takes up a number of philosophical issues, like R. Bultmann in his ‘theological’ exegesis of Jesus’ teaching (1926). Few others have followed Bultmann, before H.D. Betz and G. Theißen saw the philosophical potential in the text. The philosophy of life in Matt 5–7 is therefore our theme here.

6.1 Preliminary Remarks The explicit theology and ethics of the SM are found in the themes and arguments in the text itself. The composition and its argumentation/rhetoric/key sentences express the theology and ethics. The underlying structure is the symbolic world, the world view, the religion, the philosophy behind the text. ‘Identity formation’ includes world view, theology, ethics, rituals, social structures, religion. The task here is to reconstruct the philosophy of life behind the text. Philosophy of life relates to all these six dimensions, and the questions are: Does the philosophy of life (or the symbolic world) in the SM represent something new in its Jewish setting, and did the Early Church – and Matthew – follow up the SM? The Jewish world view, theology, ethics, rituals, social structures and religion make up the context of the SM.

358

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

Asking general/universal questions based on the explicit theology in the SM, is nothing new. In a review of Fiebig’s important book on the SM and its rabbinic background, Martin Dibelius argued strongly against two positions: one of them was the literal, ‘nomistic’, understanding of the SM which Fiebig represented. The other position was represented by Schweitzer’s eschatological understanding, which made the text as theology outdated. A third position wants to take seriously both the historical situation of Jesus and the transcending motifs (‘übergeschichtliche’ questions).1 To put the text in a broader – philosophical and theological – framework, is the task of interpreters today. Asking open questions, searching for the anthropological, ethical, theological convictions behind the text is the path to understanding the SM. The task must therefore be based on an historical approach while taking the explicit theology into account. One should develop the implicit theology, the struggle for identity formation, the spirituality, the religion, the philosophy of life. 1) Cognitive-propositional versus cultural-linguistic approach. A comparison between the SM and later Christian theology as well as Jewish religion has to use adequate categories. George A. Lindbeck differentiates between three or four types of doing theology: the cognitive-propositional, experiential-expressive, and cultural-linguistic approach:2 – A cognitive-propositional approach lists dogmatic features in Christianity/Judaism. Christian denominations think these features are unconditionally necessary or permanently necessary and irreversible, and try to find them in the SM also. – Secondly, the experiential-expressive approach is typical for Liberal Theology, often combined with elements from pietistic or existentialist thinking: faith, religious experience, mentality, insight, participation, etc. The anthropological impact of faith and its consequences for life is crucial. It often leads to a certain philosophy of life. – Thirdly, the cultural-linguistic approach focuses on the ‘grammar’ of faith, the inner logic, the myths, the typical expressions, world view, etc. Previous studies have too often measured the SM according to a cognitivepropositional scheme, or – as in Liberal Theology (and partly the Bultmannschool) – inadvertently used an experiential-expressive pattern. Identity formation relates mostly to this latter approach, and this will be used here. Both the cognitive-propositional and the experiential-expressive approaches reflect core convictions and common religious behaviour in a group. A merely theological (cognitive-propositional) approach is not sufficient in research of the SM. This speech handles existential questions, both explicitly 1

M. Dibelius, “Review of Fiebig, Jesu Bergpredigt”, TLZ 50 (1925), 200–201. G.A. Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine (1984), 16–18, cf. 30–45, 79–90. Lindbeck operates with a fourth type, transcendental (experiential), which he thinks K. Rahner, B. Lonergan (and R. Bultmann) represented. 2

6.1 Preliminary Remarks

359

and implicitly. We have to ask for its understanding of man and human existence, and at the same time prevent Bultmann’s limitations by including a broader social-anthropological perspective and a broader perspective of the symbolic universe in the text. Behind the SM, a number of philosophical issues are at stake. The very word ‘identity’ is problematic, because the Latin notion of idem = ‘the same’ seemingly overlooks the unavoidable process of formation and construction of new identities. The tension between essence and change or essence and self-presentation is the dynamic in history. ‘Self-presentation’ and ‘identity’ are siblings. 2) Concerning identity and self-presentation. In order to investigate religion and philosophy of life in the SM, we have to start with the fact that Jesus was a Jew and that their Jewish identity was the common ground for Jesus and his audience. However, this speech offers something special, different from the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees, and therefore “the crowds were amazed (ἐξεπλήσσοντο) at his teaching” (Matt 7,28).3 To understand the singularity within the common Jewish framework is our task here. Judaism and Christianity will always have a core of convictions (‘common Judaism’/‘common Christianity’), and a common religious behaviour, but groups express themselves through different forms.4 Their self-presentation reflects to different degrees their common identity.5 One should see this dynamic in a broader social-anthropological perspective and not only through the lenses of theological interpretation and of a religio-historical approach. The social-anthropological perspective implies questions like clean versus unclean, honour versus shame, patron versus client, prosperity versus limited goods/poverty, happiness/good life versus misery, space versus time. 3) The SM reflects Jewish identity and a particular self-presentation. Identity always consists of some core convictions and in religion of some typical expressions in doctrine, ethics, rituals, piety and pattern of thought. For a Jew the question of core is undisputed. It is the ‘Shema’ and nothing else, and it has consequences in what we call ‘covenantal thinking’. In spite of many self-presentations in first-century Judaism, core convictions exist, and some typical consequences of the core convictions are commonplace. 3

The term ἐκπλήσσω is based on Mark 1,22 (Luke 4,32) and is used only in the Synoptic Gospels (and Acts 13,12: ἐκπλησσόµενος ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ κυρίου). In Matt 13,54; 22,33 (Mark 6,2; 7,37: 11,18; Luke 9,43) it is the people’s reaction, and only in Matt 19,25; Mark 10,26 the reaction of the disciples (Luke 2,48 – of Jesus’ parents). 4 On the other hand, to speak about ‘common Hellenism’ is meaningless. Hellenism is the framework and influences Jewish and Christian self-presentations in the first centuries CE to a high degree. 5 B.F. Meyer, “The Church in Earliest Christianity” (1992); already in idem, Early Christians (1986). This distinction is often accepted, e.g. Holmberg, “Jewish versus Christian Identity in the Early Church” (1998); Lieu, Christian Identity (2004), 11ff.

360

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

Therefore, three or four questions must be analysed in the following: (a) How does the SM reflect the core convictions and the covenantal thinking? Jesus accepted the core convictions, and there is a kind of covenantal thinking in the SM. How should we describe this precisely? (b) Jesus developed something new, and his self-presentation surprised people. It was understood as new and different from the very beginning. How should we describe this novelty? How far do we find the same insights in earliest Christian theology? The self-presentation in the SM is obviously very different from contemporary Jewish self-presentations: Pharisaic, Qumran, etc. (c) The self-presentation was formed in the context of Graeco-Roman culture. How was the SM perceived in its Hellenistic setting? (d) How far is the SM reflected in the rest of Matthew? The SM is an integral part of the Gospel of Matthew as a whole. One must assume that the SM and Matthew have the same Jewish author. However, there are significant differences between the SM and the rest of Matthew, which can be explained through the dispositional plan of the author, or through particular sources or particular interests in the SM. A careful historical perspective must analyse identity and self-presentation in this respect also. Judaism is – like Christianity – both easy and impossible to define. Its complex history, its diversity, its cultural adaptations, make the very notion of ‘identity’ problematic. However, Judaism (and Christianity) have a core of basic convictions (God, election) and expectations, and they even have a variety of identity markers (ethos and norms, holy places, holy texts, holy persons and holy practices). All this can be compared with the SM.

6.2 Comparing Jewish and Hellenistic Parallels Why should the SM be interpreted both in a Jewish and in a Hellenistic context? How essential and how superficial are the great number of parallels to Jewish and Graeco-Roman texts? Did Jews find a basically Jewish pattern of thought in the SM? How is the SM understood in Jewish and GraecoRoman setting? 6.2.1 Judaism versus Hellenism? The dichotomy between Judaism and Hellenism was repealed even before Martin Hengel’s important contributions.6 Repeal of dichotomy does not mean that differences in culture and religious practices would not still remain. One should, in Hengel’s footsteps, investigate the Hellenistic character of 6

Particularly Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus (1969, 31988).

6.2 Comparing Jewish and Hellenistic Parallels

361

Jewish texts in the Hellenistic era. In this light the SM becomes an interesting test-case.7 The dichotomy between ‘Jewish’ and ‘Hellenistic’ still has some relevance – in spite of the many overlaps. It is no surprise that we have separate collections of parallels to the SM. The collection of Jewish parallels is mostly associated with the names John Lightfoot (1658–1678) and Paul Billerbeck (1921).8 The great number of parallels in Hellenistic sayings were collected by Johann Jakob Wettstein (1751) at a time when classical texts were part of the curriculum for every scholar.9 Minor collections followed, and recently the ‘New Wettstein’ has documented a huge number of Hellenistic parallels to the SM. 6.2.2 Jewish Parallels The first comprehensive collection of Jewish parallels by John Lightfoot (1658–1678) showed clearly the ‘Jewish’ character of the SM. Since then, both Jewish and Christian interpreters have listed parallels to almost every saying in the SM. The German scholar, Johann Christian Schöttgen, set the standard with his Horae Ebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum (1733), and after 1820 Jewish scholars with a profound knowledge of the Talmud and other rabbinic traditions were in the forefront. The collection of the JewishChristian scholar, August Wünsche, Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch (1878), mentioned more parallels to the SM and other sayings of Jesus than Lightfoot and Schöttgen had done. On this basis, Julius Wellhausen claimed that every saying in the SM can be found in the Talmud, but he added: ‘In the Talmud one will find much more.’10 Jesus concentrated his teaching much more than the rabbis did. The Jewish scholars, Claude Joseph Goldsmid Montefiore (1858–1938), with his analysis of the Jewish parallels in The Synoptic Gospels (1909), and Gerald Friedlander (1871–1923) with his concentration on the Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (1911), stimulated – not least due to their disagreements – new impulses to scholarship. However, Billerbeck’s diligent work on parallels to the SM in the Talmud and Midrashim (1922) set a new standard.11 The influence from Jewish wis7

The rabbinic and Hellenistic parallels are indispensable in the study of the SM, but few come closer than the parallels from the Jewish-Hellenistic sapiential tradition. 8 J. Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae I–VI (1658–1678); Bill. I (41966). 9 Johann Jakob Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae cum lectionibus variantibus codicum MSS., Amsterdam: Dommer 1751 (repr., Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt 1962). After the textual variants, Wettstein listed Hellenistic parallels and also parallels from Jewish authors and from the Church Fathers. 10 “Alles, was in der Bergpredigt steht, kann man im Talmud wiederfinden – ja, und wie viel außerdem noch!”, quoted after Lapide, Bergpredigt (1982), 15. 11 Bill. I (41966), 189–474.

362

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

dom literature became an additional theme, particularly through Bultmann’s and Hans Windisch’s analysis of the SM.12 Jewish scholars like Joseph Klausner and Schalom Ben-Chorin agreed: only few sayings in the SM have no rabbinic parallel. They saw the SM in a favourable light: Jesus chose the one beautiful pearl from a great heap of stones which the Scribes and Pharisees had stored up.13 To compare the SM with the rabbinic literature is as impossible as a comparison between Jacob’s Well and the Sea of Galilee. We cannot compare the SM and rabbinic sources one to one: The SM is generally older, and even the Mishnah is much larger, and its design is incompatible. Still, the Jewishness of the SM was overwhelmingly documented in the years before 1940, and after 1945 these studies profited from e.g. new material from the Qumran texts and certain targumim and some midrashim. All this could have, but has not so far, resulted in a ‘New Billerbeck’. 6.2.3 Hellenistic Parallels It was difficult to overlook the immense number of Hellenistic sources and parallels even at the time of Wettstein’s collection. Later on, scholars like C.F.G. Heinrici and more recently H.D. Betz, have contributed substantially to a new collection of parallels. Searches in the database of TLG (The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae), which has gathered and digitized most literary texts written in Greek from Homer to the fall of Byzantium in 1453 CE, gave scholars a new tool for discovering parallels. The group behind ‘New Wettstein’ showed how many parallels to the SM we actually have.14 They labelled the Philo parallels as ‘Hellenistic’ and not as ‘Jewish’, which once again challenges the dichotomy between ‘Jewish’ and ‘Hellenistic’. To sum up: Together the parallels cover most of the SM. Few sayings have no parallels in pre-Christian texts. Nevertheless, the content of the SM was a surprise for the Jewish-Hellenistic audiences. Its identity formation and selfpresentation are unique.

12

Bultmann, GST, 73–77/HST, 69–73; Windisch, Sinn der Bergpredigt (1928/1937). They agreed about the facts, but disagreed when it came to theological interpretation and evaluation. 13 J. Klausner, Jesus von Nazareth, Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag 21934, 516: “da Jesus sich gleichsam aus dem großen Steinhaufen, dem Material der Schriftgelehrten und Pharisäer, immer nur ‘die eine Perle’ auswählte”; ET: idem, Jesus of Nazareth (above, p. 23, n. 66), 321: “From among the overwhelming mass accumulated by the Scribes and Pharisees Jesus sought out for himself the ‘one pearl.’” 14 U. Schnelle (ed.), Neuer Wettstein, vol. I/I.2: Texte zum Matthäusevangelium. Matthäus 1–10, Berlin: De Gruyter 2013, has recently added more material.

6.3 The SM within Judaism

363

6.3 The SM within Judaism ‘Normative Judaism’ was previously perceived as monolithic, legalistic, particularistic, etc. Judaism in the first century CE had in fact a number of self-presentations (Pharisees, Sadducees, Qumran, etc.).15 Even so, Jews living in Galilee and Judea shared a notion of ‘normative Judaism’, a great number of convictions, rituals and practices. Jesus and his first disciples shared the same convictions. The Judaism which Jesus and his disciples – including Matthew – lived inside had some core convictions and entailed a kind of covenant thinking.16 6.3.1 Forms of Teaching and Genre Parallels A Jewish audience was probably confused when listening to/reading the SM. It was quite different from the homilies in the synagogues or the later midrashim. It was quite different from Jewish ethical treatises and from legal texts in the Tanach. There are some slight similarities to prophetic teaching, Jewish wisdom literature and some Qumran texts (1QS, 1QSa, CD, 4QMMT,17 etc.) as well as to Pirke Avot. A Jew would have been familiar with many of the individual texts in the SM. – The form of the Beatitudes (Matt 5,3–12) is well known. Normally we have just one, sometimes two or three, and at most five (4Q525 = 4QBeat) beatitudes. – The forms of the commandments in the Tanach and the SM are similar;18 the SM nearly quotes the Decalogue and the Holiness Code in the Antitheses, and we see here the mixture of apodictic and casuistic sentences that we know from the Pentateuch. – The formulation of the Lord’s Prayer in Matt 6,9–13 is familiar in a Jewish context. – The four prohibition sayings (Matt 6,19–24: µὴ θησαυρίζετε; 6,25–34: µὴ µεριµνᾶτε; 7,1–5: µὴ κρίνετε; 7,6–11: µὴ δῶτε) are in their form not unfamiliar, but the totality and the content are a little strange in Jewish eyes. 15

James D.G. Dunn, “Judaism in the Land of Israel in the First Century”, in Jacob Neusner/Alan J. Avery-Peck (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity, vol. II, Leiden: Brill 1995, 229–261; idem, “Was Judaism Particularistic or Universalistic?”, ibid., vol. III, Leiden: Brill 1999, 57–73. 16 Holmén, Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking (2001). 17 Foster, Community, Law and Mission (2014), 85–93, 140f, has compared the text of 4QMMT with the Antitheses in Matthew. 18 Worth, Sermon (1997); Lioy, Decalogue (2004), who compared the SM and the Decalogue. Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche (1977), analysed the relation between the ‘vetitive’ in the Tanach compared to the SM.

364

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

– The parables in Matt 7,13f (εἰσέλθατε!) and 7,15(.20, προσέχετε!) will seem more familiar to a Jewish-Hellenistic reader, while only the form (and not the content) of the two sayings (7,21: οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων µοι and 7,24: πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει µου) is familiar. Some of the forms in the SM (and the genre) are rather surprising for a Jew, e.g.: – The you-sayings in Matt 5,13f are more peculiar, and so are the ἦλθονsayings in Matt 5,17 and the frequent ἀµὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑµῖν-sayings in 5,20– 6,16/18. – The audience/readers would have been astonished by the Antitheses in Matt 5,21–48 (and 6,1–18). Do the commandments in SM confirm, interpret or replace the basic Jewish ethical teaching? 6.3.2 Core Conviction As part of the morning and evening prayers, the Shema Yisrael was common ground for all Jews long before the time of Jesus. The Shema is indeed the core of Judaism, regardless of the dating of Deuteronomy. The text in Deut 6,4: ‫הֵ ֖ ינו י ְהוָ ֥ ה ֶא ָחֽד‬:‫שׂ ָראֵ ֑ ל י ְהוָ ֥ ה ֱא‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁמַ ֖ ע י‬ ְ (LXX: Ἄκουε, Ισραηλ· κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡµῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν) is quoted in Mark 12,29(–32) and the parallels in Matt 22,37/Luke 10,27 quote Deut 6,5. 1) The SM and the Shema. B. Gerhardsson has correctly emphasised that the Shema is the basis for the earliest Christian theology.19 Jews and Christians have three notions in common: – Yahveh is the only (‫ ) ֶאחָ ֽד‬God. In the SM, God is the most important theme. – People should be listening (‫שׁ מַ ֖ ע‬ ְ ) to him. Hearing is essential in the SM.20 – Listening means to love God with “all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength”.21 The notion ‘heart’ (‫ )לב‬is mentioned first, and repeated in Matt 6,21.

19 Gerhardsson, The Shema in the New Testament (1996), and idem, Ethos of the Bible (1979). 20 ‘Listening’ is repeatedly mentioned in the Antitheses (ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη, 5,21.27.31.33.38.43, cf. Luke 6,27). The climax both in the SM and the SP is the exhortation to listen (πᾶς ὅστις ἀκούει/ὁ ἀκούων µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους). Matt 7,24.26 is not a ‘Matthean’ notion. Luke 6,46.49 has it the same way (πᾶς ὁ ἐρχόµενος πρός µε καὶ ἀκούων µου τῶν λόγων). Both presuppose a ‘Christological interpretation, Luke even more strongly than Matthew through the πᾶς ὁ ἐρχόµενος πρός µε. 21 Gerhardsson sometimes argued in a too sophisticated way. He found exegesis of the Shema in the parables of the sower (in “Liknelsen om de fyrahanda sädesåker”, SEÅ 31 [1966], 80–113) and in Matt 6,1–18.

6.3 The SM within Judaism

365

All three elements are crucial in the SM. The commandment to love is quoted (Matt 5,43) and Matt 6,24 emphasises this monotheistic concept of loving God alone, applying the Shema directly:22 Deut 6,4f

‫הינוּ י ְהוָ ֥ ה׀ אֶ ָחֽד׃‬: ֖ ֵ ֱ‫שְׁמע י ִשְׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל י ְהוָ ֥ ה א‬ ַ֖ S֖ ְ‫ וּ ְבכָל־נַפְשׁ‬Sְ֥ ‫ ְבּכָל־ ְל ָבב‬S‫הי‬: ֑ ֶ ֱ‫ו ָ ְ֣א ַהבְתָּ֔ ֵ֖את י ְהוָ ֣ ה א‬ ‫׃‬Sֽ‫וּ ְבכָל־מְ א ֶֹד‬

Matt 6,24 Οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν· ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα µισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει …

The notion of serving God and not mammon corresponds with the emphasis in the Shema on ‘strength’ (Sֽ ֶ‫) ְבכָל־ ְמא ֹד‬. The strength is not prosperity, but God alone. There is an obvious correspondence in the SM between Matt 5,48 (ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑµεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν = Luke 6,36) and the key sentence in the Holiness Code in Lev 19,2 ( ‫ְקד ִ ֹ֣שׁים ִתּה ְ֑יוּ כִּ ֣ י ָק ֔דוֹשׁ ֲא ִ ֖ני‬ ‫הֵיכֶ ֽם‬:‫)י ְהוָ ֥ ה ֱא‬. The Jewish core conviction is expressed in the SM through the theocentric perspective which is basic in the SM, as in many θεός-texts: 5,8: to see God (θεὸν ὄψονται) 5,9: to be called sons of God (υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται) 5,34: God is the only one on the heavenly throne (θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ) 6,9: sanctification of God’s name (ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνοµά σου) 6,30: God is the creator (ὁ θεὸς οὕτως ἀµφιέννυσιν) 6,33: to seek God first (ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν) The SM/Matthew replaces the expression βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ with βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (8 times). This gives the term a new character, which underlines the theocentric structure.23 The notion of heart in the SM has clear references to the Shema: 5,8: µακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ 5,28: ἤδη ἐµοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ 6,21: ὅπου γάρ ἐστιν ὁ θησαυρός σου, ἐκεῖ ἔσται καὶ ἡ καρδία σου. Matt 6,21 is the key sentence, following up Matt 6,1–18, which offers a ‘theology of heart’ (ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ), based on the Shema.24 Matt 6,1–18 does 22 Matt 22,37 quotes from the Shema explicitly: ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου. 23 Blumenthal, Basileia im Matthäusevangelium (2019), 90–105. 24 1 Sam 16,7 (about David): The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart. Deut 10,16: “Circumcise your hearts …”. Deut 30,6: “The Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart.” Jer 4,4: “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts.” And Jer 31,31ff on the new covenant. Also, Ezek 44,7.9 (“… foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh into my sanctuary,

366

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

not provide any new laws about alms, prayer and fasting. Jesus asks us to look behind the customs, and see God in these customs. God sees the heart, and these are all customs which should reflect this reality. It is remarkable that the term θεός occurs only once in the SP, in the expression βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in the first beatitude, Luke 6,20. Luke mentions God as father (πατήρ) once (6,36), which is very seldom compared to the 15 times in the SM. Does this usage modify or strengthen the role of the Shema in the SM/SP? 2) The Law in the SM. God and hearing (‫שׁמַ ֖ ע‬ ְ , Shema) according to Deut 6,2 has to do with God’s decrees and commandments – “that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life”. To listen to them means to keep/obey them ( ֣ ָ‫שׁ ַמ ְרתּ‬ ָ ‫ ְו‬, Deut 6,3). The notion of Torah (‫תּוֹרה‬ ֖ ָ ‫ ) ַה‬is not mentioned in Deut 6, only in Deut 1,5; 4,(8.)44. From the very beginning, Torah and the Shema were closely linked. What about the SM? The number of occurrences is one thing. More important is their crucial role in the propositio and peroratio, and in the composition of the SM: Similar to a parenthesis Matt 5,17 (τὸν νόµον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας) and 7,12 (ὁ νόµος καὶ οἱ προφῆται) frame the whole argumentatio. Whereas the SP does not mention the Law, ὁ νόµος is used three times in the SM, always in additions to the double tradition. The first two additions in Matt 5,17f clearly show Matthew’s literary technique. He puts a programmatic word from his Sondergut first, before he changes Mark 13,30:25 Matt 5,17: Μὴ νοµίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόµον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι. Matt 5,18: ἀµὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑµῖν Mark 13,30: ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ὅτι οὐ µὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ µία κεραία µέχρις οὗ ταῦτα πάντα γένηται. οὐ µὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόµου, ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται, ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. οἱ δὲ λόγοι µου οὐ µὴ παρελεύσονται. The theses in Matt 5,21.27 quote the Tanach. The other antitheses have at most a paraphrase of commandments from the Tanach.

desecrating my temple while you offered me food, fat and blood, and you broke my covenant”). 25 Ernst Baasland, “Jesu minste bud?”, TTKi 54 (1983), 1–17, here 2, and H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 181–184, here 184.

6.3 The SM within Judaism

367

The third addition (to the Golden Rule) is characteristic. Here Matthew is compared to Luke: Luke 6,31

Matt 7,12

Καὶ καθὼς θέλετε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι

Πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι. οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς· οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόµος καὶ οἱ προφῆται.

ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς ὁµοίως.

Matt 5,17 is a proclamation of the kind you can expect in a major inaugural or important deliberative speech: µὴ νοµίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι … The foundation of the sermon is introduced in such sayings, and the negative (don’t believe …) or positive (my mission is …) gives the saying enormous weight. In addition, there are two crucial issues: First, the second negative statement: I will not abolish the Law (µὴ … καταλῦσαι τὸν νόµον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας). Since Matt 5,17 together with 7,12 (οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόµος καὶ οἱ προφῆται) function as a sort of parenthesis, it sets a perspective for the whole sermon. The expression denotes the written Law, and that provides the frame for the whole teaching. The second positive statement describes the mission of Jesus within this frame: his mission is to confirm/fulfil the Law (οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι). The multiple meanings of καταλῦσαι,26 and πληρῶσαι27 leave the statement open to a variety of interpretations, but no interpretation can deny that this is a massive acceptance of the written Law. The following saying, 5,18, accepts the written Torah in its entirety28 in spite of the modifying phrase ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. 26 Henrik Ljungman, Das Gesetz erfüllen: Matth. 5,17ff und 3,15 untersucht, Lund: Gleerup 1954, 60, ends up with the understanding that the Law was completed through Jesus’ death and resurrection. 27 Davies/Allison, Matthew (1997), 485f, and Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (1993), 105f, present comprehensive lists of possible interpretations: to complete, bring the eschatological Torah, to make valid, bring into effect, to obey, to fulfil through salvific acts, to give a new meaning, a better interpretation. These lists do not add much to the interpretations given in the Early Church. Harnack listed at least six similar interpretations, “Geschichte eines programmatischen Worts Jesu” (1912), summarized p. 206. 28 Wolfgang Kraus, “Die Bedeutung von Dtn 18,15–18 für das Verständnis Jesu als Prophet”, ZNW 90 (1999), 153–176, Mogens Müller, “Jesus und das Gesetz: Eine Skizze im Lichte der Rezeptionen”, KD 50 (2004), 208–225, and Wolfgang Reinbold, “Das Matthäusevangelium, die Pharisäer und die Tora”, BZ NF 50 (2006), 51–73, offer arguments for a ‘Christian’ interpretation, and for a ‘Jewish’ perspective; cf. Deines, Im Streit um die Bergpredigt (2005); Repschinski, Nicht aufzulösen, sondern zu erfüllen (2009).

368

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

This is a very traditional modification, but then in 5,19f there follows a second modification, which is very unusual. This second modification must also be interpreted within the same framework of a written Torah. The interpretation of Matt 5,17 tends to end in one of two basic positions: Until 1990 the dominating position was: The Law is abolished (cf. Rom 10,4; Gal 3,24). Jesus replaces it with a new law. Jesus replaces the old covenant with a new. Today a new consensus seems to emerge: Jesus was a Jew. He and the first Christians followed the Torah in a Jewish context. However, living in Messianic times, Jesus provides a new interpretation. 3) Matt 5,17–20 and its tradition-history. The imperative creates a wordplay (νοµίσητε – νόµος), but the important ἦλθον-saying gives the sentences their character. A prophet used the formula “Thus says the Lord” (‫)כה אמר יהוה‬ and never “I have come”. The language of coming refers clearly to the expectations of the Messiah and the Law as Peter Schäfer has shown.29 There is also a wider context for the saying. Plato,30 Aristotle, Isocrates,31 Dio Chrysostom, Dionysius of Halicarnassus,32 Plutarch,33 Philo34 and Josephus reflect on the role of the king: he would normally also be the lawgiver.35 A king should keep his own laws. The laws should be just, reliable and in mutual harmony. Plutarch adds that a king should be predictable and not add or remove laws at random.36 2 Macc 2,22 says that Judas Maccabeus as king enforced laws that were in the process of being abolished. In this light Matt 5,17–20 becomes clearer as propositio. In the conclusion in Matt 28,18ff, Jesus is once more the lawgiver with an ἐξουσία. In Matt 25,34 and 25,40 Jesus is also ὁ βασιλεύς. Here the authority of Jesus is underlined through the astonishing language: ‘I have come’, ‘my precepts’.

29 P. Schäfer, “Die Torah der messianischen Zeit” (1974), is crucial for the understanding of the three main concepts in early rabbinic literature. 30 Plato, Leg. 715c (“the ministration of the laws must be assigned … to the man who is most obedient to the laws”). 711b emphasises the personal example. Cf. 705d/e, where Plato sees the art of law-giving as a way to the ethical good. 31 In his second oration, Ad Nicoclem 14–21, Isocrates admonishes the king of Cyprus to change only the laws that are inadequate. 32 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. IV,74,4; 84,4.5. 33 Plutarch, Princ. iner. 3 (Mor. 780E): The ruler has no restrictions as a law-giver. 34 Philo called Moses a king in Mos. I,334; Praem. 55, and he mentions in particular his ἐξουσία. Spec. leg. I,326 is similar to Matt 28,18. Moses is indeed the best law-giver, Spec. leg. II,12ff. Philo here reflects a long Hellenistic tradition, starting with Plato. 35 Zeller, “Jesus als vollmächtiger Lehrer (Mt 5–7) und der hellenistische Gesetzgeber” (1988); David L. Balch, “The Greek Political Topos περὶ νόµων and Matthew 5:17, 19, and 16:19”, in idem (ed.), Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, Minneapolis: Fortress 1991, 68–84. 36 Similarly, Plato, Pol. 301a and particularly 301c.

6.3 The SM within Judaism

369

4) Modest use of ἐντολή in the SM. The SM uses ἐντολή only once. Matthew follows strictly Mark (Mark 7,8.9; 10,19; 12,28.31 = Matt 15,3; 19,17; 22,26.38.40), whereas Luke follows Mark only once (18,20).37 Specific for Matt 5,19 is the addition: τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων and the theme of reward.38 Behind ἐντολή a Jew would hear ‫שׁ ָפּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬,‫( ִמ ְצוָה‬cf. Deut 11,1; 26,17) and ‘doing your commands’ (‫ע ִָשֽׂי ִתי ִמצְוֹתֶ ֥ יך‬, Ps 119,166). The saying should thus be understood in a Jewish context. 5) The use of the antonym ἀνοµία. Matthew’s addition of ἀνοµία in 7,23 to the double tradition is characteristic.39 The term is one of Matthew’s favourite words (13,41; 23,28; 24,12), whereas ἀδικία (Luke 13,27) belongs to Luke’s preferred vocabulary (16,8.9; 18,6). Ἀνοµία has an open meaning,40 and is not used in a legalistic sense or in anti-Pauline polemics.41 It is a favourite term in the Psalms and prophetic literature. 6.3.3 Covenant Thinking in the SM The Torah and its interpretation formed the basis for the Temple and its practices, for the Synagogue and its religious life, for the daily life in given social structures:

37 The conscious usage should be observed: Matt 19,18 Mark 10,18f = Luke 18,19f τί µε ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; τί µε λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός· οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ µὴ εἷς ὁ θεός. εἰ δὲ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς. τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας· Luke uses the term in a broad sense in 15,29 and together with δικαίωµα in 1,6 (Zechariah/ Elizabeth kept these blamelessly – ἄµεµπτοι). Only in Luke 23,56 is it used as a technical term about the Sabbath commandment. 38 To break them/not teach them to others (λύσῃ … καὶ διδάξῃ) means a low rank in the Heavenly Kingdom (ἐλάχιστος κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν). To keep and teach them (ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ) means a high rank in the Heavenly Kingdom (µέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν). 39 Matt 7,23: ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ οἱ ἐργαζόµενοι τὴν ἀνοµίαν versus Luke 13,27: ἀπόστητε ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ πάντες ἐργάται ἀδικίας. 40 It is used in Matt 13,41 (τοὺς ποιοῦντας τὴν ἀνοµίαν), in the criticism of the Pharisees and Scribes in 23,28 (ἔσωθεν δέ ἐστε µεστοὶ ὑποκρίσεως καὶ ἀνοµίας) and in the eschatological statement in 24,12 that lawlessness will prevail over love (διὰ τὸ πληθυνθῆναι τὴν ἀνοµίαν ψυγήσεται ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν πολλῶν). More in Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 548f. The closest parallel elsewhere is Paul’s usage in Rom 4,17 in a quotation from the Tanach and in Rom 6,19; 2 Cor 6,14 together with δικαιοσύνη. 41 Cf. Sim, “Matthew 7:21–23” (2007).

370

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

Temple

Synagogue

Social structures

offerings festivals oaths tithings

prayer Sabbath fasting alms

circumcision purity laws food laws hierarchy honour/shame

Christian theologians tend to focus on theology and ethics in other religions, whereas the practices and the thinking about practices are more important. Since E.P. Sanders and T. Holmén the term ‘covenant thinking’ has been used more often.42 The actual term covenant (διαθήκη/‫ )ברית‬does not occur in the SM.43 This term expresses the genuine one-sided understanding of ‘covenant’, a decision made by God/Jesus in heaven, rather than a contract between two equal partners.44 But do we have elements of ‘covenantal thinking’? Do election, the land/people, the visibility and the practices (and the future of Israel) play an important role in the SM? 1) The land and holy places. (a) The land is mentioned in Matt 5,4 (αὐτοὶ κληρονοµήσουσιν τὴν γῆν). The land of Israel and its people are significant. This basic conviction is based on the promise to Abraham (Gen 12,3f; 15,6f). The reference to Ps 37,11 (LXX 36,11: οἱ δὲ πραεῖς κληρονοµήσουσιν γῆν = ‫ ) ַו ֲענ ָוִ ֥ ים ִי ְֽירשׁוּ־אָ ֑ ֶרץ‬and Isa 60,21 confirm the common ground for Jesus/Matthew and their audience. (b) Jerusalem (Ἱεροσόλυµα, 5,34) and the altar (θυσιαστήριον, 5,23f) are important for Matthew. He sees Jerusalem as the centre (2,1.3), the city (3,5; 4,25), the religious centre for the priests, Scribes and Pharisees.45 It is the centre for Israel’s expectations and the goal for Jesus’ mission (16,21; 20,17.18; 21,1.10).46 The term ‘Jerusalem’ is mostly replaced by the term ‘Temple’ (ναός or ἱερόν),47 the symbol for the holy place. Jerusalem is called

42

Holmén programmatically in the title Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking (2001). In the Synoptics, the expression occurs only in the text on the Last Supper τὸ αἷµά µου τῆς διαθήκης, Matt 26,28/Mark 14,24/Luke 22,20, plus Luke 1,72 (and twice in Acts, 3,25; 7,8). 44 Moshe Weinfeld, Art. ‫בּ ְִרית‬, TWAT I (1973), 781–808; Ernst Kutsch, “Bund I: Altes Testament”, TRE 7 (1981), 397–403; Magnar Kartveit, “Reconsidering the ‘New Covenant’ Jeremiah 31,31.34”, in Jack R. Lundbom/Craig A. Evans/Bradford A. Anderson (eds.), The Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, Leiden: Brill 2018, 149–169. 45 Matt 15,1 (ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύµων Φαρισαῖοι καὶ γραµµατεῖς); 16,21; 20,18. 46 The big shift after 16,21 (εἰς Ἱεροσόλυµα, 16,21; 20,18; 21,1.10). Matt 2,1(3) is the only exception and of course a special case. Previously ἀπό (4,25; 15,1) or ἐκ/πρός (3,3; 5,35) is used. 47 The concentration in Matt 23 is illuminating, cf. ναός, 23,16.17.21; 26,61 etc.; ἱερόν, 4,5; 12,5f; 21,12–15.23 etc., plus the expression εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν in Matt 4,5; 27,53 and 43

6.3 The SM within Judaism

371

the city of the great king (πόλις τοῦ µεγάλου βασιλέως) in Matt 5,35, and oaths to the highest religious symbols had power.48 Matt 5,23f probably refers to the temple offerings; θυσιαστήριον has a general meaning (in 23,18–20.35 also), but outside Jerusalem (and Samaria) no place had an altar. (c) No priest occurs in the SM. Even in Matt 5,23f no priest is active. The Scribes and Pharisees (5,20) are the only religious leaders according to the SM, and Jesus does not blame them. He makes clear their limitations, and asks the disciples to supersede them. 2) Rituals. Specific religious practices and meals distinguish one religion from another. For Jews, practices and meals represented the test – as was also the case in their encounter with Jesus. (a) In the Jesus tradition Jewish practices are mostly a place for confrontations, like the Sabbath, purity laws or food laws. In the SM, only important issues in the piety of the Pharisees are mentioned (Matt 6,1–18, the triad prayer, alms and fasting).49 Matthew never refers to temple offerings. The theme is only raised in the parable, 5,23f. (b) The SM provides no instructions for rituals and cults. The two crucial Jewish identity markers, the ritual of circumcision and the Sabbath, are not mentioned at all in the SM. Circumcision is surprisingly overlooked in Matthew, and the Sabbath is just a reference mark in Matt 24,20,50 28,10. Mark and Luke mention the Sabbath more often.51 Only in Matt 12,1–12 is the term Sabbath used frequently: seven (out of nine) times in the Christological text, proving that Jesus is “more than the Sabbath”. (c) Synagogue is introduced in the epitome of the SM 4,23,52 but occurs only twice in the SM. Synagogue has a neutral meaning in Matt 6,2.5 (and ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ in 24,15; θυσιαστήριον is used in 23,18–20.35. The notion of ‘Holy Spirit’ and the strange text about holy people (27,52) point in another direction. 48 The city on the hilltop in Matt 5,14 may refer to Jerusalem. In Matthew the Temple is more than a geographical location, 4,5; 21,12.14.15; 24,1 (τὰς οἰκοδοµὰς τοῦ ἱεροῦ), and it is the place for Jesus’ teaching: καθ᾿ ἡµέραν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἐκαθεζόµην διδάσκων (26,55). 49 Prayer (Matt 6,6–13) is frequently mentioned in Matthew, but alms (23,4.18ff.23f) and fasting (4,2; 9,15f) occur only occasionally. The Temple tax was disputed among Jesus’ disciples (17,24–27). 50 The addition in Matt 24,20 to Mark 13 is strange: προσεύχεσθε δὲ ἵνα µὴ γένηται ἡ φυγὴ ὑµῶν χειµῶνος µηδὲ σαββάτῳ. 51 Matt 12,1.2.5.8.10.11f, plus 24,20; 28,1. Sabbath is used 12 times in Mark and 20 times in Luke. In addition to Matthew, Mark has 1,21; 6,2 (2,23–28, 4 times), and Luke has a lot more: 4,16.31; 6,1–9 (6 times); 13,10–16 (4 times); 14,1.3.5; 18,12; 23,34.56; 24,1; John refers to the Sabbath 11 times. 52 Matt 9,35, following Mark 1,21.23.29.39 (summaries); 3,1; 6,2 and 12,39; 13,9, cf. Luke who introduces ‘synagogue’ as something ‘distant’ (ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν, 4,15), then 4,16.20.33.38.44; 6,6; 7,5 (our synagogue, not in Matt 8,5–13), then 11,43; 12,11; 13,10; and 20,46; 24,1. John has only 6,59; 18,18.20.

372

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

e.g. 23,6), as the place where the Scribes and Pharisees have their seats. Later in his Gospel, Matthew is much more critical to the Synagogue. (d) Purity and separation from unholy and impure people was a big issue for the Pharisees. Purity matters are mentioned in Matthew (8,1–4) and food laws – kosher food – in 15,1–9, but is not a theme in the SM. One could expect the notion of holiness to be a theme in the SM,53 but the notion of clean and holy is alluded to only twice in the SM: 5,8: µακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται. 7,6: µὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν. In the highly disputed text Matt 7,6, giving (διδόναι) is the main issue, but ‘holy’ (ἅγιος) is such a powerful word that in the Early Church this saying was generally understood in terms of holy–profane.54 The polemical texts are not against Israel or Jews. The SM has no woes against Jews. The polemic against the Scribes and Pharisees in Matt 5,20 is vague and general compared to the polemic in Matt 23 where Jesus calls them hypocrites. The polemic against hypocrites in Matt 6,1–18 is different. Only due to the three piety rules (alms, prayer, fasting), which the Pharisees – and Jesus – kept, an identification is possible, but not necessary. The polemic is based on traditional Jewish prophetic criticism even in Matt 23, as Moshe Weinfeld has shown.55 The more surprising aspect in the SM is the polemics against the publicans (5,46) and the pagans (ἐθνικοί, 5,47; 6,7.30) and sinners (ἁµαρτωλοί). Jesus’ attitude to these groups is different in the narratives, and it is puzzling that the two groups of publicans and pagans return in the polemic of Matt 18,17. Publicans are mentioned together with pagans in the SM and in 18,17. Companionship with sinners (ἁµαρτωλοί) and outcasts is an important theme later in Matthew.56 Jews – and primarily Pharisees – feel more at home in the SM. 3) The relation to non-Jews (τὰ ἔθνη). The ἐθνικοί in Matt 6,7 and τὰ ἔθνη in 6,33 are negative examples. They represent an out-group (10,5 – εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν µὴ ἀπέλθητε; 21,43; 24,7.9; 25,32), a threatening force: Jesus and the disciples will be handed over to them (20,19.25; also 24,9) and they will be a witness for them (10,18: εἰς µαρτύριον αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). Nearly the entire Gospel of Matthew shows this attitude, and the conclusion in Matt 28,19 (µαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) is a little unexpected (see below). Even 53

Elsewhere in Matthew ‘holiness’ is mostly used for the ‘holy spirit’ (1,18.20; 3,11; 12,32; 28,19). Matthew refers twice to Jerusalem as the holy city (4,5: εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν and 27,53: ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ). The SM refers to Jerusalem as the holy city in 5,35 (πόλις τοῦ µεγάλου βασιλέως). 54 Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 442–458. 55 Weinfeld, “The Charge of Hypocrisy in Matthew 23 and in Jewish Sources” (1990). 56 Matt 9,10–13; 11,19. Only Matt 26,45/Mark 14,51 use sinner in a negative sense. Luke elaborates much more on both aspects.

6.3 The SM within Judaism

373

the frame of the SM, Matt 4,15 (πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν) has this horizon. The SM has this universal horizon only in Matt 5,13f. 6.3.4 Ambivalences: Still within Judaism? Nearly every saying in the SM sounds like a Jewish text. The SM is essentially Jewish in content and character, and the SM could be common ground between Jews and Christians. The Christology in the SM is not elaborated, there is no ecclesiology, and the SM confirms the Jewish identity. Matt 5,17, 6,24 and 7,12.23 strongly confirm the ‘Shema’ – or inner meaning of the Law. The way the renewal of the heart is formulated in Matt 6,21: ὅπου γάρ ἐστιν ὁ θησαυρός σου, ἐκεῖ ἔσται καὶ ἡ καρδία σου is still ‘within Judaism’. However, ‘Law’ in the SM entails three elements which not all defenders of the Law could accept: a) the implicit interpretation, b) the universal character, c) the fulfilment-motif. Not only the sayings about the ‘Law’ have a dual character. The Lord’s Prayer offers the best illustration. This prayer is a 100% Jewish prayer and at the same time a 100% Jesuanic and Christian prayer. 1) What is lacking in the SM – from a Jewish point of view. The SM does not mention crucial Jewish identity markers. This may be due to their obvious role, but the importance of the issues and the totality must be considered. – Circumcision, the very notion of being a Jew, is not a theme in the SM nor in Matthew. Matthew follows Mark, whereas Luke (Acts) and John mention circumcision explicitly.57 – The Abraham tradition, which was the theme in Matt 1,1–17; 3,9, and in 8,11; 22,32, is missing in the SM. Solomon – and the prophets – are the only Jewish heroes/forefathers. – The covenant, the election, Moses and the Exodus tradition are not referred to. – Ethnicity and the status as people of God are not themes. All this comes in addition to the rituals and religious practices mentioned earlier: the Sabbath, Temple, festivals, food laws (the kosher aspect), table fellowship, purity rules and the Holiness Code have no place in the SM.58 2) Obstacles for a Jew. However, ethics and customs can also divide societies, and we have a number of sayings in the SM that embarrass many Jews: – The Beatitudes, Matt 5,3ff, sound strange; – the words in Matt 5,11f – about “evil against you because of me” are outrageous; – the salt and light sayings are strange; 57 Luke 1,59; 2,21 and Acts 7,8.8; 10,45; 11,2; 15,1.5; 16,3; 21,21; ἀκροβυστία in Acts 11,3. John 7,22f also. 58 The motif τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν, Matt 7,6, is an illustration, cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 442–456; the topic is about giving, not about holiness.

374

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

– the Law-saying about fulfilment and about the ‘smallest commands’ are outrageous; – the criticism of Scribes and Pharisees in Matt 5,20 is overstated; – the antitheses to the Decalogue and other commands from the Tanach in Matt 5,21ff can be perceived as almost blasphemy. The radicalism in the Antitheses is strange; – the piety roles and the criticism of ‘Jewish piety’ are overstated; – the Lord’s Prayer is a Jewish prayer, but also different from Jewish prayers; – the words in Matt 6,19–24 and the criticism of ‘worldly’ matters are overstatements; – the attitude towards worrying is also an overstatement; – the prohibition of judging in Matt 7,1f contradicts Jewish laws; – the Golden Rule as a summary is strange; – the κύριε-saying, Matt 7,21ff, verges on blasphemy; – the words in Matt 7,24ff about ‘my words’ as foundation are outrageous. The character of being strange, overstated, outrageous, blasphemous, must not be accentuated too much. As a radical message it must be provocative, but Jews will nevertheless mostly read and label the SM as ‘Jewish’. To sum up: The basic references are the same in Judaism and in the SM. Jewish scholars have often emphasised its genuine Jewish character. Their evaluation has been partly influenced by Christian interpreters, and among Christian interpreters we have both scholars who emphasise the Jewish character, and scholars who find polemics against Jewish patterns of thought from the beginning to the end of the SM. There are potential conflicts within many issues,59 and a balanced view will be advocated here.

6.4 The SM and ‘Christian’ Theology Ever since the Enlightenment, this claim has frequently been heard: Jesus was not a Christian. ‘Christian theology’ was developed a long time after the SM. To push dogmatics, ethics, or a system of religion into the SM is inappropriate. One should therefore resist the temptation to find too much Christian dogmatics and ethics – or philosophy – in the SM. The categories we use to describe religion, dogmatics or philosophy, can possibly make the voice of the SM inaudible. 59 The Gospel of Matthew was early used in Jewish polemics against the divinity of Jesus, cf. Christoph Ochs, Matthaeus Adversus Christianos: The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics Against the Divinity of Jesus (WUNT 2/350), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2013.

6.4 The SM and ‘Christian’ Theology

375

The SM does not express a Christian theology compared with the ‘propositions’ in the early creeds, the dogmas of the Catholic Church or of the different confessions after the Reformation. We simply lack vital issues: trinitarian elements, the Holy Spirit as a theme, Christological teaching, predictions of the death and resurrection of Jesus, Christ’s forgiveness of sin, the Church and sacraments, Christ’s second coming and signs that precede it, etc. Eschatology is the theme in Matt 7,13–27, but in a minimal manner. It is a signal of true historical scholarship that very few contributions on the theology of the SM are based on themes like God, Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc. The cognitive-propositional perspective does not fit the pattern of thinking in the SM. This is confirmed in the Christian reception-history of the SM: The forms in the SM are seldom repeated in early Christian literature; we have relatively few beatitudes, few indicative sayings like Matt 5,13f, and not the sharp antithesis-form. On the other hand, imperative sayings in the SM have parallels in the Didache, the Epistle of James, and in paraenetic texts elsewhere.60 The SM has in fact few of the typical forms we find in early Christian literature: creeds, ethical lists, etc. 6.4.1 Core Conviction Can the Shema tolerate any kind of modification? Or do the additional aspects in the SM strengthen the role of the Shema? 1) God – the Father. What is rare in the Tanach is commonplace in the SM.61 The notion of God as Father (‫ )אב‬is rooted in the Deuteronomic and Chronistic David tradition,62 in Israel’s older prophetic texts63 and in cultic traditions.64 In the New Testament, God as Father is mentioned about 200 times, replacing other names of God.

60

In Mark, Jesus is frequently asking, whereas Jesus in the SM asks only at the end (7,7–11.15–20). 61 Felix Albrecht/Reinhard Feldmeier (eds.), The Divine Father: Religious and Philosophical Concepts of Divine Parenthood in Antiquity, Leiden: Brill 2014; Annette Böckler, Gott als Vater im Alten Testament: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Entwicklung eines Gottesbildes, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 2000; Christiane Zimmermann, Die Namen des Vaters: Studien zu ausgewählten neutestamentlichen Gottesbezeichnungen und ihrem frühjüdischen und paganen Sprachhorizont (AJEC 69), Leiden: Brill 2007. 62 2 Sam 7,14; Ps 89,27f, cf. 1 Chr 17,13; 22,10; 28,6 – and programmatic in Deut 32,6. 63 Hos 11,1; Isa 9,5 (eternal Father) and 63,16; 64,7 (God as ‘our Father’); Jer 2,27; 3,4; Mal 1,6; 2,10; 3,17; Exod 4,22f. 64 Ps (89,27); 103,13, and God as Father for the helpless, Ps 68,6.

376

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

The theme “God as Father” is crucial in the SM.65 Father, πατήρ, is used about 15 times in the SM (and only ten more in the rest of Matthew). 66 According to Gerhard Lohfink67 ‘God the Father’ as found in the Lord’s Prayer, is the very centre of the SM. There are seven occurrences of this expression before and seven after Matt 6,9: 5,16.45.48; 6,1.4.6.8 6,9 6,14.15.18.26.32; 7,11.21 The frequency and two strange features in a Jewish context make the SM relatively unique; the notion of ‘your Father’ (singular, ὁ πατήρ σου, Matt 6,4.6.6.18.18 – only in the Antitheses in Matt 6,1–18), and the notion of ‘your Father’ (plural, ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν) occur in many crucial texts: 5,16: οὕτως λαµψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑµῶν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑµῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑµῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 5,45: ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑµῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, ὅτι … 5,48: ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑµεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν. 6,1: προσέχετε δὲ τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑµῶν µή ποιεῖν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων … εἰ δὲ µήγε, µισθὸν οὐκ ἔχετε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὑµῶν τῷ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 6,9: οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑµεῖς· πάτερ ἡµῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς …68 6,14: ἀφήσει καὶ ὑµῖν ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος. 6,15: ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ἀφήσει τὰ παραπτώµατα ὑµῶν. 7,11: πόσῳ µᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς δώσει ἀγαθὰ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν. 7,21: οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων µοι κύριε κύριε, εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ πατρός µου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. ‘God as Father’ is the theme in theological sentences about imitating God (Matt 5,45 and 5,48) summarizing the Antitheses and the parables;69 and 65 Sheffield, “The Father in the Gospel of Matthew” (above, p. 313, n. 98); D’Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father’” (1992). 66 Matt 10,32.33; 11,25.26.27.27.27; 12,50; 13,43; 15,13; 16,17.27; 18,10.14.19.35; 20,23; 25,34; 26,39.42.53. The characteristic Matthean notion is ‘my Father’ (πατήρ µου), which does not occur in Mark but four times in Luke (2,49; 10,22 = Matt 11,27; 22,29; 24,49). 67 G. Lohfink, Jesus von Nazareth (2011), 133ff, is in fact a good argument in favour of a ‘chiastic structure’ in the SM. However, Lohfink’s argumentation is a little overdone. 68 One should observe the structure: Πάτερ ἡµῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς – ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνοµά σου, ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, γενηθήτω τὸ θέληµά σου – ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς. 69 Augustine laid the foundation for the theological discussion, in Serm. Dom. 73,78 (CCSL 35 [above, p. 36, n. 143], 87f = Fontes Christiani II, 105f) differentiating between “do that you are” = faciste ista quia estis filii and “do in order that you may be” = faciste ista quia ut sitis filii.

6.4 The SM and ‘Christian’ Theology

377

about acts honouring God. According to Matt 5,45, it must be demonstrated in practice that we are children of God and created in his image.70 2) The Shema and its explanations. Jewish listeners/readers of Matthew would have been surprised by the role Jesus attributes to himself. He assigns himself the same role as God in the Tanach – explicitly in the following sayings: – the ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ-saying (5,11). Persecution because of Jesus is compared to the persecution of the prophets, who protested against polytheism and injustice. – ἦλθον-saying (5,17) – λέγω-sayings: five ἀµὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑµῖν-sayings (5,18.26; 6,2.5.16) and in addition three λέγω γὰρ ὑµῖν-sayings (5,20; 6,25.29), plus six distinct ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι-sayings (5,21–47) – 7,22: κύριε κύριε, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι ἐπροφητεύσαµεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι δαιµόνια ἐξεβάλοµεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι δυνάµεις πολλὰς ἐποιήσαµεν; – 7,24.26: πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους … These unexpectedly strong Christological statements are implicit in the Beatitudes (5,3–12) and the salt/light-sayings (5,13f) also. This Christology can be seen in isolation from the rest of the Gospel, or as part of Matthew’s preceding picture of Jesus. The Christology in the introduction to Matthew (1,1–4,16) is more than clear. The story about a wicked king, the slaughter of Jewish infants, the escape to a foreign country and the desert temptation all had clear models in the Tanach, and seem to indicate that Jesus is the bringer of the Law, a new Moses. The frame for the SM, 4,17–25, focuses entirely on the only teacher and his miracles among a huge and complex audience. However, Matt 4,17–25 is far from the image of Moses, who isolated himself on Mount Sinai. The image of Jesus is more like Josephus’ image of Socrates and Moses who combined words and deeds;71 or Aristotle’s ideal of a good man as canon for ethics.72 Jesus is the wise sage ready to tell people what the requirements are for entering the Kingdom.

3) The notion of ‘Kingdom of God’ in the first part of Matthew’s Gospel. Joachim Jeremias concluded his analysis of the SM with the thesis: “something preceded”; the proclamation of the Gospel precedes the ethical teaching in the SM.73 Matthew elaborates much more on the texts on the Kingdom of God before the SM than Luke does before the SP.74 Before the parable chapters (Matt 13; 70

Matt 5,45 and Luke 6,35 have the same formulation, but only the term υἱός in common: Luke has ἔσεσθε versus Matthew’s ὅπως γένησθε, and Luke has υἱοὶ ὑψίστου versus Matthew’s υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑµῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς. 71 Philo, Mos. I,29. 72 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. I,1ff (1094b1–1097b3), cf. Irenaeus, Haer. II,22,4. 73 Jeremias, Sermon (1961), 29–31. 74 Luke 1,33 quotes Dan 7,14, Luke 4,5 = Matt 4,8 uses βασιλεία in its general meaning, before Luke 6,20: ὑµετέρα ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.

378

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

Mark 4; Luke 8), βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in Mark and Luke is linked to conversion (µετανοεῖτε + κηρύσσειν)75 and time (ἤγγικεν) only.76 In the SM, Matthew provides the first and extensive imagery of the Kingdom of God. The SM uses the term eight times, whereas Luke 6,20 has the only occurrence in the SP. Outside the SP Luke and Matthew have two more in common: Matt 6,10: ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου (= Luke 11,2). Matt 6,30: ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν [τοῦ θεοῦ] (= Luke 12,31). Cf. Matt 5,3: ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (= Luke 6,20: τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ). In addition, Matthew uses βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν five more times:77 5,10: ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. 5,19: ἐλάχιστος κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν· µέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν. 5,20: οὐ µὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. 7,21: εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν … Few scholars today will insist on one-sided solutions to the questions ‘Does it refer to present or future?’ “Is ‘reign’ or ‘realm’, power or space the focus?” Due to the grammatical form, the theocentric structure must be the basis. A soteriological interpretation, Kingdom of God as ‘salvation’, is forced.78 Here only a few comments on the usage in the SM can be made. (a) The time component is vague.79 Time is not the most important aspect, even in Matt 6,10.33. A predominant eschatological interpretation overstates this fact. The prayer in Matt 6,10 (ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου) obviously refers to 75

Cf. also Matt 12,41 – about the prophet Jonah: µετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγµα Ἰωνᾶ. Matt 3,2: John the Baptist: µετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. 4,17: Jesus: µετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (Mark 1,15 + πιστεύετε). 4,23: Jesus: κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας καὶ θεραπεύων (Luke 4,43: Jesus: εὐαγγελίσασθαί µε δεῖ τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι ἐπὶ τοῦτο ἀπεστάλην = Mark 1,39). Only Matthew and Luke link the term to miracles. Only Matthew does so before the SM/SP. The frequently debated ἤγγικεν, is not the theme here. Luke uses it only in 10,9.11, and Matthew sees it as part of the teaching of John the Baptist. It is a preliminary aspect of Jesus’ teaching. 77 Blumenthal, Basileia im Matthäusevangelium (2019), 91–106, and the usage in the SM, pp. 137–185. 78 Rudolf Bultmann, Glauben und Verstehen, vol. I, Tübingen: Mohr 1933, 199–201: ‘Kingdom of God’ means ‘salvation’, pp. 190f, n. 1: “… in der Theologie des Paulus die Situation explizit wird, in die der Hörer der Bergpredigt faktisch gestellt wird”. 79 The time aspect is decisive here and only here, and particularly when it comes to John the Baptist (cf. Matt 11,11f = Luke 7,28: 16,16). Matthew can therefore also use the same phrase in the mouth of John the Baptist. Matt 8,11f = Luke 13,28f is related to the Old Testament, in this case the Patriarchs. 76

6.4 The SM and ‘Christian’ Theology

379

an event in the future, without focusing on the when and how. Jewish listeners would be familiar with this prayer, both from Shemoneh Esreh (the ‘Eighteen-prayer’) and the Kaddish. The latter includes almost the same formulations as the two first petitions in Matt 6,9f, and they were – together with the Shema – part of the morning prayer (“Our God in heaven, hallow thy name, and establish thy kingdom forever, and rule over us forever and ever. Amen”). The prayer in Matt 6,10 (ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου) is a qualitative saying about God, parallel to the saying about his name (ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνοµά σου) and his will (γενηθήτω τὸ θέληµά σου). They all underline that God is the starting-point, the centre, the true reality and the direction as well as the goal. God reigns in heaven, but this has effect through his power today. God is transcendent but can be experienced through signs, his grace, forgiveness, etc. The power of Satan is broken because the Kingdom of God is coming, and we pray that it must come (Matt 26,29: “until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom”). We pray that the future will be different, we long for divinely effected change. Matt 6,33 (ζητεῖτε πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν) is more ambivalent when it comes to time. ‘Seeking’ implicitly has a time component, but the qualitative aspect of the Kingdom is predominant. Matt 6,33 is often seen as the key sentence in the SM because of the terms ‘Kingdom’ (βασιλεία) and God’s ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ). It is more about priority (πρῶτον, cf. 5,24; 7,5) and about seeking (ζητεῖτε) and finding (cf. 7,7f.14). Like in Matt 5,3.10, the Kingdom of God is seen as a gift from heaven. (b) Space as most important aspect. In three εἰς/ἐν-sayings the content and the Kingdom dominate in terms of space:80 5,19: ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν – used twice 5,20: εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν 7,21: εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν Matthew’s favourite expression βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (5,3.10.19.19.20; 7,21) shows that location (‘space’) is important for him.81 Heaven (οὐρανός), used 18 times in the SM, is much more than just the sky (5,18; 6,26). God is transcendent and his Kingdom already exists in heaven. That reality has consequences for this life and will finally prevail in the future. The Father is in heaven, πατὴρ ὑµῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (5,16.45; 6,1.9; 7,11), the place for God’s throne (5,34 and 6,10.20) and rewards are given in heaven (5,11). Heaven is totally different from this world, and the goal is ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ 80 Baasland, “Jesu Verkündigung vom Reich Gottes” (1988), and Allison, “The Kingdom of God and the World to Come” (2010), 198f. 81 The expression βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν can be given many explanations, cf. Blumenthal, Basileia im Matthäusevangelium (2019), 91–106.

380

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

ἐπὶ γῆς. This world is not diabolic, God’s people live there, and it is God’s own land (5,5.14.18.34). To make the world’s treasures divine is to contest the antagonism between worldly treasures (θησαυροὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 6,19) and heavenly treasures (θησαυροὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ, 6,20). (c) The Kingdom of Heaven as a conceptually sustained metaphor. ‘The Kingdom of Heaven’ is the basic principle in the construction of the symbolic world. It makes clear what the ‘world view’ is all about. The Kingdom of God is not just a definable term. It offers an imagery and must be treated as a metaphor, what Lakoff/Turner call a ‘conceptually sustained metaphor’.82 Such metaphors establish a symbolic universe both in the narrative and in the minds of the speaker and audience. ‘Conceptually sustained metaphors’ like ‘way’, ‘fruit’, foundation’, ‘light’, ‘master’, ‘treasure’ are imageries. To look for the whole imagery every time the term occurs, leads one astray. Mostly one or two aspects of the imagery are highlighted. When studying imagery, we must, according to Lakoff and Johnson, focus on both its ‘source domain’, and its ‘goal/target domain’. In this case the source domain is obviously ‘Kingdom’. Kingdom means a certain realm and at the same time the reign of this realm. The goal domain is first of all expressed through the genitive, specifying to whom the Kingdom belongs.83 Jesus specified it through θεοῦ (τῶν οὐρανῶν/‫שּׁמַ ֖ י ִם‬ ָ ‫) ַה‬, meaning Yahve, the Name (‫)שׁם‬. The reason for Matthew to replace τοῦ θεοῦ with τῶν οὐρανῶν is that the target domain is the heavenly reality. In order to clarify the ‘target domain’ we have the semantic tools of analysing the semantic field (German: ‘Wortfeld’) with its typical phrases, its synonyms, antonyms and its equivalents in Hebrew.84 The phrases in the SM are εἰσέρχεσθαι (5,20; 7,21), ἔρχεσθαι (6,10), αὐτῶν ἐστιν (5,3.10), ζητεῖν (6,33) and καλεῖν (5,19 twice). We do not have the entire imagery here and the antonyms are not made clear, but it is easy to see that the notion of ‘life’ is the closest Hebrew parallel.85 Jesus invited to a life in this world which has the quality of eternal life. 4) The Law in the SM: Law and gospel. The Shema is about hearing (s‫)מע‬ Gods’ decrees and following his commandments (cf. Deut 6,2), and the SM is about hearing Jesus’ commandments (πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς, 7,24, cf. 5,19; 7,21f.26). How is it possible that the words of Jesus overlap with the Law?

82 Lakoff/Turner, More than Cool Reason (1989), 131; Lakoff/Johnson, Metaphors (1980/2003), 57, 66ff (about cultural structures behind the metaphors). 83 Allison, “The Kingdom of God and the World to Come” (2010), 176f. 84 Baasland, “Jesu Verkündigung vom Reich Gottes” (1988). 85 That ‘Kingdom’ has (eternal) life as its closest synonym, was already shown by Dalman, Die Worte Jesu (1910), 75–119, esp. 110, 120. Cf. Matt 7,14: εἰς τὴν ζωήν.

6.4 The SM and ‘Christian’ Theology

381

The saying in Matt 5,17–20 must indeed be read in the framework of the discussions about the role of the Law in Messianic times.86 To fulfil the Law means to fulfil the intention, the goal and inner dynamic of the demands, and to fulfil the promises in the Tanach. Peter Schäfer has shown that the Law should have a different role in Messianic time: It will not be abolished or replaced (b.San. 97a/b; b.Shab. 151b), it should not be changed (Sifre Deut. 17,18), or, that God will teach the Law and the very meaning with the prophecies in Deut 18,15–18; Jer 31,31–34 should be seen.87 (a) Law, ἐντολή, ‘my Words’ (µου λόγοι) and 70 imperatives. Matthew uses three different terms when formulating the norm: 5,19f: minor commandments (µίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων) 7,12: the Golden Rule as a summary (ὁ νόµος καὶ οἱ προφῆται) 7,24.26: my commandments (ἀκούειν µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους) The SM does not use ἐντέλλοµαι, but it becomes the key term in the Great Commission, Matt 28,20.88 Matt 28,20 presupposes Matt 5,19, because Jesus’ own commandments are decisive.89 The Golden Rule is Jesus’ summary, based on “the Law and the Prophets”, but the more than 70 imperatives do not refer to the ‘laws’ and ‘commands’, but rather to the will of Jesus. Of more than 70 imperatives, at least three quarters are not real ethical exhortations. There are three crucial sayings – all with positive imperatives, reminders of the Commandments: 5,48: ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑµεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν. 7,1: µὴ κρίνετε ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε. 7,12: πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς. These commandments are the very core of the Inaugural Speech (= Luke 6,36.32.31) and in fact of the ethical teaching in the SM. These proposals are 86

P. Schäfer, “Die Torah der messianischen Zeit” (1974), esp. 32–36. Mal 3,23f; cf. Deut 18,15(–18) (“The Lord, your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him …”); Jer 31,31f (“The time is coming …, when I will make a new covenant … It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant …”). On the debates about God as teacher of the Law: Koh.R. 2,1 § 1; 11,8 § 1; Tg. Cant. 5,10; 8,1; m.Ed. 8,7. 88 Matthew uses it in 4,6 (= Luke 4,10); 17,9; 19,7 (= Mark 10,3) – and in 28,20. Mark has in addition 13,34. John makes this a main term (Moses’ command and Jesus’ instructions: 14,31; 15,14.17). 89 Matt 5,19 as an independent saying, after the transitional particle οὖν, has a clear structure: Two ὅς-sentences and the λέγω γὰρ ὑµῖν-saying. 87

382

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

not prescripts, but examples that give more direction and goals than prescripts. They aim to design life rather than ethics. (b) Gospel and Law? Theologians are concerned about the relationship between gospel and Law, between theological and ethical arguments, between Paul and Matthew/the SM, etc. What comes first? How far is the gospel a premise for the ethical teaching in the SM? The Beatitudes are indeed foundational in the SM, and God as a patron is the theme of Matt 7,6–11.90 However, the imperatives are not based on the kerygma as such, but the model is how God, the gracious judge, acts: 5,45: ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑµῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς 5,48: ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑµεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν. 7,(1.7–)11: … πόσῳ µᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς δώσει ἀγαθὰ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν; This radicalism is not based on idealism, but rather on the realistic, almost pessimistic anthropology, of Matt 7,11 (εἰ οὖν ὑµεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες οἴδατε δόµατα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑµῶν …). God alone is the model. The theological question of gospel and Law or grace and Law should not be imposed on the SM too quickly.91 The premise is always that men should act ethically and that God should be an example for everyone to follow. 6.4.2 Covenantal Thinking or Expanded People of God? Both the theme and the terminology of election (ἐκλογή) is lacking in the SM. Nor are the Jewish identity markers, circumcision and Sabbath, mentioned at all in the SM. 1) No rituals or ‘church order’ in the SM. Rituals and festivals, purity and food laws are not themes in the SM. No priest is mentioned, just one critical remark about Scribes and Pharisees. The SM does not mention any Christian leaders or leadership roles either. The SM offers no instruction to specific disciples. On the contrary, the audience is a mixed group – totally different from the group of monks Buddha gathered for his Benares Speech. In the SM the audience is even called “you of little faith” (ὀλιγόπιστοι, 6,30) and ‘hypocrites’ (ὑποκριτά, 7,5).92 90 Jeremias, Sermon (1961), 29–31: gospel, not Law – “something preceded” – the kerygma leads to good works, etc.; Feldmeier, “Verpflichtende Gnade” (1998); Broer, “Bergpredigt” (1991), 273: “für Mt ist Gottes zuvorkommendes Eingreifen zum Heil des Menschen nicht fremd”. More balanced, Stuhlmacher, “Jesu vollkommenes Gesetz der Freiheit” (1982). 91 Cf. R. Niebuhr, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics (1935), 40: impartiality of nature is made the symbol of divine grace; Stassen, “Grace, Deliverance in the Sermon on the Mount” (1992), 229; Topel, Children of a Compassionate God (2001). 92 Οἱ ὑποκριταί in 6,1–18 is a different group.

6.4 The SM and ‘Christian’ Theology

383

In the SM we have no further instructions concerning rituals, except for the Lord’s Prayer. The SM presupposes the three piety rules which the Pharisees in particular promoted (alms, prayer, fasting). Christian baptism or Holy Communion has no place in the SM. 2) God’s people: the use of pronouns in the SM – a neglected feature. The language in the SM is deliberate. The use of pronouns is no exception. The demonstrative pronouns αὐτός,93 ἐκείνος,94 ἄλλος,95 οὗτος, etc. refer to something/someone well known, and αὐτός in Matt 5,3–10.11f has Jesus’ wouldbe disciples in mind. Matt 5,35.45; 6,8; 7,11 refer to what is specifically God’s (his footstep, his sun). The meaning of the disputed expression in 6,33 (τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ) must be understood accordingly. Οὗτος has the same specific meaning about Jesus’ own words (7,24.26.28), his minor commandments (5,19) and the summary (7,12, the Golden Rule). The personal pronouns give an even clearer outline of the expanded people of God. They are instructed by Jesus and have a special relationship to the Father in heaven: He is their Father (τὸν πατέρα ὑµῶν, 5,16.45.48; 6,1.2.5. 6.8.14f.16.26.32). The plural denotes a community relation, and the singular ὁ πατήρ σου the intimate relation (6,4.8.9f.18). God’s people is the group that Jesus teaches (ἐγώ/ἀµήν/διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑµῖν/σοι, 5,22.26.28.32.34.39.44; 6,2.5.18.25.29). Among those who listen to him, he creates a ‘we’ feeling (ἡµεῖς, ἡµᾶς, ἡµῶν, ἡµῖν, 6,9.11–13), and he addresses them as ‘you’ (ὑµεῖς, ὑµᾶς, ὑµῶν, ὑµῖν). This group will be given much: 5,12: your great reward (ὁ µισθὸς ὑµῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) 5,13.14.16: you are salt/light (ὑµεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς/τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσµου) 6,4.6.18: reward you (ἀποδώσει σοι) 6,13f: forgiven (ἀφήσει τὰ παραπτώµατα ὑµῶν) 6,19–21: your treasure (θησαυρός σου, 6,21) 6,33: be given (ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑµῖν) 7,6.7.11: be given etc. (δοθήσεται ὑµῖν, etc.) 6,25f.30: the person: your body and soul – different from birds (οὐχ ὑµεῖς µᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν/οὐ πολλῷ µᾶλλον ὑµᾶς) Jesus challenges this fortunate group (6,27; 7,11: τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑµῶν; “Who of you?”) and he can see them in a critical perspective (7,11: εἰ οὖν ὑµεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες). Compared to God, they are evil. 93 “The same” (αὐτό) is referred to in 5,15.22.25.28–30.31f.39–41.46; 6,26.28; 7,6.10. 13f.16.20.24. Αὐτό is what belongs to somebody, ‘your own’, 7,24.26 or a distant group, 6,1.7f.14f.26; 7,9.12.16.20.23.26f. Ἡ κακία αὐτῆς in 6,34 has this latter meaning. 94 Ἐκείνος refers to the same in 7,25.27, but to a more certain day, the judgment day, in 7,22 (ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ). 95 Ἄλλος is used in 5,39 and 30 times elsewhere in Matthew.

384

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

Those who have a great task, also have clear obligations, and these are in the same way as many exhortations in the Tanach, including the Decalogue: 5,29f.36: your eye, hand, etc. 5,33.37: your oath, word 6,1: your righteousness 6,3f.8f(16): your alms, prayer, fasting 7,2: be measured by their own standard 7,12.23: you should act ethically (ποιεῖν) The SM is not a speech to the people of God, it rather wants to reconstruct God’s people. It is not about rejection, but rather about renewal. On the other hand, a hostile out-group exists: they persecute (5,11.44), they act cruelly (5,39–42.43; 7,6.15, cf. 5,23f.25: ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔχει τι κατὰ σοῦ), they are in fact enemies (ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑµᾶς, 5,44.46f). Jewish leaders are not mentioned. 6.4.3 Eschatology versus Wisdom as Horizon in the SM Eschatology, the judgment sayings, creates an extra tone in the protreptic speech. We do not find this tone in Hellenistic protreptic speeches, nor in wisdom-sayings. In the Tanach, prophetic sayings are the closest parallels. The eschatological interpretation of Jesus’ teaching in the SM has influenced the interpretation of the SM for more than a hundred years.96 Many scholars followed the ‘consequently apocalyptic’ interpretation by J. Weiß and A. Schweitzer or the theological interpretation of eschatology by K. Barth. C.H. Dodd’s and R. Bultmann’s understanding of eschatology, based on a presentic or existential interpretation, had more followers among exegetes. For a long period of time an eschatological interpretation dominated in scholarly research, – occasionally combined with an ecclesiological concept.97 L. Ragaz98

96 McArthur, Understanding the Sermon on the Mount (1960), 90f, still asked four or five questions in 1960: Was the eschatology in the foreground of Jesus’ teaching? Was the urgency of Jesus’ demand for repentance related to his eschatological expectations? Were some precepts related to his eschatological teaching? Is the immanence of the eschaton presupposed? 97 Cf. Lütgert, “Die Bergpredigt als Grundgesetz der Kirche” ([1936/]2009), 132f: “vor jeder Aufgabe im Reich Gottes steht die göttliche Gabe. Es geht um eine Vorordnung göttlichen Handelns vor menschlichem Tun”. 98 Ragaz summarized his position in Die Bergpredigt Jesu (1945), but it was formed in Dein Reich komme: Predigten (1909) and Weltreich, Religion und Gottesherrschaft (1922) (for the latter two see above, p. 75, n. 312).

385

6.4 The SM and ‘Christian’ Theology

some time ago and more recently e.g. R.A. Horsley and J. Sobrino99 combined an eschatological and a political understanding.100 H. Windisch protested against a one-sided eschatological interpretation of the SM. He accentuated the wisdom-sayings in the SM, but did not reject the eschatological aspects entirely.101 After W.G. Kümmel argued thoroughly for a balance between the Kingdom as a present and a future event, it was easier to avoid one-sided solutions.102 H.D. Betz differentiates between various aspects of ‘eschatology’103 in the SM also: The frame in the SM is indeed eschatological, but in between proem (5,3–12) and peroratio (7,13–27), the wisdom-sayings are dominant. Non-eschatological statements should not be turned into eschatological ones; about one fifth of the sayings in the SM are eschatological, three fifths non-eschatological and one fifth can be interpreted either way. eschatological

non-eschatological

possibly eschatological

5,3–12: heavenly reward 5,25f: parable 6,9f: Lord’s Prayer 6,19f.33: treasure in heaven 7,1f: judging and judgment 7,21–27: doing and judgment

5,13–16.17–20 5,21–24.27–48 6,1–8.14–18 6,22–24.25–34 7,3–5.6–12 7,16–20

5,13.18 5,22.29f 6,9–13 6,25–33 7,13f.15

Even in the Beatitudes we see an ambivalence. Most scholars speak in favour of an eschatological interpretation: the future tense dominates (5,4–9.11f). The promises will be received in the future, and the notion of the Kingdom is primarily a future reality. On the other hand, it must be remembered that Matt 5,3.10, the first and the last beatitude, use the present tense. Giving is the point, and that life should be seen through the lense of eternity. There is no eschatological timetable in the SM. We have no speculations about when the Kingdom comes, and nothing about things that might happen in the future. ‘Eschatology’ does not refer to ‘future events’, rather to a heavenly reality, with consequences here and now. 99

Horsley, Jesus and Empire (2003), 87–108; Sobrino, “Jesus and the Kingdom of God” (1993), cf. idem, “The Kingdom of God and the Theological Dimension of the Poor: The Jesuanic Principle”, in John C. Cavadini/Laura Holt (eds.), Who Do You Say That I Am?, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press 2004, 109–145. 100 R. Niebuhr, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics (1935), 39, or Nygren, “Bergpredigt”, EKL 1 (1956), 393: “Der Inhalt der B. ist ‘Evangelium vom Reich’”. 101 Cf. § 1.3.7 (above, pp. 72f). Bultmann accused Windisch of having a too narrow definition of eschatology, but in his revised edition, Windisch, Sinn der Bergpredigt (1937), defended his position. 102 W.G. Kümmel, Verheißung und Erfüllung: Untersuchungen zur eschatologischen Verkündigung Jesu, Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag 31956, offered a balanced solution. 103 H.D. Betz, “Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain” (1985/1992), 224 (cf. 228): “the eschatology in both the SM and the SP is non-apocalyptic”.

386

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

Is the ethics in the SM based on eschatology? Or should ‘eschatological ethics’ be balanced with wisdom ethics? The framework in the SM (5,3–12; 7,13–27) has an eschatological character, and eschatological arguments are put forth in the judgment sayings. The rest of the ethics in the SM is basically sapiential, and the key sentences (5,45.48; 6,11.21.24; 7,12) are based on an understanding of God and his will, not on eschatological arguments. Even Matt 7,1 (µὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε) is primarily a theological statement. 1) The great reversal – in due time.104 The exordium, the eight beatitudes, put things upside-down: unfortunate people are blessed. Those who have little, receive much. Those who fight against evil, prevail. The reversal continues in the propositio. ‘Salt and light of the world’ is the vulnerable group Jesus gathered around him, keeping the ‘minor commandments’. They are greater than the Scribes and Pharisees, who keep a huge number of commandments. The Antitheses continue this argumentation. The people who act as judges (5,21–37) will be judged. The victims in 5,38–47 act like kings – as G. Theißen convincingly has shown.105 In the second part of the argumentatio (6,1– 18) those who think they are performing alms-giving, prayers and fasting correctly, are exposed as hypocrites. The great reversal is seen clearly in the third part of the argumentatio, Matt 6,19–21(34). People who rely on earthly treasures, will never obtain true treasures. The last part of the argumentation (7,1–12) underlines once more that those who judge will be judged (7,1–5) and those who give (7,6–11) will be given. A new understanding of life is based on the argument that injustice exists and tends to dominate daily life. A reversal is necessary, and it is the task of the would-be disciples to take part in this reversal. 2) Judgment sayings in the SM. A. Runesson has proved the crucial place of the judgment sayings in Matthew.106 The number of judgment sayings and some judgment parables in the SM are substantial (5,25f; 7,21ff.24ff),107 and 104

Verhey, The Great Reversal (1984), 16–27 and esp. 27–33 on the political dimension also; idem, Remembering Jesus: Christian Community, Scripture, and the Moral Life, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2004, 421–458, esp. 421–429. Similarly R. Guardini says: “der Angriff Gottes auf die Welt, die Erschütterung der Erde vom Himmel her”, quoted according to Bornkamm, “Die Gegenwartsbedeutung der Bergpredigt” (1954), 59. 105 L. Schottroff, “Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in der urchristlichen Jesustradition” (1975), 208–211; Theißen, “Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe (Mt 5,38–48/Lk 6,27–38) und deren sozialgeschichtlicher Hintergrund”, in idem, Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentum (WUNT 19), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1979, 160–197, here 174–175; idem, “Nächstenliebe und Statusverzicht als Grundzüge christlichen Ethos” (2000). 106 Runesson, Divine Wrath and Salvation in Matthew (2016), part 1. 107 The generic term ‘judgment parables’ is used here. We have argued that this term should not be applied to Matt 5,25f; 7,24ff.

6.4 The SM and ‘Christian’ Theology

387

three forms of sayings occur: (a) Matt 5,12 and 6,1–18 deal with humans judging versus judgment from God. (b) Some sayings focus on the consequences in general, whereas others (c) explicitly mention God’s judgment (7,21–23, etc.). Often the judgment of God is implied through passivum divinum (e.g. Matt 7,1f: they will be judged).108 At least 15 sayings have judgment as a theme: 5,13: εἰ µὴ βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων 5,22: ἔνοχος ἔσται (τῇ κρίσει … τῷ συνεδρίῳ. εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός) 5,29f: συµφέρει γάρ σοι ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν µελῶν σου καὶ µὴ ὅλον τὸ σῶµά σου βληθῇ εἰς γέενναν. 5,46f; 6,1.2–6.16–18: the µισθός-sayings 6,20: θησαυροὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ 6,23: εἰ οὖν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν, τὸ σκότος πόσον. 6,30: εἰ δὲ τὸν χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ … αὔριον εἰς κλίβανον βαλλόµενον 7,1: µὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε 7,2: ἐν ᾧ κρίµατι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, ἐν ᾧ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε µετρηθήσεται. 7,13f: εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν. εἰς τὴν ζωήν 7,17: οὕτως πᾶν δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖ, τὸ δὲ σαπρὸν δένδρον καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖ. 7,21: εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν 7,22f: ὁµολογήσω αὐτοῖς ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑµᾶς· ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ. 7,25.27: οὐκ ἔπεσεν … ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς µεγάλη. All these sayings with a judgment theme demonstrate one of the main purposes of the SM: they provide warnings by describing the final result. The key word is often ποιεῖν: doing or not doing, that is the question. An explicit warning includes two προσέχετε-sentences (6,1: προσέχετε τὴν δικαιοσύνην and 7,15: προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν). The first saying has a crucial position in the composition, and Matt 7,15 is one of five similar warnings in the peroratio. The real reason for the exhortation and admonitions are given in the ὅτι-, γάρ-, ἵνα-, ὅπως-, οὕτως- and οὖν-sentences.109 These sentences do not threaten with ‘Hell’.110 They are both in form and 108 Runesson, Divine Wrath and Salvation in Matthew (2016), 49–52, specifies three categories: judgment, reward and final judgment (5,22; 6,33; 7,1f), reward and punishment in the world-to-come (5,12.19; 6,1–6.16–18.20), the final judgment (5,20.22.27–30; 6,14f; 7,19.21.24–27). Both the categories and the interpretation of the texts are disputable. 109 Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 624f. 110 We occasionally have ‘the rhetoric of Hell’ in parabolic sayings, Matt 5,22.29f (= Mark 9,43.45.47) and elsewhere in Matt 10,28; 18,9; 23,15.33 (plus Luke 12,5; Jas 3,6). Cf. Meghan Henning, Educating Early Christians through the Rhetoric of Hell: ‘Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth’ as Paideia in Matthew and the Early Church (WUNT 2/382), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2014. The expression ὁ κλαυθµὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγµὸς τῶν ὀδόντων (8,12 = Luke 13,28; 13,42.50; 22,13; 24,51; 25,30) does not occur in the SM. Mark uses

388

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

content parallels to the wisdom-sentences in the Tanach and in non-Jewish Hellenistic texts. To sum up: The SM is a particular form of Jewish self-presentation. This selfpresentation represents a renewal of Jewish identity. It is a ‘Christian’ selfpresentation, but not in terms of the cognitive-propositional views in the Early Church. The SM is formed in dialogue with basic Jewish identity formation.

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life A cultural-linguistic approach makes it possible to compare the SM with similar self-presentations in Judaism and the Graeco-Roman world. The cognitive-propositional approach does not help us locate the SM within Judaism or Hellenism. An experiential-expressive approach, however, makes a comparison possible. The experiential-expressive approach was developed in Liberal Theology and combined with elements from pietistic or existentialistic thinking. R. Bultmann, inspired by M. Heidegger, refined this approach. The anthropological impact of faith and its consequences for life is crucial. One should expand this view and see this aspect in the framework of the philosophy of life. This kind of transcendental approach can easily be imposed on the text in a forced manner. It has to grow out of a careful analysis of the texts, from linguistic observations based on socio-anthropological insights. A sort of cultural-linguistic approach is therefore preferred here. After some preliminary remarks the three aspects of religion and philosophy will be analysed: the goal and power dimension (the concept of ‘good life’, the anthropology and basic theological reflections, God and man), the seeing dimension (enlightening), and the hearing, relational dimension (Abrahamic religions, ethical systems).

6.5.1 Preliminary Remarks – the SM in Hellenistic Context Insights into the social world and the literary character of the SM must be seen in a Graeco-Roman perspective. 1) The geographical and social world. Palestine was for most people in the Graeco-Roman world a remote place, a peripheral area. There are few hints of an explicitly Jewish setting in the SM: Jerusalem, Matt 5,34 (µήτε εἰς Ἱεροσόλυµα) is the only geographical name. People who are familiar with Jerusalem or live in the vicinity of Jerusalem, understand ‘fire’, and fire is in Matthew and Luke almost exclusively used in judgment sayings. Matthew is consistent (perhaps except for Matt 17,15 = Mark 9,22). It also occurs in a saying by John the Baptist (3,10–12), in the SM (5,22; 7,19), in parables (13,40.42.50; 25,41) and in the parallel saying 18,8.9.

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

389

the hints best. The city on the hilltop could be Jerusalem, or Safed or Gamla in Galilee, or hilltops anywhere. ‘Synedrion’ (συνέδριον/‫סנהדרין‬, 5,22) sounded strange outside Palestine and was probably associated with a small elite. ‘Gehenna’, located outside the city and a symbol, was understood by Jews only. Synagogues (ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς, 6,2.3) are located all over the world, but could be in Galilee. Some features support a Galilean setting: the Temple/altar, 5,23 (ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον) cannot be too far away, the fields with the lilies, perhaps anemones on hillsides in Galilee, 6,28f.111 The locations and institutions mentioned in the SM are mostly vague. They could be anywhere in Palestine or outside Palestine. We hear about houses (5,13.14f; 6,8; 7,7f.9–11.24–27), a city (5,14; 7,13f), streets (ἐν ταῖς ῥύµαις/ ἐν ταῖς γωνίαις τῶν πλατειῶν, 6,2.3; 7,13f). Military presence (5,41), courts (5,22.40; 7,1f), a prison (5,26) may be located in many places. The images of the landscape fit well in a Galilean setting, but could be anywhere in the Roman Empire: countryside (6,25–32), mountains (5,14; 7,24f), garden, orchards (7,16–19), river/sand (7,26f). It is an exaggeration to state a specific and typical Galilean setting for the SM. It is both an urban and a rural setting. Location (‘space’) plays an even more important role than time. The social world is clearer in the SP. In SM we hear nothing about landlords, and the patron–client relation is not in the forefront. However, judges (5,22.25f; 7,1f), soldiers (5,41), Scribes and Pharisees (5,20; 6,1–18?) are mentioned. More importantly, poor and unfortunate people come first (5,3– 12), and we hear about servants (6,24) and needy people (6,25–32; 7,9–11). 2) Hellenistic forms? The SM is mostly and often exclusively read ‘within Judaism’. To read the SM ‘within Hellenism’ is necessary because of the amount of parallels (Wettstein, Heinrici, H.D. Betz) and because the borders between Judaism and Hellenism were more fuzzy than strict in the first century CE. The beatitude style (5,3–12) is well known in Greek (Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Euripides),112 in Latin texts and even in Egyptian texts.113 It is there-

111

Michael Zohary, Plants of the Bible: A complete handbook of all the plants, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1982; German translation: Pflanzen der Bibel: Vollständiges Handbuch, Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag 31995, 170f. 112 Cf. H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 97–100, 103f: ὄλβιος, Homeric Hymns II: To Demeter 480–483; Hesiod, Theog. 954–955; Pindar, Frg. 121: ὦ µάκαρ; Euripides, Bacch. 73–83, whereas Empedocles has µακάριοι. 113 Cf. Virgil, Georg. II,490–494. The Latin reference to Isis and Osiris in Apuleius, Metam. XI,16.

390

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

fore no surprise that the Jewish wisdom literature often uses this form.114 The SM begins and ends with Hellenistic forms; the two-way scheme in 7,13f(– 27) is well known in Jewish and Hellenistic literature.115 Matt 6,19–7,12 is dominated by the imperative form, but includes a dialogue/diatribe in 6,25–34 and a number of parables and metaphorical sayings. More strange in a Hellenistic context – and Jewish context also – is the form ὑµεῖς ἐστε in Matt 5,13–16. The antithesis forms are well known, but the exact form in the three versions of antitheses (5,17–20; 5,21–48; 6,1–18) is in fact unique. 3) Themes in philosophical school discussions. Many commentators divide the SM into topoi,116 because the SM reflects the περὶ δέ-form.117 Justin sees the SM as a school discussion on having a benevolent interest in or care for something (περὶ δὲ τοῦ στέργειν ἅπαντας).118 The diatribe in Matt 6,25–34 has an educational purpose (καταµάθετε, 6,28) and it introduces the topic of clothing with περὶ ἐνδύµατος τί µεριµνᾶτε. The themes in the SM are well known from Hellenistic literature: good life, anger, σωφροσύνη, truth, friend and foe, hypocrisy, tranquility of mind, ‘carpe diem’, justice and judgment, benefactors, giving and receiving, etc. 4) Questions and possibility thinking. An overlooked feature in scholarship is the role of questions. They play a significant role both in Mark119 and in the SM. They have some similarity with the Socratic method (µαιευτική), which aims to give a person recognition. By asking the right question, the person himself will acknowledge the relevant issues. In the SM we have around 15 questions of different kinds: – descriptive questions, describing how things normally work (5,13: ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται; 6,27: τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑµῶν; add an hour/cubit) – causal questions, affecting a certain outcome (5,46f: τίνα µισθὸν ἔχετε; τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε;) 114

H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 100–102. Cf. Sir 14,1f.20; 15,10; 25,8f; 26,2; 28,19; 34/31,8; 46,11; 50,18. Jos. Asen. 16,7f, Tob 13,16f, and apocalyptic texts continue this wisdom form (2 En. 42,6–14). 115 The Jewish parallels and their use in early Christianity have often been analysed (A. von Harnack, E. Repo, M.J. Suggs, et al.), cf. Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, Minneapolis: Fortress 1998, 83–88; H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 522f; Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 502–506. Jan Bergmann, “Zum Zwei-Wege-Motiv: Religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Bemerkungen”, SEÅ 41–42 (1976–77), 27–56, offers a comprehensive overview. 116 E.g. the outline in Strecker, Bergpredigt (21985). 117 Cf. Matt 20,6; 22,31; 24,36; 27,46 based on Mark 12,26; 13,32. We have the developed form of discussions in 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians, cf. Baasland, “Die περίFormel und die Argumentation(ssituation) des Paulus” (1988). 118 Used in Sir 27,17 (στέρξον φίλον), Josephus, Bell. I,596; Ant. VIII,249, and in a Christian context 1 Clem. 1,3; Pol. Phil. 4,2 (both in the sense of ‘love’). 119 Baasland, “Fourth Quest?” (1998/2011).

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

391

– relational questions (6,30; οὐ πολλῷ µᾶλλον ὑµᾶς, ὀλιγόπιστοι; 7,9: µὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ;) – questions about evaluation (6,25: οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶµα τοῦ ἐνδύµατος; 6,30). – Some questions occur in parables, and they function within the parable in 7,3f.9 (and the story in 7,22f). Matt 6,25–34 has a diatribe style and is therefore dominated by questions. The questions open up for new insights, and the audience can acknowledge the relevant issues themselves. The more than ten ἐάν- and four εἰ-sentences function similarly. They want to challenge people to rethink certain matters.120 The five εἰ-sentences are used in parables and are less significant.121 These ἐάν- and εἰ-sentences open up for imagination and function in a way similar to parables and metaphorical sayings. They are – together with questions – useful in philosophical reflection. More than one third of the SM consists of parables and metaphorical sayings. We have some brief narrative parables (5,23f.25f; 7,3–5.9–11.22f.24–27). Many metaphorical sayings could easily be transformed into narratives, like Matt 5,13.14f.29f.36f.45–47, most of 6,19–32, plus 7,6.15.16–20. To sum up: The Jewish framework and forms seem foreign ouside Jewish circles. Locations, social world, forms, are still accessible, and parts of topoi, forms, and themes are familiar. 6.5.2 Happiness and Good Life The Beatitudes resonate with the predominant theme in philosophy, – the good life as the highest human good. According to Plato’s Euthydemus, Socrates asked the sophist Cleinias about happiness. Cleinias listed a number of things that make people happy: health, wealth, beauty, nobility of birth, etc., which Socrates denounced as superficial.122 In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle also made happiness a proper subject of study for political science.123 120 Matt 5,20 is the headline (ἐὰν µὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑµῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη) and 7,12, the Golden Rule, concludes. Like the two ὃς ἐάν-sentences (5,19.32) they give ethical instructions. Five of them portray situations in which one has to act (5,23: ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς τὸ δῶρόν σου; 5,46: ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑµᾶς; 5,47: ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑµῶν µόνον; 6,14: ἐὰν γὰρ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις [twice]) and three occur in a parable, 5,13; 6,22f. 121 Not 5,13 (ἔτι εἰ µή): 6,1 (εἰ δὲ µή γε). Matt 5,29: εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου; 5,30: εἰ ἡ δεξιά σου χείρ; 6,23: εἰ οὖν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοί; 6,30: εἰ δὲ τὸν χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ; 7,11: εἰ οὖν ὑµεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες. 122 Plato, Euthyd. 273a–304c, and in general Resp. X,612b. Cf. Xenophon, Symp. IV,41. 123 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1095a–1096a; 1098a16–20; 1099a31–33; 1153b–1154a; 1169b– 1170a. The highest good is the ultimate end, “for the sake of which the other things are done” (1097a15–24). Since it is the ultimate end (τέλος) it must be complete (τέλειον) (1097a24–b4). Since it is complete, it must be self-sufficient (1097b6–16). Since it is self-

392

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

The austere indifference to joy, grief, pleasure or pain led many Stoics to the conclusion that happiness consists in virtue alone, and the presence or absence of any kind of external good (health, wealth, friends, honour, success, etc.) is of little importance.124 The overviews by Diogenes Laertius and Aelian show the variations within the concept.125 Augustine overlooked this variety and reduced Varro’s extensive list (as much as 288) to three: life in leisure, life engaged in ethical/ political matters, or a balanced combination of the two.126Augustine replaced the Latin translation felix with beatus, emphasised the Platonic perspective and added the perspectives of eschatology and God’s grace.127 Augustine’s book on the good life/happiness was written in 396 shortly before his Sermo Domini in monte. Next to Augustine, Thomas Aquinas’ treatise on happiness128 had a huge influence in medieval times. Luther argued strictly theologically: money, property, power, honour have no value compared to the Kingdom of God. Instead of happiness, ‘sin and grace’, ‘Law and gospel’, etc. are in the focus. In a Hellenistic perspective, the SM starts at the right place: it is about happiness and a good life. 1) The Beatitudes in their Hellenistic context. Augustine and a great many exegetes have made the Beatitudes the crucial text in the SM. Too often, the perspectives of eschatology and God’s grace have dominated, and the philosophical background has been forgotten. One should be cautious with eudaimonism as a general term, because εὐδαιµονία is not used in the New Testament. Due to the term µακάριος, ‘macarisms’ or Beatitudes is the best term. The source domain of µακάρ is to sufficient, it must be incapable of increase by the addition of any other good (1097b16– 20). 124 Willem S. Vorster, “Stoics and Early Christians on Blessedness”, in David L. Balch/ Everett Ferguson/Wayne A. Meeks (eds.), Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, Minneapolis: Fortress 1991, 38–51; cf. Julia Annas, The Morality of Happiness, New York: Oxford University Press 1993. 125 Diogenes Laertius II,87f; II,90; II,93f.96f; VI,3; and Aelian, Var. hist. XIV,6. 126 Augustine, Beat. 1,1; 4,25.27f.33; Civ. XIX,1–4.12f. 127 Using nearly the same words as Augustine, the influential psychologist and leading scholar in the academic research on happiness, Martin E.P. Seligman, Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment, New York: Free Press 2002, argued that we can experience three kinds of happiness: 1) pleasure and gratification, 2) embodiment of strengths and virtues and 3) meaning and purpose. 128 Thomas, STh I–II, q. 1–5. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Treatise on Happiness (trans. John A. Oesterle), Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall 1964: Happiness is not wealth, pleasure, fame, honours or power, etc. (I–II 2.1–8). Thomas distinguished between felicitas (imperfect happiness, merely intellectual insight) and beatitudo (perfect happiness, which starts and ends with the perception of God, I–II 4f).

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

393

share the conditions of gods,129 and it has a number of partial equivalents (like εὐλογηµένος,130 εὐτύχη, εὐφηµία, εὐδοκία). It also resonates with the Hebrew ‫שׁ ֵרי‬ ְ ‫‘ =( ַא‬happy’, state of well-being). Matt 5,3.10 identifies the goal domain: it is to be part of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Beatitudes give hope to the poor who have no hope, comfort to those who need to be consoled, the promise of a land to live in, enough to eat and drink, of mercy, of reaching the ultimate goal of eternal life, of seeing God and being called children of God. Compared to Hellenistic dreams of a good life, this catalogue is strange. Ordinary people would make more sense of it than the wealthy, powerful and intellectual elite. Among intellectual people, those attracted to Platonism would be more comfortable with the Beatitudes than other philosophers. Only people with some familiarity with the Tanach and Jewish texts would have a deeper understanding of this text. Following on from Matt 5,3–12, the SM provides a few reflections on happiness and a good life.131 Matt 5,21–48 takes up, as does the SP, the theme of justice in a world of injustice, which is often part of a reflection on ‘eudaimonism’. The beatitudes of the poor, merciful and peaceful resonate in Matt 5,20–48. Matt 6,1–18 deals briefly with the source and goal domain of µακάρ, whereas Matt 6,19–21 picks up the topic of security, wealth and a long life, which is in the very centre of the debates on ‘eudaimonism’. The same can be said about Matt 6,25–34 (on food and sustenance and insecurity regarding the future). Matt 7,1–12 deals with justice and gifts, and Matt 7,13–27 puts forward the alternatives: either life or destruction, fruit or no fruit, doing or not doing, a house on the rock or on sand. The Beatitudes cannot be summarized in a specific Jewish vision: “Blessed are the righteous and elected” (1 En. 58,2) or: “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it” (Luke 11,28). Nor can it be given a specific Christian interpretation, like: “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see” (Luke 10,23); “Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me” (Matt 11,6), etc. The Beatitudes can be read as a philosophical vision of what ‘happiness’ is all about. Suffering injustice and combating injustice can be part of this vision.132 129

Homer, Od. V,7: happiness as life beyond care, cf. Hesiod, Op. 141. The usage in Matt 14,19; 21,9; 23,39; 25,34; 26,26 mostly follows Mark. 131 Luke has the alternative blessing versus curses/woes. Matthew reflects the Woes indirectly in Matt 6,19–21 and in the judgment sayings. 132 Matt 19,16f has the theme of ‘goodness’ (τί µε ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ;) which comes close to ‘happiness’. 130

394

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

2) The good life: limited good – and injustice. The Beatitudes are ‘antimacarisms’ in the sense that unfortunate people are blessed: the poor, mourners, meek, perhaps oppressed, hungry and thirsty, persecuted people. Even in a state of ‘limited good’, this is not ‘the good life’. Matt 5,3.5 includes economic status also, even though money is not mentioned. In fact, injustice determines ‘limited good’, and injustice is a bigger challenge than ‘limited good’. Injustice is also presupposed in Matt 5,7–9: the merciful, pure in heart and peacemakers – not unfortunate people – act against injustice. Injustice is a main theme in Matt 5,21–48, and the sayings defend people who have limited rights and are subordinated or oppressed. Matt 6,19–24 addresses people who are fortunate and do not experience injustice. They must face the warning in 6,19:133 µὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑµῖν θησαυροὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς θησαυρίζετε θησαυροὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ Matt 7,1–12 continues to address fortunate people who risk treating others with injustice. 3) Beauty and tranquility in a situation of limited good. In between these passages, Matt 6,19–34 deals profoundly with the theme of ‘limited goods’,134 property and poverty, work and toil. One should not overlook the theme of beauty in the text.135 The focus is, however, theologically on God as creator, and philosophically on the theme of tranquility. The key word in Matt 6,25–34 is µέριµνα/µεριµνάω. 6,25: µὴ µεριµνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑµῶν 6,28: περὶ ἐνδύµατος τί µεριµνᾶτε; καταµάθετε 6,31: µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε 6,34: µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον The text ends by underlining priority (πρῶτον, 6,33) more than property, and it says more about God providing good than about limited goods. H.D. Betz 133

Seneca and Plutarch see involvement in public affairs and wealth as a threat to the tranquility of mind. Epictetus started discourses with the statement that he does not neglect property, but when it comes to the application of his teaching on good and evil, property is not an issue at all, cf. Epictetus, Diss. I,2,37 and the whole treatise in II,16: practising ethos depends on things outside (ἔξω) the classroom, but one has to admire external things (ἐκτός). Property is a minor good, cf. Chrysippus, Frg. 593/595; Seneca, Vit. 4,3 (“a mind beyond the reach of desire”); Seneca, Ep. 92,2–3 (“what more can one desire who possesses all honourable things”). The Epicureans also saw property as a minor ‘good’ compared to the mastering of desires. 134 Malina, New Testament World (1981), 71ff (p. 92 arguing from Luke 12,16ff more than from the following text). 135 Berger, Von der Schönheit der Ethik (2006), shows that Matt 6,25–34 provides ethical reflections.

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

395

has correctly observed the philosophical themes ‘anxiety and tranquility’ as the background for the text.136 Hellenistic treatises on tranquility of mind – by Seneca, Epictetus and Plutarch, et al. – give various reasons for not worrying.137 Inner tranquility has to be reached. Dio Chrysostom makes almost the same points as Matt 6,24 and 6,25–34 in his text “On Servants”, using the same bird-imagery, and he warns the disciples: “You will spend all your life worrying over them without getting any benefit whatsoever.”138 Jesus is even more radical: Limited goods and injustice should not prevent people from reaching the good life. 4) Beatitudes as authoritative sayings. The exordium of the SM contains an immensely authoritative saying. The one who gives the blessing needs authorisation, and the content of the blessing is so unique that only a person with legitimacy and authority is entitled to express such sayings. Who can promise the Kingdom of God, comfort, inheritance, righteousness, mercy, seeing God, kinship to God? The exordium is extraordinary, particularly because the sayings are addressed to unexpected groups of people, even to poor, lamenting, meek, hungry persons. 6.5.3. Anthropology and Evil Forces Anthropology is rarely a theme in classical or biblical texts. We need to search behind the argumentation in order to find the anthropological premises. 1) Emptiness versus fulness; space versus time. Life can be seen as a struggle for goods, or as space that needs to be filled with good things. The SM adopts the latter philosophy of life. This is probably the reason why the SM emphasises the spatial dimension so much. The spatial dimension of the 136

H.D. Betz, Sermon (1985), 461–465, and his introduction to De tranquillitate animi (Mor. 464E–477F), in idem (ed.), Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 4), Leiden: Brill 1978, 198–207. Cf. Seneca, Tranq. 13,1; Plutarch, Tranq. an. 2 (Mor. 465C). 137 Epictetus blames his disciples for similar reasons as Matt 6,25ff (“you never desire stability, serenity, peace of mind”) using similar terms (ἀταραξία, ἀπάθεια), Epictetus, Diss. III,26,13. “Live in this spirit and never cease to live so, you, who in name only have something close to a philosophy, and, as far as in your law, have discredited its principles by showing them to be useless and good for nothing for those who receive them.” Cf. Diss. III,26,33 and III,26,28: “God is not concerned about these things (ὁ θεὸς ἀµελεῖ).” Epictetus, Ench. 12, is even clearer: “For it is better to starve to death after a life without grief and fear, than to live in wealth in a state of mental disturbance.” 138 “Consider … the birds, how much freer from trouble they live than men, and how much more happily also, how much healthier and stronger they are … although they have neither hands nor human intelligence. And yet, to counterbalance these and their other limitations, they have one great blessing – they own no property.” Dio Chrysostom, Or. 10,16 and 10,15. Neuer Wettstein I/I.2 (1), 651, adds two Philo-texts (Somn. I,97; Praem. 101–105).

396

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

‘Kingdom of Heaven’ corresponds with the spatial thinking in the whole SM,139 and the fundamental space is heaven and earth: 5,4: κληρονοµήσουσιν τὴν γῆν; 5,14: τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσµου 5,18: παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ 5,34f: µήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ, µήτε ἐν τῇ γῇ 6,10: ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς 6,1–18: τῶν ἀνθρώπων … τῷ πατρὶ ὑµῶν τῷ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς 6,19f: θησαυροὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, θησαυροὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ … ὅπου … What do we make room for? Earthly versus heavenly is foundational, and in this life, light versus darkness and emptiness versus (mind)fulness represent the challenge. The saying in Matt 6,22f is full of riddles, but the point is obvious: light and not darkness must be given room. If the room is filled with darkness and evil powers, it will end in total darkness: τὸ σκότος πόσον (how great is the darkness?, 6,23). Even Matt 6,34 can be seen in this perspective: evil exists and is a challenge every day (v. 34c). The task is to make room for God’s righteousness. This leads to tranquility. Therefore: “do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself” (v. 34a/b).140 2) Aggression, envy. The psychological dimension cannot be overlooked in the SM.141 It is a theme in Matt 5,22.29f.39–42; 6,21.34; 7,1–5,142 and these sayings on anger and aggression represent an important topic in GraecoRoman culture,143 and also in Jewish144 and Christian texts.145 The terms (θυµός, ὀργή, etc.) and topics like ‘being slow to anger’,146 ‘controlling 139 An urban environment: Matt 5,13.14 (πόλις κρυβῆναι ἐπάνω ὄρους); 6,2f (synagogues and streets); 7,13f (ἡ πύλη καὶ ἡ ὁδός); houses (5,15; 6,6; 7,24–27: οἰκία ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν … οἰκία ἐπὶ τὴν ἄµµον), courts (5,22) or prisons (5,25), gardens (7,16–20) and a rural environment (6,26.28–30: fields). 140 Extensively and comprehensively on this saying in § 8 of this book. 141 Gemünden, “Umgang mit Zorn”, in eadem, Affekt und Glaube (2009), 163–189; eadem, “Einsicht”, in ibid., 83–96; eadem, “Die Wertung des Zornes im Jakobusbrief” (2003); eadem, “Affekte in den synoptischen Evangelien” (2013); Konradt, Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (2016), 323–328. 142 Matt 6,21 has the notion of the heart and conflicting forces. On Matt 6,21 and 7,1–5 cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 334f, 429–441. On Matt 6,34 see below § 8.6. 143 Gemünden, “Umgang mit Zorn” (above, n. 141), 166ff; eadem, Affekt und Glaube (2009), 256ff, and recently Neuer Wettstein I/I.2, (1), 386–393. 144 T.Dan 4,3 (“do not let insult provoke anger”); Sir 27,30; 1QS 4,10; 5,25; CD 7,3 (punishment and excommunication will be the consequence). The Hebrew terms ‫אף‬, ‫המה‬, etc. are used less for human and more for divine wrath. 145 Rom 12,19; Eph 4,26.31; 6,4; Col 3,8; 1 Tim 2,8; Tit 1,7; Rev 11,18; Did. 3,2; 15,3; 1 Clem. 13,1 etc. 146 Jas 1,19 or Prov 14,29 (“A patient man has great understanding, but a quicktempered man displays folly”).

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

397

anger’147 or ‘anger and murder’ (e.g. Sir 22,24) occur both in the Epistle of James and in Jewish wisdom literature. The discussion in Hellenistic Judaism must be seen within the framework of Hellenistic philosophy. Greek tragedies148 passionately described the power of human affections, not least anger and wrath. Aristotle also saw the power of anger, and he evaluated it as a positive power in ordinary and military life.149 The context for Aristotle’s balanced view150 was the struggle against ethical vices and the choice between forgiveness and revenge. The pain that causes a desire for revenge is anger, which needs to be transformed into a positive energy. Stoics in general had a much more negative view, and Latin Stoicism used mostly one single word (ira) for the whole complex, as we see in Cicero and Seneca.151 Both Seneca and Plutarch criticised Aristotle (the defensor irae) and had an entirely negative view of anger.152 A man full of anger is basically an animal,153 and anger makes weak persons even worse.154 A moral person should be aware of both his limitations and his greatness. Great people can control their wrath and avoid the negative effects of anger.155

Matthew’s statement (Matt 5,22) on the inner relationship between anger/ aggression and murder is very brief, compared with the long treatises in Jewish or Graeco-Roman texts. Hellenistic texts do not see anger as the beginning of murder, in spite of their sophisticated psychological understanding and their negative view of anger. Some Jewish texts come closer,156 like the crucial text in the ‘Purity laws ’(esp. Lev 19,17f). This text had a great impact157 as we see e.g. in the

147

Jas 1,26; Prov 29,11 (“A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control”). Sir 1,21 (and similarly Wis 10,3) says that to fear God prevents from anger. 148 Aeschylus, Ag. 214ff; Prom. 378; Sophocles, Ant. 355f, 875; El. 221f. 149 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. III,8 (1116b); Pol. 1303a; also in Rhet. II,2 (1378a31). 150 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. II,3–4 (1105b, 1106a); 1125b30. 151 On ira, in Cicero, Ep. 30; Tusc. IV,19,44 (odium est ira inveterate); Seneca’s De ira (II 31,6; 4,1) and Plutarch’s important work, in Latin called De cohibenda ira. 152 Gemünden, “Umgang mit Zorn” (above, n. 141), 166ff. 153 Seneca, Ira II 31,6; 4,3; Ep. 103,2; and Plutarch, Cohib. ira 14 (Mor. 462E): “under the impulse of rage – like some wild beast” or Tranq. an. 2 (Mor. 465C): “not like savage dogs”. 154 Seneca, Ira II 34,7. Plutarch, Cohib. ira 8 (Mor. 457B), uses a parable: “Just as with the flesh a swelling results from a great blow, so with the weakest souls the inclination to inflict a hurt produces a flaring up of temper as great as the soul’s infirmity is great.” 155 Seneca, Ira II 32,2; III 5,8; 6,1. This is beautifully exemplified by both Seneca and Plutarch (Cohib. ira 9 [Mor. 457B]). 156 b.Ned. 22b (wrath means to forget the teaching and start with stupidity); b.Pesaḥ. 66b (Resh Lakish: an angry wise man loses his wisdom, an angry prophet his prophecy). 157 Also Deut 19,11: “If a man hates his neighbour (‫שׁ שׂ ֹנֵ ֣א ל ְֵר ֵ֔עהוּ‬ ֙ ‫ … )אִ י‬assaults him and kills him …”

398

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

Testaments of the XII Patriarchs.158 Rabbi Nachman ben Yizchak agreed with a student who quoted:159 “If somebody publicly insults his neighbour, it is like killing him”, and the ethical thinking of Resh Lakish160 reflects similar statements in rabbinic literature.161 The first antithesis (Matt 5,22) is according to Montefiore “no real advance from Rabbinic teaching”.162 For Justin, Matt 5,29f was a key saying on σωφροσύνη (= wisdom, chastity, self-control),163 whereas Matt 5,29f in modern exegesis is perceived as a problematic saying.164 In the exaggerated metaphorical imagery the focus is seemingly on punishment (as in Matt 5,22; 7,1–5), but in fact more on the principles behind the Decalogue. The imperatives are sayings about stopping before evil acts take place. The negative forces must be stopped in drastic ways. If we understand the saying literally, the effect would be that one prevents people from coming to Jerusalem (cf. 2 Sam 5,8). It is a saying about true wholeness,165 and Justin read it correctly as parable not on mutilation, but on self-control. Honour is not linked to dominance and physical wholeness, but to self-control, fidelity, and a wholeness that is linked to God and his righteousness. The fifth antithesis has so often been interpreted in a political context that its psychological dimension has been overlooked until recently. Gerd Theißen and Petra von Gemünden have filled this gap and read it as a text on selfcontrol.166 Theißen (following Luise Schottroff) convincingly adds the perspective of the oppressed, who like the superior king or righteous judge, renounce revenge.167 158 T.Sim. 2,11 (“God prevented them from anger and killing”); T.Dan 1,6–8 (the spirit of jealousy, anger provokes killing); T.Zeb. 4,11 (“since he was burning with anger that he had not killed him”) or T.Gad 4,1ff. Also, in the Septuagint, Sir 27,30; 28,6ff, and in Qumran texts, 1QS 5,25ff; 6,24ff; CD 9,1ff. 159 b.BM 58b. 160 b.Sanh. 58b elaborates on the Cain story; and Resh Lakish said that to lift your hand against your neighbour means to join the world of evil. 161 Bill. I, 276–278. 162 C.G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (1930/1970), 38. 163 Justin, 1 Apol. 15,1f. 164 Niederwimmer, Askese und Mysterium (1976), 30–32; Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche (1977), 74–77; Derrett, “Law in the New Testament” (above, p. 332, n. 36). 165 Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 201–215, esp. 211–213. 166 Theißen, “Urkristet etos” (2003), 8; Gemünden, “Umgang mit Zorn” (above, n. 141); eadem, “Affekte in den synoptischen Evangelien” (2013). 167 Theißen, “Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe” (above, n. 105), esp. 192–197; idem, “Nächstenliebe und Statusverzicht als Grundzüge christlichen Ethos” (2000); idem, “Die politische Dimension des Wirkens Jesu” (2002), esp. 121f. Cf. idem, “Die goldene Regel (Matthäus 7:12/Lukas 6:31)” (2003), 398f, and L. Schottroff, “Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in der urchristlichen Jesustradition” (1975), 208–211.

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

399

3) God and good versus evil – the hidden dimension. The psychological dimension overlaps with a theological argument, which in the SM and in Matthew is connected to the terms πονηρός, etc. and κακός, etc.168 The SM has κακία in Matt 6,34 only (ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς). Πονηρός is used when it comes to evil done by men. Matthew presupposes the Jewish concept of ‫יֵצֶר ָה ַרע‬. Based on the narratives in Genesis,169 not least the Cain story,170 this concept was developed in various ways in Jewish texts.171 In the SM evil is a strong force, as we see in the Lord’s Prayer (ῥῦσαι ἡµᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, 6,13). The existence of evil can be located in the eye (see below) or in the mouth. Evil words are mentioned first (5,11: εἴπωσιν πᾶν πονηρὸν καθ᾿ ὑµῶν [ψευδόµενοι] = Luke 6,22), alluding to Ps 34,14, an admonition to keep your tongue from evil (‫ מ ֵָרע‬hְ‫ = נ ְצ ֹר לְש ֹׁונ‬LXX 33,14: παῦσον τὴν γλῶσσάν σου ἀπὸ κακοῦ). Many Jewish and Hellenistic wisdom texts admonish in the same way. The radical antithesis that we should restrict our word (λόγος) to yes/yes, no/no (Matt 5,37) is a novelty, as is the addition that what exceeds this is evil (ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ). The existence of evil forces is mentioned another six times: 5,38: ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν µὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ· ἀλλ᾿ ὅστις σε … 5,45: ὅτι τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει ἐπὶ πονηροὺς καὶ ἀγαθούς (= Luke 6,35: ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀχαρίστους καὶ πονηρούς) 6,23: ἐὰν δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου πονηρὸς ᾖ, ὅλον τὸ σῶµά σου σκοτεινὸν ἔσται. εἰ οὖν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν, τὸ σκότος πόσον. 7,11: εἰ οὖν ὑµεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες οἴδατε (= Luke 11,13: εἰ οὖν ὑµεῖς πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες οἴδατε) 7,17: οὕτως πᾶν δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖ, τὸ δὲ σαπρὸν δένδρον καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖ. 7,18: οὐ δύναται δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖν οὐδὲ δένδρον σαπρὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖν. Luke 6,45 adds to the SM: ὁ πονηρὸς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ προφέρει τὸ πονηρόν. Evil persons do not always produce evil acts (Matt 7,11). Evil acts start within every person. Evil and good people live together. Their fruits mark them as good or evil. The acts demonstrate the quality. Evil forces represent the big challenge, and a good person is someone who controls evil. 4) God and good; God challenges evil. The dominant Hellenistic philosophy sees God first of all in relation to nature. God is the very being, the 168 The SM does not use ζῆλος, like in Paul’s epistles (10 times) and Jas 3,14.16 (Heb 10,27). In John 2,17 ζῆλος is a positive force, whereas it is a negative force in Acts 5,17; 13,45. 169 Cf. the expression in Gen 6,5; 8,21: ‫ָאָדם ַ ֖רע מִ נְּע ָ ֻ֑ריו‬ ֛ ָ ‫כִּי ֵי֣צֶר לֵ ֧ ב ה‬. 170 Cf. 1 John 3,12; Jude 11 (Heb 11,4) and alluded to in Jas 1,19; 5,4, etc. 171 E.g. Sir 15,14; 1 En. 98,4; 1QS 3,13–18; b.BB 16a (God created evil inclinations and the Torah as the antidote).

400

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

unmoved mover, the infinite, the constructor of nature, the source of recognition of nature.172 The Stoics related God/Logos and man to the ethical universe. According to the SM there is a fundamental relation between God and good, and the threat is evil forces. God is primarily related to man, but also to nature (Matt 6,25–32), and Matt 6,33 ends with the statement: seek the Kingdom of God and his righteousness. 6.5.4 Visible versus Invisible: Outward and Inward In the Hebrew Bible, the ear and not the eye is the channel for God’s communication with his people. It is all about hearing God, not about seeing him. Hearing is everything in a Jewish context. Seeing is decisive in Hellenistic texts. Surprisingly, the SM balances these two aspects. 6.5.4.1 Seeing as a Phenomenon At least five different terms are used in the SM: ὁράω, θεάοµαι, βλέπω, ὀφθαλµός, φαίνω, or indirectly in the saying in Matt 5,14 (city on a mountain cannot be hidden). The term ‘eye’ (ὀφθαλµός) occurs as many as ten times in the SM, and in the quotation from ‘laws of torts’ (Exod 21,23–25, etc.) in 5,38 (ὀφθαλµὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλµοῦ), the eye is the most precious part of the body. ‘Seeing’ is often found in metaphorical sayings, and these sayings have in general four dimensions. 1) Seeing as a threat: the evil eye. Seeing and good works is the theme in the proposition (5,16). The SM as protreptic text also entails warnings. Seeing can be a threat and be part of evil works: 5,28: πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυµῆσαι αὐτήν 5,29: εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔξελε αὐτόν … 6,23: ἐὰν δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου πονηρὸς ᾖ, ὅλον τὸ σῶµά σου σκοτεινὸν ἔσται. 7,3f: τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀφθαλµῷ δοκὸν οὐ κατανοεῖς; … ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλµοῦ σου, (three times) ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ σοῦ (second time). 7,5: ὑποκριτά, ἔκβαλε πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλµοῦ σοῦ τὴν δοκόν, καὶ τότε διαβλέψεις ἐκβαλεῖν τὸ κάρφος ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλµοῦ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ. An expression very close to the technical term for ‘evil eye’ is used in Matt 6,23: ὀφθαλµὸς πονηρός (= evil eye). Few concepts from fear cultures within a magic universe have survived better than this terrible fear. The concept 172 Aristotle is more consistent (Aristotle, Metaph. 1080b7), Plato has a variety of descriptions in the different books: Timaeus (demiurge as a good artificer); Laws (the creator and Lawgiver); Republic (the mover); Parmenides (the one), etc.

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

401

flourishes in times of plagues, was strong in the Middle Ages (and for Luther), and is still there in many cultures. Social anthropologists and historians have studied the phenomenon in the Middle East and in Judaism173 as we see in the Quran174 and in the Tanach,175 e.g. Deut 15,9, Isa 29,20 (“all who have an eye for evil will be cut down”), Prov 28,22 (a man with an evil eye, ‫) ֭ ִא ישׁ ַ ֣רע עָ ֑ י ִן‬.176 Hellenistic texts know the phenomenon well. The opposite is πρόνοια, eye of providence. According to Plutarch the evil eye causes misfortune and injury. Every evil inclination comes from the evil eye, and the result is slander, greed, avarice, jealousy, stinginess.177 The focus in Matt 6,22f is not on ‘the evil eye’ itself, but on its consequences. The concept of the evil eye in Matt 6,23 is just presupposed, and the consequences for others is not the theme. An evil eye dominates the acting person. It takes away the light and makes the whole person dark (σκοτεινόν). The consequences for others is the theme in Matt 5,28–31 (and 7,3–5). The lustful gaze can have fatal consequences for the woman involved, and it presupposes a male dominance and illegitimate power-relation. A killing gaze can be the result, caused by the power of ἐπιθυµία/πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυµῆσαι αὐτήν. In Matt 7,3–5 seeing and judging constitute the theme. To judge others is natural and unavoidable. To judge hypocritically is to distance oneself from others, not to identify with the other person, to put oneself higher, to see only the outside, etc. Matt 7,3–5 is a parable about an extremely hypocritical way of judging. It marks the contrast to God, the only true judge. 2) Seeing and good works. It is essential in human relations to see and to be seen. ‘Recognition’178 is more than just being seen by others. which is a positive thing. Intention and purpose (πρὸς τό, ὅπως) are a decisive factor 173

Rivka Ulmer, The Evil Eye in the Bible and in Rabbinic Literature, Hoboken: KTAV 1994.; F. Charles Fensham, “The good and evil eye in the Sermon on the Mount”, Neot. 1 (1957), 51–58; John H. Elliott, “The Evil Eye and the Sermon On the Mount”, BibInt 2 (1994), 51–84; cf. Prov 23,6: do not eat the food of a stingy man (ἀνδρὶ βασκάνῳ). 174 Quran 68,51; 113,1–5. 175 C.G. Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels II (21927), 183–187, refers to older literature (p. 196). Deut 15,9 warns against evil thoughts/heart, ‫ לֵב‬and ‫ ָרעָה‬/πονηρός (neglecting poor countrymen). 176 Prov 28,27: Those who give to the poor will lack nothing. He who closes his eyes to them has an evil eye and receives many curses. Sir 14,10 (an evil eye is envious over bread), cf. also Sir 31,13. Tob 4,17: “Let not your eye be grudging when you give alms.” T.Benj. 4,2f: A blind eye means it is full of darkness, and is not exactly like an evil eye. 177 Plutarch, Quaest. rom. 72 (Mor. 281B). 178 Paul Ricœur, The Course of Recognition, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 2005, 5–16, is dividing the notion of ‘recognition’ into three main categories: recognition as identification, recognizing oneself and mutual recognition. Many have challenged Ricœur’s view by proposing a distinction between recognition (of oneself as well as of others) and ‘identification’.

402

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

(6,1: πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς; 6,5.16: ὅπως φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις; 6,18: ὅπως µὴ φανῇς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις). To be seen can be a superficial act, performed as by an actor at the theatre. The SM uses the language from the theatre; people act as hypocrites.179 The admonition against superficial acts seems to contradict the key saying:180 5,16: ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑµῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα Cf. 5,15: λάµπει πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ Theologically there is no need to balance such paradoxes. The problem originates from a false approach to the text: if we understand Matt 6,1–18 as piety rules that have to be performed secretly, we do have contradictory statements. A principle of inwardness or perhaps also purified motives can lead to a new and refined hypocrisy: Christians have to hide their good deeds and to do justice only secretly. Matt 6,1–18 does not overrule the message in the rest of the SM. People need the good works, which means they have to see/experience them. God sees them anyway. That is the refrain in 6,1–18 (ὁ πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ/κρυφαίῳ, 6,4.6.18).181 Recognition by men is nothing compared to having a relationship with the God who sees. This is the issue in Matt 6,1.4.6.18. The goal is the glory of God.182 The impact of the acts is important for the one who acts, crucial for others and a hallmark of the relationship to God. The focus here is the theocentric perspective: on reward from God rather than reward from men.183 179 Matt 6,2: ὥσπερ οἱ ὑποκριταί; 6,5: ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί; 6,16: ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταὶ σκυθρωποί; 7,5: ὑποκριτά, ἔκβαλε πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλµοῦ σοῦ τὴν δοκόν. Cf. Richard A. Batey, “Jesus and the Theatre”, NTS 30 (1984), 563–574. Albright/Mann, Matthew (1971), appendix, CXV–CXXIII, correct many misinterpretations and propose “overscrupulous” as translation. 180 Bonhoeffer, Nachfolge (32004), 150ff. Bonhoeffer gives three guidelines for the interpretation, assuming that obedience, suffering and the relation to Christ is the invisible visibility. 181 Matt 6,4: ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ – ὁ πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ἀποδώσει σοι; 6,6: εἴσελθε εἰς τὸ ταµεῖόν σου καὶ πρόσευξαι τῷ πατρί σου τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ· καὶ ὁ πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ἀποδώσει σοι; 6,18: ὅπως µὴ φανῇς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις νηστεύων ἀλλὰ τῷ πατρί σου τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ· καὶ ὁ πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ ἀποδώσει σοι. 182 Frankemölle, Matthäus (1994), 240, presents a similar argumentation. 183 Seen by Zeilinger, Zwischen Himmel und Erde (2002), 122f, in the exegesis of Matt 6,1, but not really in the exegesis of the three antitheses. Similarly, Stiewe/Vouga, Die Bergpredigt und ihre Rezeption (2001), 130–134, and both have affinity to a rhetorical approach (also Gerhardsson, “Geistiger Opferdienst nach Matth 6,1–6.16–21” [1972], 69– 77, 80f).

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

403

Matt 5,20 summarizes 6,1–18: the disciples’ righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees and Scribes. It also summarizes Matt 5,16: righteousness is good works. Matt 5,16.20 and 6,1–18 are based on the theocentric perspective. Like in many Jewish texts, God is the starting point, and Gen 16,13f formed the notion of the God who sees (‫ )אֵ ֣ ל ֳראִ ֑ י‬and ‘the God who sees’ has a different view on men. 3) Seeing as recognition. Seeing is basically recognition, and seeing as an opportunity that people have is the theme in the crucial passage in Matt 6,22f (Luke 11,34). The text starts with the headline about the importance of seeing = ‘light’ (ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώµατός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλµός). Luke adds σου – seeing is a possibility for everyone. Both Matthew and Luke continue: ἐὰν οὖν ᾖ ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου ἁπλοῦς, ὅλον τὸ σῶµά σου φωτεινὸν ἔσται· ἐὰν ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου πονηρὸς ᾖ, ὅλον τὸ σῶµά σου σκοτεινὸν ἔσται.184 Matthew therefore adds: Only if the light is taken away, will darkness prevail (εἰ οὖν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν, τὸ σκότος πόσον). The focus is ‘the good eye’ (ὀφθαλµός ἁπλοῦς),185 which is physiologically healthy/sound, psychologically single-minded/whole, ritually pure and morally humble/sincere. H.D. Betz has correctly seen the importance of this philosophical text (Matt 6,22f) in the SM. He reads the text against the background of ancient Greek theories of vision.186 The classical debate between an understanding of the imagery as ‘intromission’ or ‘extramission’ is still open. Modern commentators mostly presuppose that the concept of intromission lies behind the text: the light goes into the body through the eye.187 Exegetes prior to the Reformation and some recent interpreters insisted on an ‘extramission’ theory: the eye is itself the source of light, which enables us to see.188 184

The beautiful parallelism in Matthew comes out differently in Luke (11,34): ὅταν ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου ἁπλοῦς ᾖ, καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶµά σου φωτεινόν ἐστιν· ἐπὰν δὲ πονηρὸς ᾖ, καὶ τὸ σῶµά σου σκοτεινόν. 185 In the Tanach (Hab 1,13: “eyes too pure to behold evil”), in the Septuagint (Sir 35,8: “glorify God with a good eye”) and in the Mishnah, e.g. m.Abot 2,9 where R. Eliezer insisted that the good eye (‫ )עין טובה‬was the most important for man to walk on the right way. 186 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 437–458 (442–449); idem, “Matt 6,22–23 and Ancient Greek Theories of Vision” (1985). 187 Jülicher, Gleichnisreden II (21910/1976), 98ff, and Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 465. H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 450f, and idem, “Matt 6,22–23 and Ancient Greek Theories of Vision” (1985), does not stress this question, but presupposes this theory. Kari Syreeni, “A Single Eye: Aspects of the Symbolic World of Matt 6:22–23”, ST 53 (1999), 97–118, sees it differently. 188 Albrecht Dihle, “Vom sonnenhaften Auge”, in Horst-Dieter Blume/Friedhelm Mann (eds.), Platonismus und Christentum. FS H. Dörrie (JAC.E 10), Münster: Aschendorff 1983, 85–91, has listed good arguments for the ‘Platonic’ position, whereas Allison argues strongly in favour of the extra-mission theory, in “The Eye is the Lamp of the Body (Matthew 6.22–23 = Luke 11.34–36)”, NTS 33 (1987), 61–83, here 81; Davies/Allison,

404

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

Plato189 and Aristotle argued for more complex theories that include both perspectives.190 Pliny191 and Philo192 also have this balanced view. Singleness, ἁπλοῦς, is the opposite of evil, πονηρός, which sometimes can be double-minded, in this case have a double view.193 This singleness means integrity, that there is no difference between the internal and the external. It means to empty oneself and be filled by God. God as the source of light enables the light to be lightening (φωτεινός, 6,22). The response must be the opposite of ‘evil’: ἁπλοῦς/ἁπλότης, Latin simplicitas, the opposite of double or double-minded. Ἁπλοῦς emphasises the aspect of generosity.194 Light and darkness are not comparable. Light exists. Darkness is the result when the light is extinguished or taken away.195 Recognition/seeing can be blocked, and evil forces/darkness will prevail. 4) Seeing God and seeing the inside. The first two ὁράω-sayings (5,8.16) are highly important because of their place in the composition of the SM and because of their content. Matt 5,8 comes first. Seeing as the ultimate goal. Jewish and Hellenistic philosophy clash here. In the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle, it is crucial to see God. Seeing (θεωρία, in the New Testament used in Luke 23,48 only) God is the starting point for every recognition. According to Exod 33,20, however, seeing God is Matthew (1997), 635–637, with five arguments: 1. Most Jewish texts do so (e.g. T.Job 18,3). 2. A lamp is its own source. 3. The conclusion presupposes this. 4. The addition in Luke 11,36 creates difficulties. 5. Clement of Alexandria (Paed. III,11,70) has it. 189 The classical treatment is in Plato, Tim. 45b–46a, in the parables of the sun (Resp. VI 507b–509c) and of the cave (Resp. VII 514a–518b). H.D. Betz’ comments on these texts in Essays (1985), 50–53. 190 Theophrastus, De sensu et sensibilius (Περὶ αἰσθήσεως καὶ αἰσθητῶν), in Theophrasti Eresii Opera, ed. Friedrich Wimmer, Paris: Didot 1866, repr., Frankfurt: Minerva 1964. Cf. H.D. Betz, “Matt 6,22–23 and Ancient Greek Theories of Vision” (1985), 45; Allison, “The Eye is the Lamp of the Body” (above, n. 188), 63; Davies/Allison, Matthew (1997), 635. 191 Pliny, Naturalis historia, book II and his treatise (II,139–157) on the eye, “the most precious part of the body and the one that distinguishes life from death by the use it makes of the daylight” (139). “The eyes act like a sort of vessel receiving and transmitting the visible portion of the consciousness” (146) and no other part of the body supplies greater indications of self-restraint, mercy, pity, hatred, love, sorrow, joy” (145). He does not write on medicine. He takes a socio-anthropological approach. 192 Philo, Abr. 150–156; Opif. 53. 193 Wis 1,1–2a says: “Love righteousness you who are judges of the earth, think of the Lord in goodness and ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας seek him. For he is found by those who do not test him.” Similarly, Luke 11,34–36. The polemic context is also a close parallel. 194 The context for most of the ἁπλοῦς-sentences in early Christian literature (e.g. Rom 12,8; Jas 1,5) is similar. God is ἁπλοῦς, and we should have the same attitude. 195 Highly interesting is Isa 45,7, which uses the term ‘create’ about darkness and evil. God’s first work is doing peace (‫שׁ ֖לוֹם‬ ָ ‫ )ע ֶ ֹ֥שׂ ה‬and making light (‫ – )יוֹצֵ ֥ ר אוֹר‬and the effect is creating (‫בוֹר א‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ) ֔ח‬and evil (‫) ָ֑רע‬. The creation of light and peace comes first. ֣ ֵ ) darkness („‫שׁ‬ This revealed (‘created’) darkness and evil.

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

405

prohibited: “Nobody can see God and live.” Can the SM balance the two opposing views? The SM presupposes the Jewish ‘dogma’: Nobody can now see God and live, but it adds: to see God will be a heavenly reality, and the sixth macarism provides an eschatological promise: The ‘pure in heart’ will see God (αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται, 5,8). Hellenistic readers will certainly take that as a promise, encouraging them to continue the effort of θεωρία. To see the inside. Matt 5,16 about seeing the good works, follows sayings in which the inner relationship between things is underlined (5,13–15). The relationship between inside and outside was high on the agenda in Hellenistic philosophy. The outside reflects the inside, and Plato’s conviction that ideas formed nature and Aristotle’s view that inside ἐνέργεια forms every object, created the pattern of thought for philosophy and Christian theology. The language and argumentation in Matt 6,22f come closest to the Platonic position. Light/God and darkness/evil have indeed different forms of existence. Inward structure is the theme in the SM: 5,13: The ἐνέργεια of salt works (ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας µωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται;). 6,21: The heart determines our priorities in life (ὅπου ὁ θησαυρός σου, ἐκεῖ ἡ καρδία). 6,23: Only light exists, but without light, darkness rules (εἰ οὖν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν, τὸ σκότος πόσον). 7,15: False prophets are inwardly (ἔσωθεν) ferocious wolves. 7,17–19: Good trees bear good fruit. Bad trees produce bad fruit. These arguments were evident for everybody. A philosophically trained Stoic would follow the arguments.196 Erasmus of Rotterdam formulated the thesis that “neither nature nor necessity is rewarded” (neque natura neque necessitas habet meritum).197 The Stoic premise of vir bonus lingers more in Erasmus’ concept, whereas Luther in De servo arbitrio rejected the anthropological premise in Stoicism.198 To the reflection on the inward structure of things, he adds this theological premise: God sees the heart of people, and we should look after secrets in heaven. 6.5.4.2 Honour versus Shame: Judgmental Gaze Jewish texts with their offerings and sacrifice basically reflect a guilt culture, more than an honour and shame culture. The retrogression of a guilt culture 196

Seneca, Ira II 10,6; Ep. 87,25; Plutarch, Tranq. an. 13 (Mor. 472F); and Marcus Aurelius, Med. X,8,6. Cf. Ps.-Diogenes, Ep. 18 (on what has to come from a philosopher), and Philo, Congr. 4 and Gig. 4. 197 Erasmus, Diss. IIb. 198 Cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 536f.

406

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

normally makes the honour and shame culture more dominant, as we see in China, India, muslim countries, and even western secularized societies. There are huge differences in the definitions of what is honourable and what is shameful. However, one common factor is decisive: the other’s eye defines what is honourable or shameful. 1) Terminology and concept. The terms for honour (δοξάζω, δόξα) are occasionally used in the SM. The term µισθός is used more frequently (six times: 5,12.46; 6,1.2.5.16). Luke gives χάρις the same meaning in the parallel to Matt 5,46f (Luke 6,32.33.34). Honour is linked to the term merit (µισθός) when referring to religious practices. To give alms, pray and fast lead to honour among men (ἀπέχουσιν τὸν µισθὸν αὐτῶν, Matt 6,2.5.16). Seeing and reward/honour is nearly the same thing.199 2) Honour and shame. To be honoured by men is a daily life experience and follows the current standards for what is honourable, praiseworthy, beautiful, etc. Honour was a big issue in Aristotle’s reflection on τὰ ἔνδοξα, εὐδαιµονία in relation to wealth.200 In the SM true reward differs qualitatively from ordinary acceptance, and from what you normally expect. The publicans expect love and greetings from their colleagues, and they are obligated to give love and greetings in return. The true reward is given to the persecuted (5,12 = Luke 6,23: ὁ µισθὸς ὑµῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) and the righteous (6,1: τὴν δικαιοσύνην … ποιεῖν). The SM refers three times to this kind of honour: 5,46f: τίνα µισθὸν ἔχετε; τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; (= Luke 6,35) 6,1: µὴ ποιεῖν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς 6,28: οὐδὲ Σολοµὼν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ περιεβάλετο ὡς ἓν τούτων. The SM warns against this kind of honour and does not even mention the prevalent form of honour, the type people receive from authorities, kings, and other honorary people. Honour is what men should give God (5,16: ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑµῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑµῶν), and the real honour is to be honoured by God (6,4.6.18). God honours people who suffer or defeat injustice. Those who do justice in the eight µακάριος-sentences (5,3–12) will prevail. Matt 7,22f can be seen in this context. People who seek recognition due to prophecy, driving out demons and performing miracles, have not obtained the true reward. The theme of the SM is honour rather than shame, and the normal terms for shame do not occur in the SM (καταπατεῖν, etc.).201 199

To be seen by men (ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 6,1) is something different from the reward from God (µισθὸν οὐκ ἔχετε παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὑµῶν τῷ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς). 200 Aristotle, Eth. Eud. II,1,19 (1219a35–38); Εth. Νic. I,7,14 (1098a7–20). 201 But not αἰσχύνοµαι; only in Luke 16,3 or ἐπαισχύνοµαι, Mark 8,38; Luke 9,28 (not in the Matthean parallel).

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

407

Shame can be inflicted upon someone: 5,22: ὃς δ᾿ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ· ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται … ὃς δ᾿ ἂν εἴπῃ· µωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται … 5,39–42: experience shameful behaviour ‘Inflicted shame’ can be based on a discrepancy: that people differ in what they think is normal behaviour or standard (‘discrepancy shame’), but it is often based on moral standards and ethical reflection (‘moral shame’). The latter is presupposed in the SM. The audience should feel ashamed and is warned against stupid behaviour: 5,13: εἰ µὴ βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων 7,6: µήποτε καταπατήσουσιν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ στραφέντες ῥήξωσιν ὑµᾶς 7,9–11.12: τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑµῶν ἄνθρωπος, … acting shamefully as a father? 7,13: εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν 7,19: tree not giving fruit 7,27: ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς µεγάλη One should feel morally ashamed if one ignores God’s intention, God’s model for acting and how God in the end evaluates our reflections and behaviour. 6.5.5 How to Overcome Broken Relationships? If hearing comes before seeing, the anthropological premises for hearing must be clarified. It is not about sin versus grace; we are far from Rom 1,18–3,20 and judgment-sayings and accusation of all people because of their misunderstandings and wrongdoing. The SM presupposes a broken relationship, but also that God as the patron gives us gifts. 1) Sin and reconciliation; men as patrons. After the Reformation and in modern, western cultures, sin, forgiveness and reconciliation have been seen in a ‘God-man’ perspective: they are theological themes. For a culturallinguistic approach, a broader perspective is necessary, and social-anthropological tools are often used. In most cultures, social anthropology finds the following system for regulating people’s lives: Customs

Laws

Cultic rules

Values/attitudes

expectation violation action goal

be loyal conflict expulsion building community

behave legally crime/sin punishment escape God’s judgment

performing transgression excommunication escape God’s judgment

in charge

king, parents judges

acceptance sin/disregard rejection reconciliation (forgiveness) prophets, sages

priest, Scribes/Pharisees

408

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

The SM reflects all these aspects: the cultic rules in Matt 6,1–18 and lawsentences in 5,21.27.32.43. Customs are reflected in Matt 5,33–36.38–42.46f; 7,6–11, and values in 5,2–12; 6,19–35; 7,1–5.21–27. The SM deals primarily with ethical issues, but occasionally uses judicial language: To be judged (κρίνειν, κρίσις, κρίµα) is used six times in the SM (5,40; 7,1f),202 and together with ἔνοχος (twice) and ἀντίδικος they are distinct themes in the SM.203 As we see in Matt 5,22 and 5,28, etc. no distinction is made between criminal and ethical cases. ‘Laws’ and ‘values’ become crucial in the God-man relation. The big threats to men and women are evil, sin, broken relationships. 2) Sin in unjust societies. This kind of language is deeply rooted in the Tanach and Jewish thinking, and not so much in Hellenistic texts. Hellenistic philosophers discuss the problem of reconciliation in political and ethical writings. The SM does not use ἁµαρτία, Matthew’s favourite term (1,21; 3,6; 9,2.5f; 12,31; 26,28). Two relatively rare words for ‘sin’ are used in Matt 6,12.14f: guilt, ὀφείληµα (only in the SM and in Rom 4,4), and παράπτωµα, mostly transgression of a commandment, only here in Matthew (= Mark 11,25). Sin means a broken relationship with God and men. The same is presupposed by κρίνειν (5,40; 7,1f), ἀντίδικος (5,24).204 Sin as injustice and apostasy is the theme only when ἀφιέναι is used twice in a saying (6,12.14f). Nor is it about repentance. The so-called Lutheran understanding of the SM as ‘guardians to Christ’ is far from the linguistic facts. The texts deal with violations of relatively equal relationships and daily life conflicts rather than serious injustice and apostasy. We are far from prophetic criticism and closer to wisdom instructions. The context is a society of inequality and imbalance, however, between oppressor and victim, poor and rich, elite and ordinary people, etc. Evil is perceived as ‘destiny’, ‘normality’, and inferior persons must suffer in a submissive relation. This is the situation in Matt 5,10–12.38–44. 6.5.5.1 Forgiveness and Reconciliation The only way to re-establish righteousness is forgiveness and to be reconciled. Among the terms for ‘forgiving’ ἀφιέναι is the most important, and it is used both in relation to God and ‘men’.205 Ἐλεέω deals mostly with God’s 202 Κρίνειν (Matt 19,28), κρίσις (10,15.22; 11,22.24; 12,18.20.36.41f; 23,23.33), κρίµα (12,40) also. 203 Plus Matt 26,66 = Mark 14,64, and in Mark 3,29; 1 Cor 11,27; Heb 2,15; Jas 2,10. Ἀντίδικος is used twice in Matt 5,24; ἀφιέναι is used nine times (see below). 204 Matt 5,24.40; 7,4 and twice in 6,12.14.15. 205 Nine times, Matt 5,24.40; 6,12.12.14.14.15.15; 7,4, and six times (6,12.14f) in the meaning of forgiving.

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

409

relationship to men,206 and Matt 5,23f uses sacrificial language. The following texts are relevant: 5,7: µακάριοι οἱ ἐλεήµονες, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθήσονται. 5,23f: ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς τὸ δῶρόν σου ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον … 6,12: ἄφες ἡµῖν τὰ ὀφειλήµατα ἡµῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡµεῖς ἀφήκαµεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡµῶν. 6,14f: ἐὰν γὰρ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παραπτώµατα αὐτῶν, ἀφήσει καὶ ὑµῖν ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος· ἐὰν δὲ µὴ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ἀφήσει τὰ παραπτώµατα ὑµῶν. 7,3–5: Remove (ἐκβαλεῖν) first the ‘plank’ (in your own eye), then the ‘speck’. To heal a broken relationship, generosity is required. The model in the SM is always God. Early Christians had the Lord’s Prayer as a pattern of thought, and that prayer is a reformulation of the Jewish morning and evening prayers.207 Stoic texts can occasionally use similar language.208 Asking for forgiveness is necessary for reconciliation. Two texts, both parables which Matthew adds to the Antitheses, have this topic: 5,24: ὕπαγε πρῶτον διαλλάγηθι τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου. 5,25f: ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχύ, ἕως ὅτου εἶ µετ᾿ αὐτοῦ … Both διαλλάσσοµαι (5,24) and εὐνοέω are hapax legomena in the New Testament, but well known in Greek philosophy, at least since Aristotle.209 Later Christian texts speak of reconciliation in different terms. The willingness to forgive is indeed necessary for reconciliation, but forgiveness does not always lead or should not always lead to reconciliation. Even the terminology indicates that we are far from a Pauline notion of reconciliation, as Paul’s kind of reconciliation is more than forgiveness or reconciliation as an ethical challenge. Matt 5,25f tells us in a parable what reconciliation with God is all about.

206

Cf. Matt 9,27; 15,22; 17,15; 18,33; 20,30f, plus ἔλεος in 9,13; 12,7; 23,23. b.Ber. 60b: “bring me not into the power of sin, bring me not into the power of debt, bring me not into the power of temptation …” 208 Seneca, Ira II 10; 6; Epictetus, Diss. II,18,1 (rather show them their error); Marcus Aurelius, Med. II,1; IV,39.42. 209 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. VIII–IX, esp. IX,5 (1166b30): ἡ δ’ εὔνοια φιλικῷ µὲν ἔοικεν, οὐ µὴν ἔστι γε φιλία (goodwill appears to be an element – and in fact the beginning – of friendship; cf. Xenophon, Mem. II,6,20. 207

410

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

6.5.5.2 Giving and Receiving: God as Patron Forgiveness and giving are related, but the imagery behind is different. Forgiveness has to do with sin and a broken relationship. Giving presupposes a giving person, a patron. The key terms are διδόναι,210 δῶρον,211 and ‘asking and receiving’. ‘Asking’ (αἰτεῖν) does not necessarily mean ‘prayer’, 6,8 (18,19; 21,22). It is rather more general in 5,42; 7,7–11; (14,27; 20,20.22; 27,20.56). Reward, µισθός, is to receive something one deserves. The perspective in the ὅτι-sentences of the Beatitudes is giving: to them belongs the Kingdom (αὐτῶν ἐστιν, 5,3.10; αὐτοί, 5,4–9). Giving is the theme in the metonymic saying about sun and rain as gracious gifts from God (Matt 5,45). God is the patron: 5,45: τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει ἐπὶ πονηροὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς καὶ βρέχει ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους. 6,11: τὸν ἄρτον ἡµῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡµῖν σήµερον. 7,11: πόσῳ µᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς δώσει ἀγαθὰ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν. God as patron is the model for the disciples, already in the last antithesis, and in 7,11, using the term δίδωµι as response to a petition (αἰτέω). Matt 7,6 decribes a lavish behaviour: giving without any petition: 5,42: τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι µὴ ἀποστραφῇς. 7,6: µὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσὶν µηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς µαργαρίτας ὑµῶν … 7,7: αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑµῖν, ζητεῖτε καὶ εὑρήσετε, κρούετε καὶ … The gift is both premise and goal. God who gives life, demonstrates that acts of giving structure life. Even evil people give and do good, and God’s love for evil people should be no surprise. It is a vital part of a Christian philosophy of life. Giving and reciprocity. Giving is essential in symmetric relations. It is required even in asymmetric relations, where nothing can be expected in return. In the former case a gift is an act of reciprocity, in the latter case an act of generosity. “Reciprocity is the principle and practice of voluntary requital, of benefit for benefit (positive reciprocity) or harm for harm (negative reciprocity)”.212 210

Matt 5,31 (δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον). In Matt 2,11; 8,4; 15,5 (= Mark 7,11); 23,18f. In the SM 5,23f: ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς τὸ δῶρόν σου ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον. Luke has δῶρον only in 21,11.14. 212 Richard Seaford’s definition in Christopher Gill/Norman Postlethwaite/Richard Seaford (eds.), Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, New York: Oxford University Press 1998, 1. Gary Stansell, “Gabe und Reziprozität: Zur Dynamik von Gaben in den synoptischen 211

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

411

The role of benefactors/patrons was an important issue in the first century CE.213 We find various forms of patronage, social exchange,214 benefaction and patrocinium.215 The function of social exchange and the dimensions of reciprocity were better understood through Marcel Mauss’ groundbreaking study on gifts.216 Mauss and later social studies operate with three kinds of reciprocity (negative, balanced and generalized):217 The first, negative reciprocity, is based on the interest of one part. The relation to strangers and enemies has this character. This kind of ‘reciprocity” is the theme in Matt 5,41 (forced to walk one mile). ‘Balanced reciprocity’ is the normal way of behaving, whereas ‘generalized reciprocity’ is normal behaviour within the family. To practise ‘generalized reciprocity’ in relation to neighbours and even enemies is a revolutionary message. A philosophical treatise on δόσις καὶ λῆµψις is found as early as in Aristotle218 and it is hardly a coincidence that Paul uses the Aristotelian terms when he criticises some of his churches in Phil 4,15.219 Aristotle mentions the theme as an example for ‘via media’, as the right ethical attitude when it comes to handling money. The meaning for Aristotle is in this case liberality or, rather, inner freedom (µεσότης µὲν ἐλευθεριότης).220 Aristotle is also concerned about the prodigal behaviour of excessive spending (ὑπερβάλλω, ὑπερβολή) which he sees as an expression of tastelessness, vulgarity and deficiency. Cicero221 and Seneca in the first century reflected on the consequences of beneficial acts for daily life. Like Aristotle, Cicero sees two kinds of generosity demonstrated through involvement or through money (2,52: aut opera, aut pecunia). To be generous is not the same as being lavish and wasting money (2,55: alteri prodigi alteri liberales). Cicero would have called the attitude in Matt 7,6 lavish (prodigi, like “the prodigal son”; Luke

Evangelien”, in Wolfgang Stegemann/Bruce J. Malina/Gerd Theißen (eds.), Jesus in neuen Kontexten, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2002, 185–196. 213 More recently we have extensive treatments of the topic and its history of research, cf. Joubert, Paul as Benefactor (2000), 37–40; J. Marshall, Jesus, Patrons and Benefactors (2009), 25–52, 191–247 (on the SP). Studies in the field of social anthropology and ancient history have inspired these scholars, but Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field, St. Louis: Clayton 1982, started the study of this topic before the dialogue with social anthropology was launched. 214 E.g. Joubert, Paul as Benefactor (2000), 17–72. 215 E.g. J. Marshall, Jesus, Patrons and Benefactors (2009), 25–91. 216 Mauss, “Essai sur le don” (1923/24)/The Gift (1990). The number of editions and translations is hard to overlook. 217 Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology (1986), esp. 101–107 (on generalized, balanced and negative reciprocity). 218 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. II,7,4: περὶ δὲ δόσιν καὶ λῆµψιν. 219 “Not one church shared with me (ἐκοινώνησεν) εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήµψεως except you only.” Joubert, Paul as Benefactor (2000), 37–40, emphasises other texts in Aristotle’s Ethica Nicomachea and Rhetoric (1361a–1361b3). 220 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. II,7 (1107b10). 221 Particularly in Cicero, Off. II,52–60.

412

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

15,11ff). Similarly, Seneca starts his comprehensive treatise222 with the topic ‘misuse of valuable goods’. He thinks the institution of benefactor keeps a good society together (quae maxime humanam societatem adligat) and the ethos, to be gracious and not lavish, is an important force.223 He analyses texts like Matt 7,6–12 under three aspects: on giving a benefit (beneficium dare), on accepting a benefit (beneficium accipere) and on returning a benefit (beneficium reddere).224

The role of benefactors illuminates the pattern behind Matt 7,6–11: Matt 7,6 warns against an overly lavish attitude, the ridiculous giving to false recipients. Matt 7,6 speaks about giving gifts that dogs/pigs do not need. Matt 7,7ff speaks about receiving. Aristotle also deals with the right way of receiving.225 Here is the principle of ‘generalized reciprocity’ exemplified. Needy people will receive, find, doors will be opened for them. Matt 7,9f speaks of false and true giving. False giving is in this case – as in 7,6 – stupid (even cruel) behaviour. Right giving is to give exactly what people need, based on men’s and basically God’s generosity. The Golden Rule, Matt 7,12, produces a final argument: You should do/give to others what you wish others would do/give to you. Matt 7,6–12 expresses briefly and metaphorically the theme of giving and receiving (δόσις καὶ λῆµψις) – so briefly and so metaphorically that the saying in Matt 7,6 is often misunderstood and Matt 7,7f is understood in a too narrow sense.226 Life is basically about receiving and giving, and so Matt 7,6– 11 preaches a kind of existential philosophy. The willingness to give, including when it is not expected, and the openness to other people both by asking and giving, is often seen as the secret of a good life. It is the opposite of an isolated, egocentric lifestyle, where you try to be secure and do not see and interact with many people. This lifestyle transcends the ‘benefactor’ system in Roman Stoicism.

222

He gives a short summary in Seneca, Ben. I,4,2f. He later developed his reflections in seven books and made some additional remarks about how to handle ungrateful people (in his Moral epistles, Ep. 81). 223 Seneca, Ben. I,4,2: nec superfluere, haec ipsa observatio restringat, dum temperat. 224 Engberg-Pedersen, “Gift-Giving and Friendship” (2008), 19–22, and Jaubert, Paul as Benefactor (2000), 40–51, have extensively analysed Seneca’s treatises, based on Seneca’s fundamental ethical reflections. 225 Humorously formulated ἐν δὲ λὴψει ἐλλείπει in Aristotle, Eth. Nic. II,7 (1107b12): “the excess and deficiency are Prodigality and Meanness. [They] exceed and fall short in opposite ways to one another: the prodigal exceeds in giving and is deficient in getting, whereas the mean man exceeds in getting and is deficient in giving.” 226 The extended meaning of Matt 7,7f might be that these sayings relate to prayer. Primarily they are part of a discussion on reciprocity and on giving and receiving.

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

413

6.5.5.3 ‘The Other’ Constitutes an Ethical Relationship The SM – and Jesus’ teaching in general – has an unusual starting point: there is no introspective analysis of oneself. The starting point is our meeting with our counterpart; ‘the Other’ challenges our values and behaviour. ‘The Other’ represents an obligation. Emmanuel Levinas has recently made ‘the Other’ a decisive ethical category, obviously inspired by the SM and Jesus’ teaching in general.227 1) ‘The Other’ and norms. The relation to others is fundamental in the SM. It is summarized in the Golden Rule, 7,12 (οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς), and the Decalogue prepares for this type of thinking. It eliminates halachic laws and issues apodictic, absolute, radical commands. It is an ethics of attitude. The attitude of the moral person towards ‘the Other’ is the force of the ‫•א‬-commandments, Exod 20,13–17 and of the exhortation to honour (‫ ) ַכּ בֵּד‬others (heads of families) in 20,12. The extension to anger and lust, (20,17 ‫ ) ַתחְמ ֹד‬deepens the ethical devices. The SM emphasises exactly these features. The addition of Exod 20,13f to the commandments in the Antitheses (Matt 5,21–32) presents the challenge from ‘the Other’. Anger and lust are self-centred forces, and as soon as they dominate, the focus on others is forgotten. 2) ‘The Other’ is simply included in the 2nd person plural form of the verb. The ‘would-be disciples’ are constantly challenged by ‘others’, as we see in the following texts: 5,40: τῷ θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἄφες αὐτῷ … 5,42: τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ δανίσασθαι µὴ … 5,44: ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑµῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑµᾶς … 5,46f: ἀγαπήσητε/ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑµῶν µόνον … 6,1: προσέχετε τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑµῶν µὴ ποιεῖν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 6,12: ἄφες ἡµῖν τὰ ὀφειλήµατα ἡµῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡµεῖς ἀφήκαµεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡµῶν. 6,14f: ἐὰν (µὴ) ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παραπτώµατα αὐτῶν … 7,1f: µὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε … ἐν ᾧ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε µετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν. The significance of ‘others’ corresponds with the emphasis on individuals. The prophets in Israel addressed the authorities and the people in general. The wisdom literature addressed certain people, the family, and the people of Israel. Jesus/the SM addresses individuals: the ‘you’ (plural and singular), brothers, everybody, etc.; not groups, not the leaders in Israel or the people of Israel. This universal addressee is a remarkable feature in the SM. 227

Levinas, Humanism (2003); idem, Otherwise than Being (1991), 9ff.

414

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

The ‘Other’ is the point of orientation in the Antitheses and in the Golden Rule. The selection of topoi in the Antitheses cannot be explained by the Decalogue alone, because two or three of the antitheses have little to do with the Decalogue. H.D. Betz has suggested that there is one unifying theme: the challenge of broken relationships. Murder and anger, infidelity and divorce, oaths, retaliation and hatred demonstrate broken relationships.228 Luz similarly sees ‘love’ as the basic idea in the Antitheses,229 and one might also say that covenants and breaking covenants are the issue. Betz and Luz point in the right direction, but other aspects of the Antitheses should be added. Fundamental questions are indeed at stake: life and death, emotions, love, words/ communication, reconciliation or revenge, friends and foes. The encounter with others makes these questions absolutely vital. The challenges are very explicit: anger, lust, greed, desire, the mentality of rulers, lying, revenge and hatred. Argumentation against these negative forces is the main issue in the Antitheses. The opposites in the topoi are also implied in the argumentation. The SM also elsewhere underlines themes like love, faithfulness, truth, reconciliation and forgiveness. The Golden Rule – the first and only explicit, ethical norm in the SM – summarizes Matt 5,17–7,11.230 The more recent contributions to Matt 7,12 offer new insights into the Golden Rule as norm and as summary.231 Here the point is this emphasis on ‘the Other’.232 6.5.5.4 Righteousness and ‘Doing’ The behaviour based on the principle of generosity/general reciprocity sounds strange in a Hellenistic context. Kingdoms are normally ruled according to 228

H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 215–328, concludes correctly every saying in the Antitheses with ethical reflections. 229 Luz, “Bergpredigt: I. Neues Testament”, RGG4 1 (1998), 1311. Weder, Rede der Reden (1985), 153, argues along the same lines as Bultmann: “Während das Gesetz am Grenzfall orientiert ist, macht Jesu Forderung den Willen Gottes unbegrenzt geltend”. 230 Leonidas J. Philippidis, Die ‘Goldene Regel’ religionsgeschichtlich untersucht, Leipzig: Klein 1929; Dihle, Die Goldene Regel (1962); idem, “Goldene Regel”, RAC 11 (1981), 930–940, cf. his general article on ethics: “Ethik”, RAC 6 (1966), 646–796; Jeffrey Wattles, The Golden Rule, New York: Oxford University Press 1996. 231 Hans Reiner, “Die ‘goldene Regel’: Die Bedeutung einer sittlichen Grundformel der Menschheit”, Zeitschrift für philologische Forschung 3 (1948), 74–105; idem, “Die goldene Regel und das Naturrecht”, Studia Leibnitiana 9 (1977), 231–254; Paul Ricœur, “The Golden Rule: Exegetical and Theological Perplexities”, NTS 36 (1990), 392–397; James Gould, “The Not-So-Golden Rule”, Southern Journal of Philosophy 5 (1965), 10– 14; idem, “The Golden Rule”, American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 4 (1983), 73–79; H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 508–519. 232 Levinas, Otherwise than Being (1991), 9ff; Weder, Rede der Reden (1985), 153; cf. Baasland, “The Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount” (2013), 82–84.

415

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

the principle of retribution. The SM speaks about the Kingdom of Heaven. Already in the Beatitudes the two key words are linked together, and they occur three times in the same crucial sentence: Kingdom of Heaven Righteousness

Matt 5,3.10 5,19.20 Matt 5,6.10 5,20

6,11 6,1

6,33 6,33

7,21

It is remarkable that Luke uses δικαιοσύνη only once, and outside the SM δικαιοσύνη occurs only twice in Matthew, and only in connection with John the Baptist: 3,15: οὕτως γὰρ πρέπον ἐστὶν ἡµῖν πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην. 21,32: ἦλθεν γὰρ Ἰωάννης πρὸς ὑµᾶς ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης …233 A Hellenistic reader would have been confused about this strange teaching of righteousness, a favourite term for many philosophers.234 Basically, we find nearly everywhere a retributive thinking about righteousness. Aristotle based his reflections concerning universal obedience to laws and justice on a primarily equitable, ‘distributive’ understanding of justice. He argued that the state should divide or distribute goods and wealth among citizens according to merit.235 Plato saw δικαιοσύνη as the fourth virtue, balancing φρόνησις (for leaders), ἀνδρεία (for the military) and σωφροσύνη (for ordinary people).236 The recent debates on distributive righteousness are (since J.S. Mills) dominated by utilitarian positions, particularly the position of Karl Marx (provide according to ability, receive according to needs), liberalistic positions (e.g. Robert Nordzik) or J.S. Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness (an unequal society can be defended if under-privileged people profit from it).

1) Jewish concepts add to the distributive justice237 reflections which saw the Law as the source of righteousness. To do all that is required in the Law has 233

In the latter saying the term faith is used three times; Jesus says that even publicans and prostitutes believed in him (οἱ δὲ τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι ἐπίστευσαν αὐτῷ) – as opposed to the Jewish priests. 234 Only some aspects of this often-debated topic, δικαιοσύνη, can be dealt with here. Scholars tend to treat the Jewish background comprehensively and the Hellenistic parallels superficially. Hartmut Günther, “Die Gerechtigkeit des Himmelreiches in der Bergpredigt”, KD 17 (1971), 113–126 (“Verhältnisbegriff”, 124). Strecker, Weg der Gerechtigkeit (1962), 149, is on the right track. 235 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. V (1129a–1138b), is a masterpiece on this topic, with the definition of different kinds of justice in V,4 (1129b25–28), V,9 (1134a2–8) – and in V,10 (1135b8–27). 236 Plato, Leg. VI,5 (757b–758a) with a definition in Leg. 443c(ff). For the orientation from the definition of ‘good’, Resp. VI (505a) and IX (580bc). and on the four vices, Leg. I (630f) and Resp. IV (368c–369b; 427–445). 237 Concerning this aspect and its background from long before the Hellenistic philosophers (Maat in Egypt, etc.), Johannes Pedersen provided new impulses to the debates on

416

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

both ethical and cultic consequences.238 Another pattern of thought in the Tanach was more profound for Jesus, Paul and the early Christians: their reflections on righteousness were based on prophetic texts, especially from (Deutero-)Isaiah. Jesus’ teaching/the SM follows up this teaching.239 ∆ικαιοσύνη is used six times in the SM, and never in the SP.240 5,6: µακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην241 5,10: µακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγµένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης242 5,20: ἐὰν µὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑµῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραµµατέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ µὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.243 6,1: προσέχετε [δὲ] τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑµῶν µὴ ποιεῖν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς. 6,33: ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν [τοῦ θεοῦ] καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑµῖν. The repetition of righteousness in Jesus’ eschatological teaching (5,6 and 5,10) is powerful.244 No time-table is given. It is about balancing injustice, righteousness in his Israel, its life and culture, 2 vols., London: Oxford University Press 1926. 238 Ps 89,14 (“righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne”). In Qumran, 4Q525 has seven beatitudes and concludes with “blessed are those who are wise and live in the Torah”. 239 Isa 51,6 (“my salvation will last forever, my righteousness will never fail”); 52,7 (“How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, … who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns’”); 61,3 (“they will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the Lord”); 61,10 (“For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness”). Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (1965), has still the most comprehensive material on this aspect. As a student of Käsemann he added the apocalyptic horizon for this teaching. 240 In Luke 1,75 in the Septuagint expression ἐν ὁσιότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ, cf. Wis 9,3. 241 Isa 55,1ff: “Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! … Listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare”; Ps 107,3–9. Cf. Isa 25,6ff – the eschatological meal, Isa 49,10: “they will neither hunger nor thirst”. 242 Cf. Ps 85,10: “Love and faithfulness meet together; righteousness and peace kiss each other.” 243 Cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 125–130, where I debate three options: the quantitative interpretation (Jesus adds new commandments); the qualitative interpretation (he enacts new entrance requirements); the third option: the Pharisees and Scribes are stereotypes, and the point of Matt 5,20 is an invitation to ‘decision making’, to a pilgrimage where ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη) is the starting point, the road map and the goal. 244 Two of four additions in the µακάριος-sentences have this term: 5,3: οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύµατι 5,6: οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην 5,8: οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ 5,10: οἱ δεδιωγµένοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

417

more about quality than time. Jesus proclaims justice for the hungry (Matt 5,6) and the persecuted (5,10) and for those who live according to his commandments (5,19f). This is the righteousness that surpasses the Pharisees’ and Scribes’ (5,20). It is based on a theocentric perspective. The goal is the glory of God (5,16); reward from God, not reward coming from men (6,1–18). The principles for the new righteousness do not represent thinking based on lex talionis or ‘do ut des’. The ‘logic of superabundance’ or of generosity and forgiveness is the real issue in many antitheses. The Antitheses in Matt 5 are on relationships to friends and foes, whereas Matt 6 deals with the relationship to God. Both types of antitheses reflect the premise of the lex talionis: Matt 5 reflects on this principle in everyday life, Matt 6 sees the same principle in a judgmental perspective. The background for Matt 6,1–18 is the notion of ‫ צְדָ קָה‬as ‘acts of righteousness’ in Jewish texts, which often in Pharisaic circles were exemplified with alms, prayer and fasting.245 Matt 6,1–18 does not issue new laws about alms, prayer and fasting. The climax in the theology of righteousness is Matt 6,33: “seek the Kingdom and his righteousness” (τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ). The righteousness reflects God’s own righteousness. The so-called ‘Lutheran’ interpretation, assuming that righteousness is a ‘gift’, is a one-sided interpretation. The possessive pronoun ‘its’ (αὐτοῦ) is used: the Kingdom of God is more than the gift. It is a way of thinking and living. The addition, that “all these things will be given to you as well” (ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑµῖν) is an amazing statement, perfectly following up the theme in 6,25–32. The righteousness balances the state of injustice. In the SM, the saying about judging in 7,1 follows the key sentence in 6,33: condemnation breaks a reciprocal relation. To judge and condemn means acting like God. This is not a strange statement in an Hellenistic context. In Greek mythology Zeus and his daughter Dike = ∆ίκη, righteousness, act as judge. The argument here is based on the Jewish conviction that Yahve, according to the Tanach, is the only judge. The vivid apostrophe in Matt 7,1f says rather: Do not play God! You will be judged by God – and with the same judgment as you have used. Reflections on true reciprocity are behind the sayings on ‘judging and seeing’ (7,3–5), ‘judging and giving/receiving’ (7,6–11), which conclude with the Golden Rule (7,12).246 245 ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬means mostly alms (Sir 35,12; Tob 12,6–8) and as a general name for justice, good deeds, mercy, etc. it covered the three piety rules. The deeds of mercy, ‫גמלות חסדים‬, overlap slightly (Sir 12,1; Sib. Or. II,79, cf. Matt 25,35f.42f; Did. 1,6). Bill. I, 385–425 on Matt 6,1, and IV/2, 1044–1096. 246 Matt 7,1 and 7,12 have a distinct character, introducing overriding principles. The rhetorical features are also similar. The negative form in Matt 7,1 (µὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε) makes use of alliteration with κ, whereas Matt 7,12 has alliteration with the more

418

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

2) The SM is about doing/practice: to do or not to do – that is the question. Hearing comes first, but visibility and visible practices were crucial for Jews and in the SM. The emphasis on the ‘inward’ and ‘secret’ in Matt 6,1–18 is always combined with an emphasis on doing. This combination is presented already in the saying about salt and light, where we see the dynamic between inside and outside: 5,13: ὑµεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς· 5,14: ὑµεῖς ἐστε τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσµου. The two sentences correspond, but they also bring out two different aspects: salt has an inward structure and is an invisible power. Light has an outward structure and is visible. Neither can replace the other: salt is salt and light is light. Both are necessities in life, both have a lasting effect, both can be prevented from doing their job, and that could have a fatal effect. The effect of salt and light is crucial. What they are doing is the issue. Therefore, doing or not doing is indeed the question. 3) Terminology and concept. Καρπός is used in metaphorical sayings (7,17–19),247 θέληµα (6,10; 7,21) occurs in crucial sayings, but ποιεῖν is a key word in the SM. Ποιεῖν can mean ‘to cause’ (5,32: πορνείας ποιεῖν, 5,36: τρίχα λευκὴν ποιῆσαι, 7,17–19: ποιεῖν καρπόν, and 7,22: δυνάµεις πολλὰς ἐποιήσαµεν). In 5,32 and 7,17–19 ποιεῖν has an ethical meaning, and even more so in around ten other occurrences in the SM: 5,19: ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ, οὗτος … 5,46f: τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν 6,1: τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑµῶν µὴ ποιεῖν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων 6,2: µὴ … ὥσπερ οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ποιοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς 6,3: σοῦ δὲ ποιοῦντος ἐλεηµοσύνην 7,12: πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς 7,21: ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ πατρός µου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς 7,24: πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς 7,26: πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ µὴ ποιῶν αὐτούς This ethical term ποιεῖν, and ποιεῖν in combination with ἀκούειν, δικαιοσύνη, θέληµα, shows clearly what the meaning of the SM is. 4) Practice as correct understanding. Matt 5,19 says that teaching is important, but doing is more important. The better righteousness in 5,20 must therefore refer to doing. In the Antitheses correct understanding is the point, frequently used π (the significant words ποιεῖν three times plus πάντα and προφῆται), the most-used letter for alliteration.246 247 Prepared in Matt 3,8.10 (John’s teaching) and elsewhere in the parables, Matt 12,33; 13,8.26; 21,19.34.41.43.

6.5 The SM as Philosophy of Life

419

but this understanding must lead to doing. Matt 5,48 summarizes this by taking God as example (ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑµεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν). Matt 6,11 (γενηθήτω τὸ θέληµά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς) and 6,33 underline both the Kingdom of God and his righteousness (τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ). The summary in the Golden Rule (οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς) demonstrates ethical behaviour as a total commitment. The peroratio 7,13–27 is all about doing, bearing fruit (7,16–20), doing, not just saying or doing miracles, and it concludes with the parables about houses on sand or on the rock. The discerning will not fear a test of fruit or of resistance to flooding. 6.5.5.5 The SM and Hellenistic Philosophy In GTh 13 Jesus asked his disciples “who am I like?”, and Peter answered “a righteous angel”. Matthew’s (the disciple) answer is fascinating. He said to him: “You are like an (especially) wise philosopher” (ⲛ̅ⲟⲩ̣ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲙ̅ⲫⲓⲗⲟⲥⲟⲫⲟⲥ ⲛ̅ⲣⲙ̅ⲛ̅ϩⲏⲧ, 13,3). Does the Gospel of Matthew have this perspective? There are obviously philosophical elements in the SM. Texts from Q (Matt 6,19–33; 7,7–11.13f), and some from Mark (Matt 5,29f; 6,19; 7,2.8), but not least texts from Matthew’s Sondergut (Matt 5,21f.33–37.45; 6,34; 7,6) have an eminently philosophical character. Luke has not elaborated on the philosophical aspects in his SP. Matthew elaborates on the theme of good life in a way which fits into a Hellenistic-Jewish context. The expressions πραΰς, ἐλεήµων, καθαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ and εἰρηνοποιός, sound somewhat strange to a non-Jewish audience, but would be better understood in the context of a good-life text. The text on good life versus limited goods, 6,19–34, fits extremely well, not least Matthew’s minor addition to the Q tradition in 6,34. This saying completes the philosophical argument and underlines the theme of tranquility. Finally Matthew elaborates on the eschatological saying in Luke 13,23f in a way that philosophically trained people would understand better. Matthew emphasises anthropology in 5,29f (= Mark 9,43–48); 7,9 (= Luke 11,12), and elaborates further on it in Matt 12,34; 15,14; 26,32c. Matt 20,15 uses the term evil eye exactly in this context (ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου πονηρός ἐστιν ὅτι ἐγὼ ἀγαθός εἰµι).248 Many themes in the SM are not followed up later in Matthew, like the themes of anger (Matt 5,22), on alms and fasting (6,2–4.16–18), on worrying (6,25–34), on judging (7,1f), on giving pearls to swine (7,6), etc. Matthew can reuse ethical terms from the SM (δικαιοσύνη, τέλειος, θέληµα),249 and some are developed later (ἔλεος, τηρεῖν, ἀγάπη, etc.). Matthew lifts the term 248

Mark 7,22 mentions ὀφθαλµὸς πονηρός among other vices. ∆ικαιοσύνη, five times in key sayings, elsewhere Matt 3,15, 21,32; τέλειος in 5,48 and 19,21; θέληµα in 6,10; 7,21, cf. 12,50; 18,14; 21,31; 26,42. 249

420

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

δικαιοσύνη and the themes of forgiveness and giving, seeing, and honour versus shame, to a higher philosophical level. To sum up: The themes and argumentation will easily be understood in a Graeco-Roman context. There is even a philosophical awareness. The ethical terms have a general character, but many Hellenistic ethical terms are not used. At the end the SM is a dialogue primarily with Jewish ethical thinking.

6.6 Appendix: The SM and Matthew The SM is a genuine part of Matthew’s Gospel, and Matthew uses the SM as Jesus’ programmatic speech in his Gospel. To distinguish the two seems artificial. However, scholarship does precisely that, giving Matthew as the author and ‘the Matthean community’ ample space. 6.6.1 ‘Matthew’ or ‘Matthean Community’ Speculations about the ‘Matthean community’ are possible, but they remain speculations – for four reasons: (i) We have no data about this community; we do not know anything about its location, when it started, who the leaders were, etc. (ii) We have no source – besides the Gospel itself. We have access to it only through mirror-reading. (iii) Due to mirror-reading, the ‘Matthean community’ is often both creator and addressee of the Gospel. (iv) Does the whole Gospel or just the Matthean Sondergut reflect the community? It is still a historical fact that some texts and some elaboration of common sources are different from the rest and must be labelled as ‘Matthew’, and for at least three reasons may it be fruitful to distinguish between the SM and ‘Matthew’: – The SM is a first step in the narrative that Matthew constructed, based on the five speeches. As the first and fundamental speech, the SM has a special character.250 – The Inaugural Speech is a separate source, prior to Matthew, and has a special character within Q (see above, § 2). – ‘Matthew’ is primarily the ‘Matthean Sondergut’.251 A comparison between the SM and this ‘Sondergut’ is necessary.252 250

Matthean Sondergut is 5,4.7–10.14b.16.17.19f.22.23f.33–37.45; 6,1–8.16–18.34; 7,6. Cf. my article “Matthew’s Elaborations of the ‘Inaugural Speech’” (2020), which shows that all five speeches have a special character and often special terminology. The other speeches have Mark as foundational source, with added Q-sayings, and have comparatively more sayings from Matthew’s Sondergut. There is no consistently Jewish character in the SM – in spite of salient Jewish texts in Matt 5,4.8.17; 6,1–8. 252 Baasland, “Matthew’s Elaborations of the ‘Inaugural Speech’” (2020). 251

6.6 Appendix: The SM and Matthew

421

Matthew has always been understood as the most ‘Jewish’/‘JewishChristian’ Gospel, but rather as a writing from a group within Judaism.253 This overstated view could be based on the SM. We miss most of the later Christian topics in the SM. Trinitarian theology, which is explicit at the end (28,18–20), and prepared through the many sayings that focus on the ‘Son of God’ and the ‘Holy Spirit’,254 Baptism, Holy Communion, etc., are not featured. The Christological teaching based on Christ’s titles does not occur in the SM. Nor do we have predictions of the death and resurrection of Jesus, or teaching of Christ’s forgiveness of sin. More significantly, the quotations regarding fulfilment of the Tanach are lacking. We do still have an implicit ‘Christology’ in the SM, which is difficult to interpret ‘within Judaism’. Matthias Konradt and others have convincingly proved that it is not a defendable view to apply the ‘within Judaism’-perspective on Matthew, when we look at the entire Gospel.255 Not only Matt 4,23–35, but already the Beatitudes have the perspective of an enlarging of the people of God. 6.6.2 Matthew – within Judaism Does the SM express exactly the same concepts of Judaism as does the whole Gospel of Matthew? A significant difference is that Matthew has a number of promise-fulfilment texts (ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διά …), whereas the SM has none. Matthew offers apologies against Jewish accusations (1,18ff; 27,64f; 28,11ff). We don’t find any of them in the SM. What about the common themes? Do the texts in Matt 8–28 contradict the SM? 1) Jewish core convictions. Matthew’s texts after the SM follow the same lines as the SM and refer implicitly to the Shema. The notion of ‘heart’ is mostly rooted in the Shema, and is the background for the language of a ‘renewal from within’ (Matt 15,18f, etc.) and the criticism of stubbornness among people in Israel.256 In two cases (Matt 9,4; 19,18) Mark and Luke have a much clearer reference to the Shema (εἷς ὁ θεός).257

253

Since Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism (1990); Saldarini, Matthew´s Christian Jewish Community (1994); Runesson, Divine Wrath and Salvation in Matthew (2016), in his introduction. 254 Cf. πνεῦµα in 1,18.20; 3,11.16; 4,1; 10,20; 12,18.28.31f; 22,43; and ὁ υἱός in 3,17; 16,6; 17,5; 21,37f; 22,45; 24,37. 255 Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew (2014); idem, Evangelium nach Matthäus (2015). 256 Cf. ‘heart’ in 12,34 (ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ περισσεύµατος τῆς καρδίας); 13,15.18f; 15,8.19 (ἐκ γὰρ τῆς καρδίας ἐξέρχονται); 18,35; 24,48. 257 Matt 9,4 is less explicit in the case of blasphemy, Mark 2,7 has εἰ µὴ εἷς ὁ θεός and Luke 5,21 has εἰ µὴ µόνος ὁ θεός. Matt 19,17 in the dialogue with the rich man has εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός; Mark 10,18 has, for the second time, εἰ µὴ εἷς ὁ θεός and Luke 18,19 εἰ µὴ εἷς θεός.

422

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

In Matt 22,36–40 the Scribe’s (νοµικός) answers in the discussion about the greatest commandment (ἐντολὴ µεγάλη ἐν τῷ νόµῳ) are explicit quotes from Deut 6,4.258 Matt 22,37 combines ‘love‘ and ‘heart‘, and this is followed in 22,39 (cf. 19,19) by the quotation from Lev 19,18 (καὶ ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν). Matthew refers shortly afterwards (23,5) to the tefillin, Deut 6,8, in the criticism of the Scribes and Pharisees who sit on ‘Moses’ seat’. Matt 23,5 about making the phylacteries wide (φυλακτήρια πλατύνουσιν) and the tassels on the garments long (κράσπεδα µεγαλύνουσιν) alludes in the same way to the Shema. The discussion is still open on whether the ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ in Matt 17,5 really includes the Shema. The expression ‘hear him’ (ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ) in Matt 17,5 obviously echoes ἀκούσεσθε in Deut 18,14–16, and this text in Deuteronomy is obviously linked with the Shema. Matt 11,29 about the ‘yoke of Jesus’ (ζυγόν µου) would be provocative in Jewish ears. He adds “learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart” (µάθετε ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ, ὅτι πραΰς εἰµι καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ). These explicit references to the Shema must be seen together with implicit references, and B. Gerhardsson made this a major subject of research. He argued that the temptation narrative, Matt 4,1–11, the parable of the sower, 13,3–19, and in fact the seven parables in Matt 13, plus texts in the passion narratives (26,36–46; 27,33–50), all have the Shema as a subtext.259 One might find this interpretation a little exaggerated, but one should not reject it as speculation. Jewish and Christian interpreters search for subtexts, and the subtexts are persuasive if they fit into a larger pattern. 2) Jewish covenantal thinking in Matthew? Matthew uses the term covenant (‫ברית‬, διαθήκη) only once, in the provocative words on the new covenant (Matt 26,28, τὸ αἷµά µου τῆς διαθήκης = Luke 22,20, ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη), and after Matt 5,4, promises concerning Israel as the ‘land’ is not a theme. On the other hand, Matt 10,5.23; 15,24, make particularistic limitations, similarly but more strongly than the distant attitude towards pagans in 6,32 (and 10,18; 20,19). What about other examples of covenantal thinking? (a) Jerusalem is viewed much more critically outside the SM. Jerusalem as a religious and political reality is mentioned in Matt 2,1 (εἰς); 2,3; 3,5; 4,25 (ἀπό); 15,1, but the big shift comes after 16,21 (εἰς Ἱεροσόλυµα, 16,21; 20,18; 21,1.10).260 The (high) priests are mentioned in Matthew only outside the SM, and the texts deal mostly with their political and not their religious 258 The love commandment (ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου), not ‘Shema’ and the εἷς ὁ θεός-formula. 259 Gerhardsson has collected many of his contributions in The Shema in the New Testament (1996). 260 Matt 2,1(3) is the only exception and of course a special case: the arrival of the Magi.

6.6 Appendix: The SM and Matthew

423

functions. Matt 23 ends with a lament over Jerusalem (Matt 23,37–39; Luke 13,34–35), completing the seven woes (οὐαί in Matt 23,13.15.16.23.25.27.29 = Luke 11,42.43.44.46.47.52). The woes reflect the religious atmosphere in Jerusalem, and resemble the prophetic criticism. (b) The Sabbath is ignored in the SM. Elsewhere in Matthew the Sabbath is used to specify time (24,20; 28,1) and in the conflict story in Matt 12,1–12. This Sabbath text is more critical and ‘Christological’ than the parallels in Mark and Luke. Matt 12 locates a healing at the Temple. It is common to make the creation narrative the background to the Sabbath, and Matt 12,5.6 therefore marks the climax: λέγω δὲ ὑµῖν ὅτι τοῦ ἱεροῦ µεῖζόν ἐστιν ὧδε. (c) Matthew is more reluctant to use the term ‘synagogue’ than the other Synoptics, and only Matthew distances himself from ‘your synagogue’, 4,23; 9,35 and 10,17; 12,9; 13,54; 23,34. (d) Jewish leaders are treated increasingly critically. Matt 23 is far more critical against the Scribes and Pharisees than Matt 5,20. Six times is it shouted out: οὐαὶ ὑµῖν, γραµµατεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί (23,13–33), starting with closing the door to the Kingdom (κλείετε τὴν βασιλείαν, v. 13) and ending with Hell (πῶς φύγητε ἀπὸ τῆς κρίσεως τῆς γεέννης; v. 33). Only once a different and even harsher formula occurs (ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοί). In addition to Scribes and Pharisees, a number of institutions and practices are mentioned: the seat of Moses, the phylacteries and tassels on their garments, seats in the synagogues, the rabbis, the Temple (ἐν τῷ ναῷ), Temple gifts (δῶρον), gold, the altar (θυσιαστήριον), a tenth of your spices, cleaning the outside of the cup and dish, purity rules, tombs for the prophets, etc. Matthew quotes a gloomy reference to the Tanach (Gen 4,8; 2 Chr 24,20f): “all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar” (Matt 23,35). The strongest denunciation in Matthew is the expression “brood of vipers!” (γεννήµατα ἐχιδνῶν, 3,8; 12,34; 23,33). It does not occur in the SM. John the Baptist used this term when criticizing the Pharisees in Matt 3,8 (like Jesus in 23,33), and the religious leaders are in general depicted negatively in the entire Gospel.261 The criticism in Matt 5,20 is comparatively mild, and the criticism in Matt 12,34 does not occur in the parallel text, Matt 7,16ff. The criticism in Matt 23 must be read – as Moshe Weinfeld has shown – in light of similar polemics ‘within Judaism’.262 (e) Rituals of alms, prayer, fasting (Matt 6,1–18) occur later on only in the woes of Matt 23,13.16–22, and in fact less frequently than in Mark and Luke. We do not hear about offerings, and oaths and tithings are themes in the woes of Matt 23,13.16–22. 261 262

Stanton, A Gospel for a New People (1992), 383. Weinfeld, “The Charge of Hypocrisy in Matthew 23 and in Jewish Sources” (1990).

424

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

(f) Purity and food laws are indirectly a theme, but directly only in Matt 23,25–28 and in Matt 15 (from Mark 7). The context is largely the controversy about Jesus’ fellowship with pagans and publicans. These laws are evaluated more positively later in Matthew than in the SM (5,48; 6,7f.32).263 The adjective, ἐθνικός (5,47; 6,7; 18,17), is used in a negative sense,264 contrary to the notion of τὰ ἔθνη in Matthew: 4,15: Jesus comes to ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ (Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν). 10,18 is more neutral (εἰς µαρτύριον αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). 12,18: he will proclaim justice to the nations (κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγελεῖ). 12,21: In his name the nations will put their hope (τῷ ὀνόµατι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν). 21,43: The alarming prophecy: ἀρθήσεται ἀφ᾿ ὑµῶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ δοθήσεται ἔθνει ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς. 24,14: Jesus’ gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations (κηρυχθήσεται τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουµένῃ εἰς µαρτύριον πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). 25,32; 28,19: The perspective is πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. The global perspective in Matt 28,19 is the last word, in the hope that the alarming prophecy in 25,32 will not be fulfilled. 6.6.3 Matthew – within Christianity 1) Extension of the Jewish core conviction. The elaboration and expansion of the Shema is very much the same in the rest of Matthew as it was in the SM. (a) Like in the SM the theocentric perspective dominates. The Synoptic Apocalypse (Matt 24; Mark 13) says that nobody knows when the end comes. It is hidden from the angels in heaven and even from the Son (οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός). Only the Father (εἰ µὴ ὁ πατὴρ) knows the time, and Matthew adds: God alone (µόνος), obviously according to the Shema. The notion of God as Father, which dominates in the SM (ten times), is followed up more sparsely in the rest of Matthew (five times), and especially in the speeches.265 Coming from the SM, it is a surprise to see Matt 23,30.32 263 Matt 18,17 (ὥσπερ ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὁ τελώνης) follows 5,46f. Matt 5,13–16 with its universal perspective (γῆ, κόσµος) signals in fact the universalistic attitude we see elsewhere in Matthew. 264 Elsewhere in the New Testament: only in 3 John 7 (µηδὲν λαµβάνοντες ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνικῶν), plus in Paul’s criticism of Peter in Gal 2,14 (εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν;). Ἐθνικῶς versus Ἰουδαϊκῶς indicates a strong antagonism. 265 Matt 10,20.32f – 13,43 – 18,10.14.19.35 – 23,9; 24,36; 25,34) and the narratives inbetween (11,25–27; 12,50; 15,13; 16,17.27; 20,23; 26,29.39.42.53; 28,19).

6.6 Appendix: The SM and Matthew

425

distinguishing sharply between the fathers of the Pharisees and ‘your fathers’ (τῶν πατέρων ἡµῶν – τῶν πατέρων ὑµῶν). This usage is elsewhere found only in John, not in the Synoptic Gospels and definitely not in the SM.266 (b) The explicit Christology is much stronger outside the SM. After the SM, the so-called ‘indirect Christology’ continues in the rest of the Gospel. We have many of the same expressions (ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ, ἦλθον, ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, [ἐγὼ] λέγω ὑµῖν, etc.),267 and many new examples of ‘indirect Christology’ (Jesus is more than the Temple/Jonah/Solomon,268 and he acts like Yahve).269 Matthew has a clearly defined Christology from the very beginning, both in the narratives and through the titles (ὁ υἱός, ὁ υἱὸς ∆αυίδ,270 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,271 or χριστός or Ἐµµανουήλ/µεθ᾿ ἡµῶν ὁ θεός272). (c) The conceptually sustained metaphor ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ has the same structure outside the SM. Matt 13 gives βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν new dimensions (µυστήρια), and the notions of ‘time’ and ‘power’ are more accentuated outside the SM.273 The most surprising feature after the SM is the usage of the term βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ instead of τῶν οὐρανῶν:274 12,28: Driving out demons, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ᾿ ὑµᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. 19,24: more difficult to enter εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ than … 21,31: Publicans/prostitutes will enter εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. 21,43: ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ will be taken from them and given to … (δοθήσεται ἔθνει ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς). 266

John 8,41.42.44 versus 8,51; 15,1; 20,17. Ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ, 10,18.39; 16,25; 19,29; ἦλθον, only 10,34, cf. 11,19; ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, about 25 times + (ἐγὼ) λέγω ὑµῖν, about five times, and extensive use of µοι/µου, cf. 7,21 (πᾶς ὁ λέγων µοι/τοῦ πατρός µου); 7,22 (ἐροῦσίν µοι); 7,23 (ἀπ᾿ ἐµοῦ); 7,24.26 (ἀκούει µου), etc. 268 Matt 12,6: τοῦ ἱεροῦ µεῖζόν ἐστιν ὧδε; 12,41: πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε; 12,42: πλεῖον Σολοµῶνος ὧδε. Cf. René Kieffer, “Mer-än-kristologin hos synoptikerne”, SEÅ 44 (1979), 134– 147. 269 Aalen, “Jahvistisk analogi” (1969), listed a number of examples, and this was the basis for his commentary on Matthew (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 1970). Cf. Sigurd Grindheim, God’s Equal: What Can We Know About Jesus’ Self-Understanding? (LNTS 446), London: T&T Clark 2013. 270 Son of David, nine times: 1,1.20; 9,27; 12,23; 15,22; 20,30f (= Mark 10,47f; Luke 18,39f); 21,9.15, plus Mark 12,35. 271 Son of Man, as much as 28 times: 8,20: 9,6; 10,23; 11,19; 12,8.32.40; 13,37.41; 16,13.27.28; 17,9.12.22; 19,28; 20,18.28; 24,27.30.37.39.44; 25,31; 26,2.24.45.64. 272 16 times: 1,1.16–18; 2,4; 11,2; 16,16.20; 22,42; 23,10; 24,5.23; 26,63.68; 27,17.22. 273 The time aspect in Matt 3,2; 4,17 and 10,7 (ἤγγικεν); 11,12 (βιάζεται); 12,28 (ἔφθασεν); 16,28 (ἐρχόµενον). These often have the power aspect also, but more so 11,12 (βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν); 12,26.28 (τὰ δαιµόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ᾿ ὑµᾶς); 23,13 (κλείετε τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν). 274 Blumenthal, Basileia im Matthäusevangelium (2019), 91–106. 267

426

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

Matthew uses Kingdom-sayings more frequently than Luke before Matt 13/ Luke 8,275 both in Marcan texts and when Q is the source (Matt 8,11; 9,35; 10,7; 11,11f + 12,28 = Luke 13,38; 8,1; 10,9; 7,28; 16,16). d) Is νόµος in Matthew after the SM confirming the Jewish understanding? Matthew never repeats the strong νόµος-statement (5,17) in his other five νόµος-sayings (11,13; 12,5; 22,36.40; 23,23). All of them are ‘Sondergut’ and they all have a rather critical perspective: Matt 11,13 emphasises the prophetic aspect: It is seen as prophecy, and this time of prophecy lasts until John the Baptist (πάντες γὰρ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ νόµος ἕως Ἰωάννου ἐπροφήτευσαν). In 12,5 it refers to the narrative about David and the description in Num 28,9, and it is not νόµος as Law. Jesus’ criticism in 12,5, 23,23 and 22,36.40 is based on a new understanding of the Law (23,23: ἀφήκατε τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόµου, τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὸ ἔλεος καὶ τὴν πίστιν) and Matt 22,36.40 and 23,23 provide a summary of the Law. Law as norm is rather ἐντολή (εἰ δὲ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς, 19,17), which follows up the SM (5,19). This ‘singleness’ is not ‘halachot’ (ὑµεῖς παραβαίνετε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ὑµῶν, 15,3), but rather a search for the crucial and the summary of the Law (ποία ἐντολὴ µεγάλη ἐν τῷ νόµῳ, 22,36/38.40). Matt 12,5 and 22,36.40 have more the notion of ‘commandment’(ἐντολή) and 23,23 has a critical perspective (τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόµου). Matt 19,18 sees eternal life and the commandments together (εἰ δὲ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς), and ἐντολή/ἐντέλλοµαι (17,9; 19,7; 28,20) in the sense of Jesus’ interpretation or his commandments, imparts νόµος also this sense. The final words in Matt 28,20 (πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάµην ὑµῖν) show that Matthew, in spite of his emphasis on Jewish roots, in the end gives a radical Christian interpretation of the Law and its commandments. 2) A new group of disciples? Both the theme and terminology of choice are lacking in the SM. The term ἐκλεκτός276 is used in the general saying in Matt 22,14 (πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί) plus three times in an eschatological text (24,22.24.31).277 Matt 12,18 has the term αἱρετίζω about Jesus as the chosen one. The use of pronouns (αὐτός/οὗτος/τοῦτο, etc.) follows up the SM, but they increasingly denote what belongs to Jesus (cf. Matt 18,20: ἐκεῖ εἰµι ἐν µέσῳ αὐτῶν). An expanded people of God emerges. However, Matthew does not 275 Mark 3,24 uses it in its general meaning in the Beelzebul saying (= Matt 12,25f/ Luke 11,17f). The saying about the mystery of parables is nearly identical: Matt 13,11: ὑµῖν δέδοται Mark 4,11: ὑµῖν τὸ Luke 8,10: ὑµῖν δέδοται γνῶναι γνῶναι τὰ µυστήρια τῆς µυστήριον δέδοται τῆς τὰ µυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν. βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ· θεοῦ. 276 Not (ἐξ)ἐκλέγοµαι, ἐκλογή, συνεκλεκτός or αἱρέοµαι or τάσσω. 277 Cf. Matt 24,22.24: διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς. καὶ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς. τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ.

6.6 Appendix: The SM and Matthew

427

portray a new people/church with rituals, holy places, leadership structures, etc. The SM is a protreptic speech to a general audience. Matt 10 and 18 give instructions to the disciples. Matt 10,2 mentions the Twelve (δώδεκα) and the apostles (ἀπόστολοι), and 10,41 even prophets and righteous ones (προφήτης/ δίκαιος). The disciples are representatives of Jesus (10,40f: to receive a disciple means to receive Jesus and God, ὁ δεχόµενος ὑµᾶς ἐµὲ δέχεται, καὶ ὁ ἐµὲ δεχόµενος δέχεται τὸν ἀποστείλαντά µε).278 Matt 18 follows the fundamental Petrine text, Matt 16,16–19, and the dialogue between Jesus and Peter is highly significant (18,21f). The Christian confession is a witness for everybody, even for gentiles (εἰς µαρτύριον αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, 10,18). The Christians will be handed over and flogged by the local councils (εἰς συνέδρια) and synagogues (ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν). Matt 10 has no reference to the leaders or Jewish customs and practices, only to Jewish synagogues and courts. Already in Matt 13 there is a differentiation between disciples and people,279 and particularly in Matt 18,15–20 ecclesiological perspectives dominate. After the crucial text in Matt 16,17f (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδοµήσω µου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν) one could have expected more. The judgment-sayings will have surprised a Jewish audience: 24,2: The Temple will be destroyed (λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται). 24,30: The worthless servant will be thrown outside, e.g. 8,12; 13,42.50; 22,13; 25,30.51 or 24,39.44. 25,31–46: The universal judgment scene concludes the speeches in Matthew. Matthew depicts a universal judgment. Everyone will be judged, and the Jews/Christians who have received much, will be judged accordingly. Matt 24f provides a real timetable compared to Matt 7,13–27. The expectation of an immediate coming of the Son of Man is expressed in particularly two ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν-sayings in Matt 10,23 and 16,28.280 The fact and the premises for the judgment constitute the theme, and these verses are unique compared to other Jewish texts. To sum up: Matthew’s Gospel is indeed a Jewish text that confirms Jewish identity. Matthew’s ‘Sondergut’ has the same outlook as the SM. He strengthens the Christological perspective and introduces a strong ecclesiological 278 Followed – in 18,5 – by the revolutionary sentence: καὶ ὃς ἐὰν δέξηται ἓν παιδίον τοιοῦτο ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόµατί µου, ἐµὲ δέχεται. 279 Cf. Matt 13,2: ὄχλοι πολλοί and the use of ‘them’ (αὐτοῖς) in 13,11.13, which the quotation in Isa 6,9f does not have (ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου), and it has λαός, not ὄχλος. 280 Matt 10,23: οὐ µὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; 16,28: τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων οἵτινες οὐ µὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόµενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ.

428

§ 6 Religion and Philosophy of Life in the Sermon on the Mount

thinking. The universal perspective in e.g. Matt 5,13–16 is realised in that gentiles are allowed to join the people of God. Most scholars construct Matthew’s community as a contrast community that replaces Israel. The new community and the formation of its identity are in focus. Matthias Konradt has convincingly argued that this community, which included gentiles, saw itself as part of Israel.281

6.7 The SM as Self-presentation Groups within Judaism and Christianity were based on the same core of convictions, but each had its own self-presentation, expressing their understanding of the core convictions and how these must be worked out in practical life. The dynamic between ‘self-definition’ and ‘core conviction’ is the crucial issue.282 What kind of self-presentation does the SM provide? As ‘Inaugural Speech’, manifesto, Magna Carta, Jesus’ programme, etc., the SM is an extremely important self-presentation. For the construction of a new identity or an identity in the making, it delivers either an actual historical ethos of Matthew/of a Jewish-Christian community, or an early, preliminary programme, or simply the ethical message of Jesus. Most scholars think it is a manifesto, Jesus’ basic programme, a catechism, a summary of the message of Jesus. Some find here Jesus’ messianic teaching, and many more think it is Jesus’ Magna Carta and as such the essence of Christianity.

281

The dominating thesis in Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew (2014); idem, Evangelium nach Matthäus (2015). 282 B.F. Meyer, “The Church in Earliest Christianity” (1992); already in idem, Early Christians (1986). This distinction is often accepted, e.g. Holmberg, “Jewish versus Christian Identity in the Early Church” (1998); Lieu, Christian Identity (2004), 11ff.

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in the Epistle of James Was the SM just an arbitrarily collected epitome of sayings, collected by Matthew in a corner of the developing Church or did these sayings represent a broader tradition? Was the message perceived as too radical for later generations? Luke reports same radical ethics in a briefer form. The first readers of Matthew and Luke read this sermon together with a collection of sermons rendered by Matthew and Luke. Was the philosophical ethos in the SM paid special attention to elsewhere? Was the radical message a model for ethical teaching in Early Christianity? A first step would be to investigate the Epistle of James; this epistle responds in one way or another to the teaching in the SM. The dating of this epistle is a delicate problem; scholarship treats it both as the oldest and as one of the youngest writings of the New Testament. I will only touch on this question, nor is our task to analyse possible Jesus-sayings in James. I can make just a few remarks on this topic. Our interest is thus twofold: a) to compare the ethical argumentation in the SM and James: how similar and how different are they? b) To compare the radical philosophy of life in the two writings: do we have the same kind of philosophical ethos, and how must the similarities and differences be explained? The Epistle of James has been called ‘the Sermon on the Mount among the New Testament Epistles’.1 How can we explain the link between the SM and James?

7.1 Preliminary Questions 1) The Riddle of James. The Epistle of James is an enigma, proclaimed Arnold Meyer in 1930.2 It still has a magical fascination. Many of its riddles have not diminished. It is not only the questions of its date/audience and authorship that are still open. An early dating of James in a Jerusalem setting 1

Already Dods, Introduction (1902), 191. A. Meyer, Das Rätsel des Jakobusbriefes (1930), interpreted James as a real riddle. In light of Jas 1,1 he saw ‘the twelve tribes’ as symbolic addressee. 2

430

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

is extremely different from a possible Hellenistic context nearly one hundred years later. The questions of genre and outline are also open, but do not have the same dramatic impact. The relation to Paul’s teaching is more debated than ever. Why are so many and totally different positions possible? However, after 90 years some of its riddles are illuminated, and eight fundamental aspects have changed since 1930: – The notion ‘Jewish’ in A. Meyer’s discourse had negative connotations. Today, the label ‘Jewish’ makes James intriguing, and is the basis for more precise clarifications. – The Hellenistic setting of James, once highly disputed, is widely accepted today. Jewish character and Hellenistic setting are complementary aspects, not alternatives. – It is now communis opinio in scholarship that James belongs to wisdom literature.3 – The parallels to the sayings of Jesus are no longer primarily a tool for dating James (early or late). The focus is more on the technique and its function (emulation) compared with the letter’s use of the Tanach, Jewish wisdom-literature, Pauline phrases and other sources.4 – Martin Luther’s emotional criticism of James is generally seen as invalid, fruitless, and should no longer be the starting-point. – Since ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ (E.P. Sanders) the position of James has been seen in a new light. Most scholars assume ‘the new perspective’ on James.5 – In scholarship we see a new interest in and evaluation (German: Rehabilitierung) of James through Gerd Theißen6 and others, who see James in a broader tradition.7 – Methodologically, the interpretation of James has ‒ according to e.g. John S. Kloppenborg – profited from the shift from traditional historicalcritical methods to literary and social-scientific methods (sociology, cultural anthropology, ethnography, post-colonial theory, etc.).8 3

Before my contribution to this topic in 1982 (Baasland, “Der Jakobusbrief als neutestamentliche Weisheitsschrift”), this was still highly disputed. Later, e.g. Frankemölle, Brief des Jakobus II (1994), 561–571; W. Popkes, Brief des Jakobus (2001), 29–31; Konradt, Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief (1998), 249–266; Wold, “James in the Context of Jewish Wisdom” (2019). 4 Kloppenborg, “The Emulation of the Jesus Tradition in the Letter of James” (2007). 5 So, K.-W. Niebuhr, “A New Perspective on James?” (2014), and the opposite view: Avemarie, “Die Werke des Gesetzes im Spiegel des Jakobusbriefes” (2001). 6 Gemünden/Konradt/Theißen (eds.), Jakobusbrief (2003) (subtitle: “Beiträge zur Rehabilitierung der ‘strohernen Epistel’”); K.-W. Niebuhr/Wall (eds.), Catholic Epistles (2009). 7 Konradt, “Der Jakobusbrief im frühchristlichen Kontext” (2004). Cf. idem, Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief (1998). 8 Webb/Kloppenborg (eds.), Reading James with New Eyes (2007), 1.

7.1 Preliminary Questions

431

The debates on James presently have a new starting-point. Can the new development in research on James contribute to a clearer answer to the question of the relationship between the SM and James? 2) The SM and James: a unique relationship. Does it make sense to concentrate on the SM?9 Three superficial observations indicate a unique relationship: (a) It is surprising that the two texts have nearly the same length: According to the number of verses since Robert Étienne’s Bible editions (1551) James has 108 verses versus 107 verses in the SM (plus the frame with four verses). However, James is in fact slightly shorter than the SM (about 10%: 1,742 versus 1,938 words in the SM) but much longer than the SP (569 words). James has nearly 35 parallels with the SM (in nearly 30% of James), and only a few parallels with the rest of the Gospel of Matthew in total (only six or seven parallels).10 James has 21 parallels with Luke’s SP. Luke (outside the SP) has one or two, Mark has no extra parallels to James. The number of parallels is less significant than the fact that this kind of common tradition is unique and not least the fact that between 80 and 90% of the synoptic material in James derives from the SM. Outside the SM, Matthew has few parallels to James. In this respect the SM is unique. (b) The definition of a parallel is open, and therefore the number of parallels will vary. The long list with nearly 70 parallels is very unlikely.11 A maximum list includes rather about 30 parallels, and a list of about 15 parallels is more realistic, even though some exegetes would reduce the list even more.12 James certainly has many of the same themes, and with similar arguments, as the SM, but James often has specific wording and his own order, which shows a conscious elaboration. 9 Linguistically Luke is often closer to James than Matthew as Adamson, James (1989), 169–194, esp. 174–178, has shown. The Gospel of Matthew with its Christology, ecclesiology, and quotations from the Tanach (‘Reflexionszitate’) is far from James. 10 Jas 1,6 (= Matt 21,21); 2,8 (Matt 22,39f); 2,13 (Matt 25,34–46); 4,4 (Matt 12,39); 4,10 (Matt 23,12); 5,9 (Matt 24,33). 11 Mayor, Epistle of James (1897), 103–106/LXXXV–LXXXVIII, lists altogether 70 parallels. Adamson, James (1989), 174–178, ends similarly, but emphasises the dependence on the Lucan tradition. 12 G. Kittel, “Der geschichtliche Ort des Jakobusbriefes” (1942), 84–94, lists about 30, and Mußner, Jakobusbrief (21967), 47–52, and Deppe, Sayings (1989), 237f, have about 25 parallels. Rudolf Hoppe, Der theologische Hintergrund des Jakobusbriefes (FB 28), Würzburg: Echter 1977, 119–122, Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (1991) and “James and the Jesus Tradition” (2009), W. Popkes, Brief des Jakobus (2001), 19, and MongstadKvammen, Postcolonial Reading of the Epistle of James (2013), 40–43, reduce the list. Baasland, “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes” (1988), 3677f, differentiates between a possible maximum list of nearly 40 and a more accountable list of about 15 parallels.

432

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

(c) Instead of dependency one can find common themes in Matthew and James (so M. Shepherd)13 or – as e.g. P.J. Hartin14 – insist on one source, the Q-tradition, or specifically the SM (F. Eleder; W. Popkes).15 Kloppenborg concentrates mostly on Q as the source, but has a broader outlook.16 In order to avoid unnecessary hypotheses, one should start with the influence of Q/SM, because 90% of the quotations/allusions in James derive from Q/SM. Is James dependent on Matthew or on Q or on oral traditions? The source is larger than the SP and perhaps briefer than the SM. The sayings are more elaborate in James than in the SM.17 James can be briefer, like Jas 5,12 versus Matt 5,34–37. This paragraph is not an attempt to offer a new reconstruction of the relationship between James and its sources. It is advisable to follow R. Bauckham, who sees James as a wisdom-speech parallel to Jesus’ teaching,18 or M. Konradt, who works with James’ relation to the Jesus tradition in a much broader framework.19 The best approach is Kloppenborg’s thesis that James delivers an emulation of Jesus-sayings. James rephrases the tradition in his speech.20 Here James’ ethical argumentation is the theme. The forms, the style, the reasons, the norms, etc. must be investigated and compared to the SM.

7.2 The SM and James: Genre and Composition That there is certainly a close relationship between the SM and James has been observed for a long time,21 but the exact relationship between them is 13

Shepherd, “The Epistle of James and the Gospel of Matthew” (1956). Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (1991) and “James and the Jesus Tradition” (2009). 15 Eleder, Jakobusbrief und Bergpredigt (1966), esp. 54–57, found 15 parallels, Baasland, “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes” (1988), 3677f, mentions as possible maximum 25 parallels, and Deppe, Sayings (1989), analyses thoroughly the same number. W. Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbriefes (1986), 156–176, debated 19 cases. 16 Kloppenborg, “The Emulation of the Jesus Tradition in the Letter of James” (2007); idem, “The Reception of the Jesus Tradition in James” (2009). 17 Esp. Kloppenborg, “The Reception of the Jesus Tradition in James” (2009). 18 Bauckham, James (1999), esp. 93–111; idem, “The Wisdom of James and the Wisdom of Jesus” (2004). 19 Konradt, “Der Jakobusbrief im frühchristlichen Kontext” (2004), esp. 190–207. 20 Kloppenberg, “The Emulation of the Jesus Tradition in the Letter of James” (2007), and as analogy, Siegmar Döpp, Aemulatio: Literarischer Wettstreit mit den Griechen in Zeugnissen des ersten bis fünften Jahrhunderts, Göttingen: Duehrkohp und Radicke 2001. 21 Weizsäcker, Das apostolische Zeitalter (1886), 378f: “eine auffallende Verwandtschaft mit synoptischen Herrensprüchen, zunächst gerade aus der Bergpredigt”. 14

7.2 The SM and James: Genre and Composition

433

surprisingly still an open question.22 Only a brief comparison is necessary here. How strongly linked are genre and composition?23 7.2.1 A Comparison of Genre It is somewhat curious that Günther Bornkamm, as late as in his presidential address at SNTS in 1977, urged scholarship to pay more attention to the question of the genre of the SM.24 Ulrich Luz later found no analogy “that would permit us to interpret it in terms of its genre”.25 According to Luz we have only a competition between bad alternatives. The genre of James has, on the contrary, been analysed thoroughly, and a number of good alternatives are competing, besides many good arguments in favour of other proposals (letter, diatribe, paraclesis, protreptic speech, wisdom text/proverbial, etc.). The question of the genre of the SM has already been treated (§§ 2 and 5), and the result was clearly ‘protreptic speech’. Can the same be found in James? 1) What about alternatives to protreptic speech in James? There are extremely good arguments in favour of two possible alternatives, the genre of letter and of paraenesis.26 (a) Jas 1,1 indicates the genre of ‘letter’ (ἐπιστολή), and if so, the SM and James cannot really be compared. The problem with this genre is the considerable difference to e.g. the Pauline or the Ignatian letters. It has a few elements in common with consoling, advisory or in general philosophical letters. James is far from being a ‘friendship-letter’. Deissmann’s attempt27 to see James not as a ‘letter’ (described as sent, real, private, specific) but rather as an ‘epistle’ (published, non-real, public, general) did not provide any impulses to research on James,28 at least not before 1970 when the SBL projects on Hellenistic epistolography were launched.29 Fred O. Francis focused on the opening and closing paragraphs of 22

W. Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbriefes (1986), 156–176. Recently Bauckham, “The Wisdom of James and the Wisdom of Jesus” (2004). 24 Bornkamm, “Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt” (1977/78), 432. 25 Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 174. 26 For comprehensive treatment: Johnson, Letter of James (1995), 16–24; Wachob, Voice of Jesus (2000), esp. 93–111; Luke L. Cheung/Kelvin C.L. Yo, “The Genre of James: Diaspora Letter, Wisdom Instruction, or Both?”, in Eric F. Mason/Darian R. Lockett (eds.), Reading the Epistle of James: A Resource for Students, Atlanta: SBL Press 2019, 87–98. 27 Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1901, 4. Ropes, James (1916/1961), 6–10, reflected the theory, but saw diatribe and ‘protrepticus’ as better alternatives, pp. 10–18. After M. Dibelius, Brief des Jakobus (1921/121984), 1–3, few have seen Deissmann’s distinction as fruitful. 28 Wachob, Voice of Jesus (2000), 2–8, gives a brief and precise evaluation. 29 SBL’s group for ‘Ancient Epistolography’ provided many impulses. Epistolary handbooks by Pseudo-Demetrius and Pseudo-Libanius (cf. Abraham Malherbe, Ancient Episto23

434

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

James, and found some epistolary conventions in the closing paragraph (eschatological instructions, thematic reprise and reference to prayer).30 The elasticity of the letter form makes it easy to apply to many sorts of writing,31 but if most texts can function practically as letter, the importance of the letter-genre is reduced to nothing. The latest revival of the letter form in scholarship of James is very much due to Jas 1,1 and its addressee (“to the twelve tribes in the Diaspora”) and its parallels, the Jewish Diaspora letters (Jer 29; Epistle of Jeremiah; 2 Macc 1– 2; 2 Bar. 78–86; 4 Bar. 6,17–23; 7,23–29).32 The theory of a diaspora-letter is attractive because this might clarify the purpose and function of James. The study of Jewish epistolography underlined the Jewishness of James.33 Scholars who think Jerusalem is the place of origin, or see James, the brother of Jesus, as the author, see James as a circular letter (German: ‘Rundbrief’, so W. Popkes), the first ‘Papal Encyclical’ (so J.B. Adamson).34 If so, why is the style of official diplomatic letters not used? The diaspora-letter theory is also attractive for scholars who have an interest in the recipients of the letter.35 Some search for a certain addressee – recently many James-scholars have seen Rome as the primary addressee. For others, ‘diaspora’ confirms traces of its Hellenistic character. lary Theorists [SBLSBS 19], Atlanta: Scholars Press 1988, 16–20, 30–41) and the letterwriters in the Graeco-Roman world were studied. Cf. John L. White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle (SBLDS 2), Missoula: Scholars Press 1972; William G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity, Philadelphia: Fortress 1973; Stowers, Letter Writing (1986); and recently Porter/Adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form (2010). Relevant for the essay-form in James, Martin Luther Stirewalt, Jr., “The Form and Function of the Greek Letter-Essay”, in Karl P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate, Peabody: Hendrickson 1991, 147–171; idem, Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography (SBLRBS 27), Atlanta: Scholars Press 1993. 30 Francis, “The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John” (1970), was inspired by Paul Schubert’s studies of the opening section. Francis’ observation of the closing paragraph is supported by Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament (2006), 196–206. 31 Cf. Berger, “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament” (1982), 1326–1363. Cf. Burchard, Jakobusbrief (2000), 9; Baasland, “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes” (1988), 3654; and Johnson, Letter of James (1995), 16–24; Stowers, Letter Writing (1986), 94–106, 112–125 (he still labels James as paraenetic letter). 32 Cf. Irene Taatz, Frühjüdische Briefe: Die paulinischen Briefe im Rahmen der offiziellen religiösen Briefe des Frühjudentums (NTOA 16), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1991, and Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters (2012), on James pp. 452–463. 33 K.-W. Niebuhr, “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht frühjüdischer Diasporabriefe” (1998), has a broader approach, and compares also the Qumran letter 4Q394–399 = 4QMMT, cf. the comprehensive treatment in Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters (2012), 194–214. 34 W. Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbriefes (1986), 183; Adamson, James (1989), 116f. 35 Tsuji, Glaube zwischen Vollkommenheit und Verweltlichung (1997), 18–37.

7.2 The SM and James: Genre and Composition

435

The focus on the addressee and the social function of James is important, but these questions must be raised apart from any epistolary theory. (b) James as paranesis – the bridge to the SM? The thesis of James as an ‘epistle’ then opened up for Martin Dibelius, who could suggest a better alternative with the genre of ‘paraenesis’, and few objects could better fit Dibelius’ understanding of paraenesis than precisely the Epistle of James. According to Dibelius James is a more or less arbitrary collection of sayings, composed fifty years after the sermons of Jesus were given – by analogy with Jewish or Hellenistic collections of wisdom-sayings.36 Arbitrary collection (‘Eklektizismus’) is one of its characteristics, and we seek in vain for a specific situation, and a planned disposition.37 This means for James: (i) It is impossible to reconstruct a historical situation behind James, (ii) in the arbitrary collection we should not single out one tradition (Jesus, Matthew, Paul, etc.), and (iii) no effort to find a compositional plan should be made. Dibelius’ theory was based on his form-criticism, arguing that shorter sentences and some groups of logia or pieces of wisdom-sayings were the origin of the SM and James.38 The theory was only superficially clear,39 and Dibelius was in fact contradicting himself in his exegesis of James. He found in James not only isolated sayings, but many longer passages, some of them in diatribe-style. (c) Paraenesis as injunction with the purpose of identity-formation (catechism?). Some scholars want to redefine Dibelius’ concept. They would still use the term but create a ‘new agenda’. Long before ‘identity-formation’ became a slogan, Leo G. Perdue suggested that James represented a special form of paraenesis.40 The tools for “establishment of group-identity and cohesion during the process of socialisation” was to establish the relationship between the speaker and the audience (teacher–student), remind them of previous teaching and urge them to strive towards a higher level of virtue and perfection.41 The recent discussion about paraenesis has followed up Perdue’s intentions and the ‘Nordic’ project on paraenesis ended up with the following definition:

36

The later editions (31959), 234–265, are clearer than Formgeschichte (11919). M. Dibelius, Brief des Jakobus (1921/121984), 4–6. 38 Prepared through Heinrici, Bergpredigt I (1900), 78–81; Erik Peterson concluded in RGG2 1 (1927), 909: “eine Zusammenstellung aus Einzelsprüchen und Redeeinheiten in der Willkür und Zufälligkeit ihrer Komposition”. He repeats W. Bousset’s thesis in RGG1 1 (1909), 1037ff. 39 Klaus Kürzdorfer, “Der Charakter des Jakobusbriefes: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit den Thesen von A. Meyer und M. Dibelius”, Diss. Tübingen 1966, offered the alternative ‘paraclesis’, for use in Christian communities. 40 Perdue, “Paraenesis and the Epistle of James” (1981), using many of A. Malherbe’s insights. 41 Ibid., 255 and 244–251. 37

436

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

“Paraenesis is a concise benevolent injunction that reminds of moral practices to be pursued or avoided, expresses or implies a shared worldview, and does not anticipate disagreement.”42

This definition of paraenesis is wider than the traditional label ‘catechism’, which P. Carrington, E. Selwyn and G. Bornkamm put on the SM and James.43 W. Popkes applied to James the genre ‘instruction of newly baptized Christians’ (‘Neophytes’).44 2) James as protreptic speech. Paraenesis and protreptic is indeed not the same, and John Gammie uses three criteria for distinguishing paraenesis and protreptic discourse: (a) presence versus absence of precepts, (b) minimal versus large extent of sustained demonstration of the view to persuade, (c) number of topics versus sharpness of focus.45 According to these criteria James is characteristically protreptic. Deliberative speeches are future- (and present-)oriented, they are short, give warnings and it is all about decision-making. They make the decisions and disagreement in public. Do we have signals of deliberative speech in both the SM and the Epistle of James? In the SM terms like προσέχετε, ἐµβλέψατε (“look”, 6,26) function as protreptic exhortations. Both in James and the SM the last part is more dominated by protreptic motifs. In the SM Matt 7,13–27 is rhetorically a ‘protreptic peroratio’, and elaborated as protreptic speech.46 The two alternatives are recorded in an either-or image (Matt 7,13f: two ways; 7,15: two kinds of prophets; 7,16–20: good or bad trees/fruit; 7,21–23: just saying or also acting; 7,24–27: two houses). James has the same protreptic ending, and as speech is all about “Don’t be deceived”: 1,16f: µὴ πλανᾶσθε, 2,16f: τί τὸ ὄφελος; 42 Cf. Starr/Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (2004). W. Popkes refined here M. Dibelius’ position: “Paraenesis in the New Testament: An Exercise in Conceptuality”, pp. 13–46, whereas Engberg-Pedersen, “The Concept of Paraenesis”, pp. 47–72, thinks the genre is very much a Christian one. 43 Carrington, Primitive Christian Catechism (1940); Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter (1946/21961), esp. 363f. Bornkamm, “Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt” (1977/78), 431f, based on analogies in Qumran (1QS, 1QSa, CD), Mishnah Abot and the Didache, saw both the SM and James as Christian church-orders. 44 W. Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbriefes (1986), 11, referred even to M. Dibelius, pp. 142–146 (156). Popkes’ thesis corresponds with Heinz Schürmann’s thesis of the SM as “postbaptismalen Unterricht der Neugetauften”, Lukasevangelium I (41990), 383. 45 Gammie, “Paraenetic Literature” (1990), and Hartin, James (2003), 10–16. 46 Berger, “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament” (1982), 1138–1145, analysed the protreptic genre in the New Testament.

7.2 The SM and James: Genre and Composition

437

3,10: οὐ χρή, ἀδελφοί µου, ταῦτα οὕτως γίνεσθαι. 5,19: ἐάν τις ἐν ὑµῖν πλανηθῇ … James, like the SM, ends with warnings, but James has more protreptic terminology. There should be little doubt that this is a protreptic speech formed as a letter.47 The address, ἀδελφοί µου, used 15 times, structures the sermon and shows the protreptic character. But we can briefly comment on two additional arguments: Protreptic speeches as speech acts; the notion of doing. J.R. Searle described performative speech as ‘speech acts’; a saying is often more than just words. The locutionary act implies request, promise, order, warning, etc., and is followed by perlocutionary reactions (inspiring, persuading, convincing, enlightening).48 The performative speeches in the SM and in James have this character. Terminology of ποιεῖν/ποιητής,49 etc. is crucial in James as we see in many texts:50 1,22: γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγου καὶ µὴ µόνον ἀκροαταί … 1,23: εἴ τις ἀκροατὴς λόγου ἐστὶν καὶ οὐ ποιητής; 1,25: οὐκ ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησµονῆς γενόµενος ἀλλὰ ποιητὴς ἔργου, οὗτος µακάριος ἐν τῇ ποιήσει αὐτοῦ ἔσται. 2,8: ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν, καλῶς ποιεῖτε· 2,13: ἡ γὰρ κρίσις ἀνέλεος τῷ µὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος. 4,11: εἰ δὲ νόµον κρίνεις, οὐκ εἶ ποιητὴς νόµου ἀλλὰ κριτής. 4,17: εἰδότι οὖν καλὸν ποιεῖν καὶ µὴ ποιοῦντι, ἁµαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστιν. 5,15: κἂν ἁµαρτίας ᾖ πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ. In the SM the verb more often has the meaning of ‘effect’ (5,32.36; 7,17.17. 18.18, cf. 5,46f), but the clear ethical meaning is the same as in James: 5,19: ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ, οὗτος µέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν. 5,46f: τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; (οἱ τελῶναι/οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν.) 6,1: προσέχετε τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑµῶν µὴ ποιεῖν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς. 6,2: ὅταν οὖν ποιῇς ἐλεηµοσύνην, µὴ … ὥσπερ οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ποιοῦσιν. 47

Johnson, Letter of James (1995), 16–25. Based on Austin, How to Do Things with Words (1962), John R. Searle developed the theory in Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1969. 49 Used elsewhere only twice: in Acts 17,28 and in the close parallel Rom 2,13 (οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόµου δίκαιοι παρὰ [τῷ] θεῷ, ἀλλ᾿ οἱ ποιηταὶ νόµου δικαιωθήσονται). 50 Ποιεῖν is used in a more general sense also: Jas 2,19 (καλῶς ποιεῖς); the sense of ‘cause’ in 3,12 (συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι. ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ); 3,18 (ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην); 4,13.15. 48

438

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

6,3: σοῦ δὲ ποιοῦντος ἐλεηµοσύνην µὴ γνώτω ἡ ἀριστερά σου τί ποιεῖ ἡ δεξιά σου … 7,12: πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς. 7,21: οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων … ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ πατρός µου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 7,24: πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς … 7,26: πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ µὴ ποιῶν αὐτούς … The purpose of James must be found in the balance between the crucial passages (exordium/propositio/peroratio) and the themes in Jas 2,1–5,6,51 but as performative speech James has rather the character of µελέτη,52 and rather speech acts that move the audience and challenge them to act accordingly. 7.2.2 Composition/Rhetoric in the SM and in James Luther’s devastating statement about the outline is history53 and a decreasing number of scholars repeat Dibelius’ position.54 If the genre is the same for James and the SM, the composition must also have some similarity. If both the SM and James are deliberative, protreptic speeches, their compositions must follow well-known rhetorical patterns. Or are there better alternatives? The SM and the SP as sermons are very brief. It takes about four minutes to perform the SP, and Matt 5–7 would last about ten to twelve minutes. James has about the same length as the SM. The later division into three versus five chapters is thus misleading; a division of James into three chapters, e.g. 1,1–2,13; 2,14–4,3; 4,4–5,20 or – with the same decreasing length as the SM – 1,1–2,26; 3,1–4,12; 4,13–5,20 would slightly change our conception of the structure.

Compared to the SM, the composition of James is extremely difficult to grasp. Scholarship is accordingly extremely divided when it comes to its composition.55 James is often seen as an arbitrary collection of sayings, a disorganised heap of sayings without any plan and structure.56 The genre of 51

The structure in James is one of the highly disputed themes, here this is my own approach in my commentary and in “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes” (1988), 3654–3659. 52 H.D. Betz, “The Sermon on the Mount: Its literary Genre and Function” (1979), in idem, Essays (1985), 11. 53 Luther thought James put his sayings “so vnordig eyns yns ander” (Tischreden 5, 157), and had “kein ordo noch methodus” (WA 7, 386). 54 M. Dibelius, Brief des Jakobus (1921/121984), 15–23. 55 Cf. the remarks in Baasland, “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes” (1988), 3654–3659, based on an extensive unpublished, widely circulated paper (1984). 56 Cf. Mitton, Epistle of James (1966), 235. The problem with this position is not only laziness. It is contradicting facts: In James we have wonderful stylistic features, we have a

7.2 The SM and James: Genre and Composition

439

paraenesis – at least according to Dibelius’ definition ‒ provides no help for the question of composition. The same must be said about the attempts to see an ‘epistolary outline’ in James.57 In the following the focus is on comparison with the SM. 7.2.2.1 Alternatives to a Rhetorical Composition in James 1) Exposition as key. From Augustine until Charles H. Talbert, scholars have seen the Beatitudes as the key-text in the SM. Hubert Frankemölle provided many good arguments for seeing Jas 1,2–27 as the skeleton for the rest of James. James is an exposition of the introduction in 1,2–27.58 Frankemölle could use arguments from epistolography, and Fred O. Francis’ thesis of a sort of chiastic pattern between the opening and closing parts.59 2) Pre-texts or hidden pattern or numbers as key. Speculations like the one Arnold Meyer proposed for James (as an allegory of oracles to the twelve tribes) are never applied to the SM. Conversely, the speculation that certain numbers (three, or seven) are the key to the SM is seldom applied to James. The temptation to look for hidden patterns is easy to understand, because of the huge number of similarities between Sirach and James,60 and because of texts like Mic 6,8, which gives a pattern for both the SM and James: – “You have been told, O man, what is good” (‫ה־טּוֹב‬ ֑ ‫) ַמ‬, cf. Matt 5,3–16 and Jas 1,2–12, – “and what the Lord does require of you” (‫דּוֹרשׁ‬ ֣ ֵ ‫)י ְה ָ֞וה‬, cf. Matt 5,17–20 and Jas 1,13–27, – “to act justly” ( ֙‫שׁפָּט‬ ְ ‫)ע ֲ֤שׂוֹת ִמ‬, cf. Matt 6,1–18 and Jas 2,1–4,12, – “to love mercy” (‫)אַ ֣ ֲהבַת ֶ֔חסֶד‬, cf. Matt 5,21–48 and Jas 4,13–5,6, – “to walk humbly with your God” (q‫הֶ ֽי‬s‫) ַה ְצ ֵנ֥ ַע לֶ ֖ כֶת עִם־ ֱא‬, cf. Matt 6,19– 7,27 and Jas 5,7–20. 3) Structuring texts? Chiasm or ‘rug-pattern’? The conclusion of a book often gives the clue and a sort of summary, like Matt 28,18–20. But neither Matt 7,24–27 nor Jas 5,19f give summaries. Scholars have therefore tried to find other structuring texts, like the Lord’s Prayer in the SM (cf. § 3.7.2).

relatively clear genre, we have in some parts a clear outline. Can this really be reduced to a disorganised heap of sayings? 57 E.g. Tsuji, Glaube zwischen Vollkommenheit und Verweltlichung (1997), 5–36. The threefold scheme of introduction – body – conclusion, which can be found in every speech and writing, and in James and the SM also. Davies, Setting (1964), 6, proposes a similar three-fold scheme in the SM (5,1–16; 5,17–7,12; 7,13–27). 58 Bauckham, “The Wisdom of James and the Wisdom of Jesus” (2004), 63–69. 59 Francis, “The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John” (1970). 60 Frankemölle, Brief des Jakobus II (1994), 561–571.

440

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

Some think Jas 1,19 is a similarly structuring text,61 and others find a chiastic structure in James. Dale Allison in his recent commentary sees chiasm as an overall structure.62 More exegetes see chiasm as a minor tool, restricted to some passages: Jas 2,12 is exemplified chiastic in 2,4–26; 3,12 and 4,6 in 4,7–10; 4,11–5,6.63 In wisdom literature certain texts structure larger passages, and Frankemölle thinks the prologue (1,2–18 – corresponding with the epilogue, 5,7–20) is the structuring text. Jas 1,2–12 stretches out a woven rug (‘rug-pattern’/ German: Teppichmuster), which goes through the entire letter.64 Frankemölle and others have clearly documented that such a ‘semantic net’ and ring compositions are typical for many wisdom-texts including James. To structure according to themes or topics65 (περὶ δέ) is more in accordance with wisdom literature, and this can illuminate the argumentation. A thematic outline is fruitful,66 both for Matthew and James (M. Sheppard),67 and for just the SM and James (F. Eleder).68 James has, however, a more conscious compositional plan.

4) Key-words as structuring principles. The SM has a clear outline and highlights certain sentences at the end of the paragraphs: like Matt 5,16; 5,20.48; 6,33; 7,12.69 James also uses this rather universal tool: Jas 1,12.26f; 2,13.26; 61 Ernst Pfeiffer, “Der Zusammenhang des Jakobusbriefes”, TSK 1 (1850), 163–181; cf. Cladder, “Der formale Aufbau des Jakobusbriefes” (1904); Peter B.R. Forbes, “The Structure of the Epistle of James”, EvQ 44 (1972), 147–153. 62 Allison, James (2013), 80, his predecessors are listed in n. 423. 63 Baasland, “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes” (1988), 3657. 64 Frankemölle, “Das semantische Netz des Jakobusbriefes” (1990); idem, Brief des Jakobus I (1994), 152–180. 65 David G. Bradley, “The Topos as a Form in the Pauline Paraenesis”, JBL 72 (1953), 238–246, here 246. 66 Rustler, Thema und Disposition des Jakobusbriefes (1952). It is possible to discover various pre-texts or a hidden pattern behind James, and many Tanach-texts are possible candidates, antitheses (Jas 2,14–26; 1,12–18; 3,13–5,6) and three syntheses (1,19–27; 3,1– 12; 5,7–20). 67 Shepherd, “The Epistle of James and the Gospel of Matthew” (1956). Cf. W. Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbriefes (1986), 174, who concluded with a list of eight common themes. 68 Eleder, Jesus und Bergpredigt (1966), 54–57, found 15 Jesus-sayings from the SM (see above, n. 15). 69 Matt 5,16 (keyword: ὑµῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα); 5,20/6,33 (keyword: ἡ δικαιοσύνη), in the conclusion of 5,21–48 (5,48 and the keyword: ὑµεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειος), or the Golden Rule (7,12: πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς) or 7,21 (ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ πατρός µου). The exordium ends with an exhortation (χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὅτι ὁ µισθὸς ὑµῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς). The only paragraph without a concluding sentence is Matt 6,1–18, which has the Lord’s Prayer in its centre (and the sentence in 6,10: γενηθήτω τὸ θέληµά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς).

441

7.2 The SM and James: Genre and Composition

3,11.18; 4,12 are such distinctive concluding remarks. It is more difficult to combine key words and key-terms, as in the SM. The notion of righteousness is crucial in Matt 5,20 (5,3.10; 6,1.33) and can be seen as one of the themes, or the theme in the SM. In James ‘righteousness’ does not have quite the same impact in Jas 1,20; 2,23; 3,18. On the other hand, the notion of perfection (τέλειος) is important both in the SM (Matt 5,48) and even more so in James (1,4.17.25; 3,2).70 One should notice that the SM and James have many of the same key words (ἀγαπῶ – Matt 5,43f.46; 6,24 and Jas 1,12; 2,5.8; ἐλεεῖν/ἔλεος – Matt 5,7 and Jas 2,13.13; 3,17). In spite of their importance, none of these are really structuring the SM and James. 7.2.2.2 Do Both the SM and James Have a Rhetorical Composition? The SM definitely has a rhetorical outline, even though the extension of exordium, propositio and peroratio, plus the composition of Matt 6,19–7,12 will always be a matter of discussion.71 Based on the genre of deliberative speech, I have argued for the following outline: exordium

propositio

Beatitudes 5,3–10 + 11f

Keywords 5,12– 16/20

probatio Arg. I Arg. II Antitheses Antitheses 5,21–48 6,1–18

Arg. III On priority 6,19–34

peroratio Arg. IV On reciprocity 7,1–12

Conclusion 7,13–27

The exordium and peroratio (beginning and concluding parts) name the keywords: Kingdom of God, righteousness, will of God, hearing and doing. The propositio (5,17–20 plus 5,12–16) does the same. The probatio has four steps of argumentation, where rhetorical composition and thematic outline correspond. The four rhetorical steps unfold the love commandment (to neighbour, 5,21–48, to God, 6,1–18, to God, 6,19–34, to neighbour, 7,1–12).72

Does James have a rhetorical structure? The question is highly disputed.73 Exegetes before 1930, including excellent James-scholars in the period 1900– 1930, e.g. J.B. Mayor, J.H. Ropes, J. Chaine, A. Schlatter and even M. Dibe-

70 Hartin (Spirituality of Perfection [1999]) made ‘perfection’ the main theme in James; Frankemölle, “Gespalten oder ganz” (1985), and J.H. Elliott, “The Epistle of James in rhetorical and ‘social scientific’ Perspective” (1993), who puts the theme into a broader rhetorical and ‘social scientific’ perspective. 71 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation (1984), 39–63: Matt 5,3–16 proem; 5,17–20 propositio; 5,21ff proofs; 7,21–27 epilogue. 72 Thom, “Justice in the Sermon on the Mount” (2009). 73 Cf. Baasland, “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes” (1988), 3654–3659, and recently Duane F. Watson, “The Rhetorical Composition of the Epistle of James”, in Eric F. Mason/Darian R. Lockett (eds.), Reading the Epistle of James: A Resource for Students, Atlanta: SBL Press 2019, 99–116.

442

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

lius provided good comments on the rhetorical character of James.74 Even so many were surprised when W. Wuellner once again launched the theory based on the so-called ‘New Rhetoric’.75 After G.E. Kennedy applied ‘ancient rhetoric’ to the New Testament,76 many exegetes followed up (e.g. E. Baasland,77 D.F. Watson,78 L. Thurén,79 W.H. Wachob80). Rhetoric is a key to James, but it surprises us even less than in SM-research that the rhetorical schemes are adapted differently. If both the SM and James are deliberative speeches, one must expect a similar rhetorical pattern and in 1982/1988 I suggested the following structure:81 exordium propositio

1,2– 12/16

1,17–27

Arg. I 2,1– 13

probatio Arg. Arg. II III 2,14– 3,1– 26 12

propositio II

3,13–18

Arg. IV 4,1– 12

probatio Arg. V 4,13– 5,6

peroratio Arg. VI 5,7– 5,13–20 12

This scheme is rather rough (German: skizzenhaft) in order to show progress in the argumentation and that there is something like an exordium, propositio, argumentatio and peroratio. Most importantly, James has a propositio, which according to Aristotle (Rhet. 1414a) is necessary in a speech. The propositio is more than a one-liner and can be repeated, and this happens in James. 74

Wachob, Voice of Jesus (2000), 11, n. 29, mentions J.B. Mayor (CCXI–CCXIV), J.H. Ropes (25–27), Joseph Chaine, L’Épitre de Saint Jacques (EBib 20), Paris: Gabalda 21927 (XCI–CIV), A. Schlatter (77–84). 75 Wuellner, “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht der Rhetorik und Textpragmatik” (1978), based on the ‘text-linguistic’ model (W. Iser; H.F. Plett; D. Breuer) and Perelman/ Olbrechts-Tyteca’s ‘Nouvelle Rhétorique’ (1958) and H. Lausberg’s Handbuch (1960). 76 Kennedy’s The Art of Persuasion in Greece (1972), was a stimulating impulse to study the classical texts. Unfortunately, he made no analysis of James here nor in his New Testament Interpretation (1984). 77 Already in Baasland, “Der Jakobusbrief als neutestamentliche Weisheitsschrift” (1982), 122f; idem, “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes” (1988), 3654–3659; idem, Jakobsbrevet (1992), 176–178. Cf. MongstadKvammen, Postcolonial Reading of the Epistle of James (2013), 37f. 78 D.F. Watson, “An Assessment of the Rhetoric and Rhetorical Analysis of the Letter of James” (2007), which Watson had previously applied to Jas 2–3 (“James 2 in Light of Graeco-Roman Schemes of Argumentation” [1993] and “The Rhetoric of James 3,1–12 and a Classical Pattern of Argumentation” [1993]). Cf. J.D.N. Van der Westhuizen, “Stylistic Techniques and their Functions in James 2:14–26”, Neot. 25 (1991), 89–107. 79 Thurén, “Risky Rhetoric in James?” (1995); idem, “The general New Testament Writings” (1997), 592–596 (1,1–18 exordium; 1,19–27 propositio; 2,1–5,6 argumentatio; 5,7–20 peroratio) 80 Wachob, Voice of Jesus (2000), 11–24 and 54–57. He analyses Jas 2,1–13, and a number of other texts in James. 81 Baasland, “Der Jakobusbrief als neutestamentliche Weisheitsschrift” (1982), 122; idem, “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes” (1988), 3655.

7.2 The SM and James: Genre and Composition

443

The SM has many wisdom-sayings, but James is thoroughly wisdomwriting. We have at the same time to demonstrate its protreptic character and do justice to James as wisdom-writing. One should first of all look at the structuring signals in the text itself. Four explicit signals should give an indication: (a) The way James addresses the audience. Ἀδελφοί is used 15 times (1,2. 16.19; 2,1.5.14; 3,1.10.12; 4,11; 5,7.9.10.12.19). The distribution throughout the whole letter shows the importance of this form of address. The form is slightly more used in the peroratio, and one should observe the repeated form in Jas 1,16.19 and 3,10.12, which marks the (two) propositio(nes).82 It occurs in the bridges in the text, and introduces a new paragraph seven times (1,2.19; 2,1.14; 3,1.12; 5,7) or important sayings (1,19; 2,5; 3,10; 4,11; 5,9.10.12) and not least the two protreptic key-sentences: 1,16: µὴ πλανᾶσθε, ἀδελφοί µου ἀγαπητοί. 5,19: ἀδελφοί µου, ἐάν τις ἐν ὑµῖν πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας … This form shows clearly the progress in James’ vivid and colourful speech. He does not strictly follow a rhetorical scheme. He wants to move people and this address is the signal for an important saying or the beginning of a new argument. (b) We see James’ rhetorical skills in the way he also uses slogans as headlines. Every slogan is given an explanation and a reason. The use of δέ (40 times) in explanations and the use of γάρ (16 times), ὅτι (12 times), ἐάν (seven times) for giving reasons is in this context appropriate. (c) James can also conclude with slogans. He creates a sort of conclusion by using characteristics, he uses often οὗτος and οὕτως, and also οὖν (four times – and only in the last part of the speech), etc. 1,8: ἀνὴρ δίψυχος, ἀκατάστατος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ 1,12: µακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς ὑποµένει πειρασµόν, ὅτι δόκιµος γενόµενος λήµψεται τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς ὃν ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν 1,23: οὗτος ἔοικεν ἀνδρὶ κατανοοῦντι τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ 1,25: οὗτος µακάριος ἐν τῇ ποιήσει αὐτοῦ ἔσται 1,26: τούτου µάταιος ἡ θρησκεία 2,12: οὕτως λαλεῖτε καὶ οὕτως ποιεῖτε ὡς διὰ νόµου ἐλευθερίας µέλλοντες κρίνεσθαι 2,13: ἡ γὰρ κρίσις ἀνέλεος τῷ µὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος· κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος κρίσεως 2,20: θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν; 82

Burchard, Jakobusbrief (2000), 152–154, thinks Jas 3,12 is the real introduction to 3,13–18, the second propositio, and I am inclined to agree.

444

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

2,26: ὥσπερ γὰρ … οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν 3,9: ἐν αὐτῇ εὐλογοῦµεν τὸν κύριον καὶ πατέρα καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ καταρώµεθα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς καθ᾿ ὁµοίωσιν θεοῦ γεγονότας 3,18: καρπὸς δὲ δικαιοσύνης ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην 4,12: εἷς ἐστιν [ὁ] νοµοθέτης καὶ κριτὴς ὁ δυνάµενος σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι· σὺ δὲ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων τὸν πλησίον; 4,17: εἰδότι οὖν καλὸν ποιεῖν καὶ µὴ ποιοῦντι, ἁµαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστιν. (d) Many scholars have analysed the rhythm in James. The stylistic features have been illuminated by H.J. Cladder in his ‘formal’ analysis; by R. Schütz, who worked with ‘Kolometrie’, and by the ‘Schallanalyse’ of M. Schievers and F. Hauck. A. Schlatter observed just the ‘poetic structure’,83 and recent studies have continued in the same path. These features can be seen as literary products, but they have a peculiar sound one should listen to. This is in accordance with James’ intentions. Hearing and reading. The exhortation to hearing/listening in 1,19.22 and particularly Jas 2,5 (ἀκούσατε, ἀδελφοί µου ἀγαπητοί) shows its speechcharacter, and as in the SM the rhetorical patterns are dominating. The same is probably the case for 1,22 (γίνεσθε … µὴ µόνον ἀκροαταί), and 2,2–4; 1,19 (ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι); also 5,11 (τὴν ὑποµονὴν Ἰὼβ ἠκούσατε). James addresses the audience explicitly: 1,19 (ἴστε); 2,5 (ἀκούσατε); 2,22 (βλέπεις); 2,24 (ὁρᾶτε); 4,4 (οὐκ οἴδατε); 4,5 (δοκεῖτε); 4,13; 5,1 (ἄγε νῦν). James has as a characteristic feature these imperatives/indicatives, applying to knowing (ἴστε, οἴδατε, εἰδότες, δοκεῖτε) or seeing: Jas 3,4 (ἰδοὺ τὰ πλοῖα); 3,5 (ἰδοὺ ἡλίκον πῦρ); 5,4 (ἰδοὺ ὁ µισθός); 5,7 (ἰδοὺ ὁ γεωργός); 5,9 (ἰδοὺ ὁ κριτής); 5,11(ἰδοὺ µακαρίζοµεν τοὺς ὑποµείναντας). Ἰδού is used six times and only once in the SM and SP.84 Both James and the SM challenge their recipients in a provocative way: “You adulterous people” (4,4: µοιχαλίδες) and “You sinners”, “You doubleminded” (4,8: ἁµαρτωλοί … δίψυχοι). These sayings function like the only vocative in James (2,20: ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ). The SM also has one vocative (Matt 7,4: ὑποκριτά), and otherwise the hypocrites are criticised (6,2.5.16), as are the publicans (5,46) and the pagans (5,47; 6,7: οἱ ἐθνικοί), and it warns against false prophets (7,15). To sum up: The protreptic character is obviously more explicit in James than in the SM. James does not follow the general rhetorical scheme as strictly as the SM. The influence from wisdom literature is more evident in James. 83 Cladder, “Der formale Aufbau des Jakobusbriefes” (1904); idem, “Der formale Aufbau des Jakobusbriefes” (1904); Schütz, “Der Jakobusbrief: Kolometrisch übersetzt”, (1922); cf. idem, Der Jakobusbrief nach Sinnzeilen ins Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig: Hinrichs 1922. 84 Matt 7,4: ἰδοὺ ἡ δοκὸς ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλµῷ σοῦ and SP (Luke 6,23: ἰδοὺ γὰρ ὁ µισθὸς ὑµῶν πολὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) and nine times in Paul.

445

7.3 Audience Analysis in James (and the SM)

7.3 Audience Analysis in James (and the SM) Modern reader-response theories can also be applied to James. The same tools we used in the analysis of the SM can be used here. Orality versus literacy. Audience versus addressee. Both the SM and James are basically oral texts, which does not mean that other aspects should be excluded. One cannot overlook that James presents itself as a letter. But what should be said first? Many recent studies on James put ‘letter’ first.85 The few traces of epistolary features and the strong indications for an oral protreptic speech, make it more appropriate to call it protreptic speech in letter form.86 Two wayward expositions on James, by Gerald H. Rendall and Bo Reicke,87 also offered new insights into the interpretation of James. One of them is the fascination with its homiletic character. Literal – written document James as letter Author’s strong voice Internal polemics

Part of Matthew’s Gospel Matthew’s voice Polemics against out-group or in-group?

Orally performed Protreptic speech Jesus’ inaugural speech

Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian or present-day speakers know that the audience has an immense impact on the message. The inventio, the preparation for the use of arguments, the style, examples, etc.,88 had to ask: “to whom is the SM addressed?” This complicated issue has been dealt with in a separate paragraph (§ 4), and the similarities between the SM and James are easy to discover, but so are the dissimilarities. The letter form with reference to the diaspora, stylistic techniques, explicit references to a broader JewishHellenistic context, the social setting (poor–rich, etc.) bring the addressee more into focus.

85 The commentaries by Frankemölle, Brief des Jakobus I (1994), 64–71; Allison, James (2013), 71–76; Metzner, Brief des Jakobus (2017), 25–30; and monographs by Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora (1993), 9–29; Tsuji, Glaube zwischen Vollkommenheit und Verweltlichung (1997), 5, 12–37. 86 Baasland, “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes” (1988), 3652–3654; Johnson, Letter of James (1995), 16–24; Burchard, Jakobusbrief (2000), 9 (“Mahnbrief”); Wachob, Voice of Jesus (2000), 8–17, 20–23, 44– 52. 87 Rendall, Epistle of St. James (1927); Reicke, Epistle of James (21964), based on his Diakonie, Festfreude und Zelos (1951). Cf. Berger, “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament” (1982), 1363–1371 (‘Predigt’). 88 Aristotle, Rhet. I,3 (1358bff), II,12.17 (1388b–1391b); Cicero, Or. Brut. 37; Quintilian, Inst. III,8,1,38. Cf. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation (1984), 37, and Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca, New Rhetoric (1969), 17–40.

446

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

7.3.1 Implied Speaker in the SM and James Here is the most significant difference between the SM and James, because the speaker in the SM has an extremely strong voice. Expressions like “for my sake” (ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ, Matt 5,11), “I have not come” (ἦλθον, Matt 5,17), “I tell you the truth” (ἀµὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑµῖν, Matt 5,18.26; 6,2.5.16), “But I tell you” (ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν, Matt 5,22.28.32.34.39.44, or simply λέγω ὑµῖν, 6,25.29) do not occur at all in James. Jesus refers to himself in Matt 7,21f (κύριε, τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι, ὁµολογήσω, ἔγνων ὑµᾶς) and in 7,24.26 (ἀκούει µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς). James has nothing of all this. The closest we get is the repeated address (ἀδελφοί µου). The superior position is a relative one. The author of James is indeed Jesus’ servant (κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος). He follows up in Jas 2,1 by identifying himself with the audience and their faith in the Lord Jesus (πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης). He refers therefore to the common faith in three key sayings: 1,18: βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡµᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡµᾶς ἀπαρχήν τινα … 2,21: Ἀβραὰµ ὁ πατὴρ ἡµῶν οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη … 4,5: (ἡ γραφὴ λέγει·) πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦµα ὃ κατῴκισεν ἐν ἡµῖν. James sees himself in a peculiar position at least in the strange examples and dialogues: 2,3: ὑπὸ τὸ ὑποπόδιόν µου; 2,18: κἀγὼ ἔργα ἔχω … δεῖξόν µοι τὴν πίστιν σου χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, κἀγώ σοι δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων µου τὴν πίστιν. 3,3.6; 5,11: He also identifies himself with the struggle and pain (3,3: εἰς τὸ πείθεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἡµῖν, 3,6: ἐν τοῖς µέλεσιν ἡµῶν, and 5,11: Elijah, ὁµοιοπαθὴς ἡµῖν). The speaker is rather unobtrusive and self-effacing. He identifies himself with the audience, and the only reason for giving him a stronger voice is the name James in Jas 1,1. It might associate him with the brother of Jesus, but he introduces himself only as Jesus’ servant, and his audience are the brothers. 7.3.2 Implied Audience/Readers in the SM and James: Speaking to an In-group? The SM is addressed to a general audience,89 and not to the disciples alone. The people of Israel, Jews from Galilee, including some gentiles perhaps – were the original addressees. Matthew underlines in his frames (4,17–25 and 8,1–13) this mixed audience. The SM addresses the audience in the 2nd and 89

Allison, “The Audience of James and the Sayings of Jesus” (2014); K.-W. Niebuhr, “James in the Minds of the Recipients” (2009).

7.3 Audience Analysis in James (and the SM)

447

3rd person and calls them hypocrites, ὑποκριτά, – the only vocative in the SM: James has one vocative also (2,20: ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ), and uses mostly the 3rd person-form (close to a vocative in 4,13; 5,1: Ἄγε νῦν οἱ …): You (plural)

You (singular)

Everyone (3rd person)

Distant groups

Polemical

ὑµεῖς ἀδελφός

σύ/σου αὐτοί

πᾶς, ὅς, ὅστις

αὐτοί ἄνθρωπος

ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ

1) The plural ‘you’ (ὑµεῖς) and the ἀδελφοί-sentences. The plural ‘you’ (ὑµεῖς, ὑµῶν) dominates both in the SM and in James. Its explicit use occurs 33 times in James and 65 times in the SM.90 The same is the case for the 2nd person indicative plural91 and especially the 3rd person imperative singular.92 The plural is used implicitly in the abundance of imperatives both in the SM (especially Matt 6,19–7,12) and in James. Jas 1,6: ἡγήσασθε; 1,16: µὴ πλανᾶσθε; 1,22: γίνεσθε, etc.93 The conscious use of αὐτός shows the difference. Αὐτός occasionally denotes an out-group,94 but mostly an in-group: Jas 1,5: εἰ δέ τις ὑµῶν λείπεται σοφίας, αἰτείτω … καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ. 1,9: καυχάσθω δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ ταπεινὸς ἐν τῷ ὕψει αὐτοῦ. 2,5: οὗτος µακάριος ἐν τῇ ποιήσει αὐτοῦ ἔσται. 2,14: µὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; 2,16: εἴπῃ δέ τις αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑµῶν … µὴ δῶτε δὲ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ σώµατος. 4,11: ὁ καταλαλῶν ἀδελφοῦ ἢ κρίνων τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καταλαλεῖ νόµου καὶ κρίνει νόµον. 90 Jas 1,3.5.21; 2,2.5.6.7.16; 3,13.14; 4,1.1.1.2.3.7.9.10; 5,1.2.3.3.3.4.4.5.6.8.8.12.13.14.16; the SM has the formula λέγω ὑµῖν, etc. (Matt 5,18.20.22.26.28.32.34.39.43; 6,2.5.16.25.29) and Matt 5,11.11.12.12.13.14.16.16.16.19.20.37.44.45.46.47.48.48; 6,1.8.8.9.14.14.15.15. 16.19.20.25.25.26.26.27.30.32.33; 7,2.6.6.7.7.7.9.11.11.11.12.12.15.23. 91 In 2,5: ὑµεῖς δὲ ἠτιµάσατε τὸν πτωχόν; 4,5: δοκεῖτε; 4,14: οὐκ ἐπίστασθε; 5,11: εἴδετε, etc. 92 The 3rd person imperative singular occurs from the beginning (1,5.7.9: αἰτείτω – οἰέσθω – καυχάσθω) to the end (5,20) in James. 93 Jas 2,1 (µὴ ἐν προσωποληµψίαις ἔχετε); 2,5 (ἁκούσατε), 2,12 (λαλεῖτε ποιεῖτε); 3,1 (µὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε); 4,2 (ἐπιθυµεῖτε … οὐκ ἔχετε, φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε … οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν, µάχεσθε καὶ πολεµεῖτε, οὐκ ἔχετε); 4,3 (αἰτεῖτε … οὐ λαµβάνετε); 4,4 (οὐκ οἴδατε); 4,7 (ὑποτάγητε … ἀντίστητε); 4,8 (ἐγγίσατε … καθαρίσατε … ἁγνίσατε); 4,9 (ταλαιπωρήσατε … πενθήσατε … κλαύσατε); 4,10 (ταπεινώθητε); 4,11 (µὴ καταλαλεῖτε); 4,16 (καυχᾶσθε); 5,1 (κλαύσατε); 5,5 (ἐτρυφήσατε); 5,6 (κατεδικάσατε, ἐφονεύσατε); 5,7.8 (µακροθυµήσατε); 5,9 (µὴ στενάζετε); 5,10 (ὑπόδειγµα λάβετε); 5,12 (µὴ ὀµνύετε); 5,16 (ἐξοµολογεῖσθε … εὔχεσθε). 94 Αὐτὸς as out-group: 1,8: ἀνὴρ δίψυχος, ἀκατάστατος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ; 1,10f: ὁ δὲ πλούσιος ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ … οὕτως καὶ ὁ πλούσιος ἐν ταῖς πορείαις αὐτοῦ µαρανθήσεται; 2,6: αὐτοὶ ἕλκουσιν ὑµᾶς εἰς κριτήρια; 2,7: οὐκ αὐτοὶ βλασφηµοῦσιν τὸ καλὸν ὄνοµα; 5,3: ὁ ἰὸς αὐτῶν εἰς µαρτύριον ὑµῖν ἔσται.

448

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

4,17: εἰδότι οὖν καλὸν ποιεῖν καὶ µὴ ποιοῦντι, ἁµαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστιν. 5,14f: προσευξάσθωσαν ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν ἀλείψαντες [αὐτὸν] ἐλαίῳ ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ κυρίου. καὶ ἐγερεῖ αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος· κἂν ἁµαρτίας ᾖ πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ. 5,19: ἐάν τις ἐν ὑµῖν πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἐπιστρέψῃ τις αὐτόν. 5,20: ὁ ἐπιστρέψας ἁµαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ σώσει ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκ θανάτου. The usage in the SM is different. It only occasionally denotes an outgroup (Matt 6,1.7.8.26; 7,23) or an in-group (6,2.5.16: ἀπέχουσιν τὸν µισθὸν αὐτῶν). Jas 1,5 comes close to the Beatitudes: the αὐτοί will receive blessings from God (5,3–10; 7,11). Ἀδελφοί in the SM is rather an ‘out-group’ (Matt 5,22–24; 7,3–5). In James ἀδελφοί are definitely an ‘in-group’. In the text of James, formed as a speech, the ἀδελφοί are the first addressees:95 1,2; 2,1; 3,1.10.12; 5,19: ἀδελφοί µου 1,16.19; 2,5: ἀδελφοί µου ἀγαπητοί 4,11; 5,7: ἀδελφοί The Epistle of James is in this sense, more than other New Testament letters, a ‘friendship letter’.96 The author addresses his audience as equals, not as in the Didache, which addresses the audience as ‘my child’, τέκνον (µου) in 3,1.3.4.5.6; 4,1.97 James starts some shorter paragraphs (1,16–18; 3,10f.12; 4,11f; 5,19) and more especially many longer passages (1,2.19; 2,1.5.14; 3,1; 5,7) with the address ἀδελφοί. 1,2: πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε, ἀδελφοί µου, ὅταν πειρασµοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις … 1,16: µὴ πλανᾶσθε, ἀδελφοί µου ἀγαπητοί 1,19: Ἴστε, ἀδελφοί µου ἀγαπητοί 95 Paul uses the same addresses: ἀδελφοί + µου, in Rom 7,4; 9,3; 15,4; 1 Cor 1,11; 8,13; 11,33; 14,39; 15,58; 2 Cor 2,13; Phil 3,13; 4,1; + ἀγαπητοί in Rom 11,28; 12,19; 1 Cor 10,14; 15,58; 2 Cor 7,1; 12,19; Phil 4,1; and ἀδελφοί alone in Rom 1,13; 7,1; 8,12; 10,1; 11,25; 12,1; 16,17, etc. Cf. Phil 4,1 (ὥστε, ἀδελφοί µου), also: πέπεισµαι δέ, ἀδελφοί µου (Rom 15,14); ἐδηλώθη γάρ µοι περὶ ὑµῶν, ἀδελφοί µου (1 Cor 1,11); τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί µου, χαίρετε (Phil 3,1); ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ ἐµαυτὸν οὐ λογίζοµαι κατειληφέναι (Phil 3,13); ναὶ ἀδελφέ, ἐγώ σου … (Phlm 20) – and not in ‘Deutero-Pauline letters’. Paul includes Israel in Rom 9,3 (ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν µου τῶν συγγενῶν µου κατὰ σάρκα), 96 Ἀδελφοί only in Hebrews; 2 Pet 1,10; 1 John 3,13; and in 1 Pet 2,11; 4,12; 2 Pet 3,17, twice in Jude and ten times in the Johannine epistles. According to Stowers, Letter Writing

(1986), 58–70, the Epistle of James is not among the friendship-letters. Many of its characteristics are lacking. As paraenetic letter/letter of exhortation (ibid,, 96f) or as protreptic speech, more distance to the audience is required. 97

Also 1 Cor 4,14: οὐκ ἐντρέπων ὑµᾶς γράφω ταῦτα ἀλλ᾿ ὡς τέκνα µου ἀγαπητὰ νουθετῶν and Eph 5,1: τέκνα ἀγαπητά.

7.3 Audience Analysis in James (and the SM)

449

2,1: ἀδελφοί µου, µὴ ἐν προσωποληµψίαις ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν. 2,5: ἀκούσατε, ἀδελφοί µου ἀγαπητοί· οὐχ ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσµῳ. 2,14: τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί µου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν ἔργα δὲ µὴ ἔχῃ; 3,1: µὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί µου, εἰδότες ὅτι µεῖζον κρίµα ληµψόµεθα. 3,10: οὐ χρή, ἀδελφοί µου, ταῦτα οὕτως γίνεσθαι. 3,12: µὴ δύναται, ἀδελφοί µου, συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι ἢ ἄµπελος σῦκα; 4,11: µὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων, ἀδελφοί. 5,7: µακροθυµήσατε οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἕως τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου. 5,9: µὴ στενάζετε, ἀδελφοί, κατ᾿ ἀλλήλων ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε· 5,10: ὑπόδειγµα λάβετε, ἀδελφοί, τῆς κακοπαθίας … τοὺς προφήτας. 5,12: πρὸ πάντων δέ, ἀδελφοί µου, µὴ ὀµνύετε µήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν µήτε … 5,19: ἀδελφοί µου, ἐάν τις ἐν ὑµῖν πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας … This address is avoided by the SM and we have nothing like this in the SM. 2) Σύ/σου-sentences. The singular ‘you’ is a particular rhetorical figure in the SM. Altogether it occurs 63 times, mostly in parables (Matt 5,23– 26.29f.33–36.39–42; 6,2–4.6.17f.21–23; 7,3–5). James has the same feature altogether eight times, including in one example-story (2,3) and in the diatribe, Jas 2,18.18.18.19. Jas 2,8 and 4,12 reflect – like Matt 5,43 – the σύ in the Decalogue.98 3) The universal sentences (πᾶς, ἄνθρωπος, αὐτοί, etc.). We have some sayings with universal addressees as in the SM, but relatively few. Only one πᾶς-saying (Jas 1,19, see below) and one οὐδείς-saying (τὴν δὲ γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς δαµάσαι δύναται ἀνθρώπων, 3,8), but clarified by an extra ἄνθρωπος. Other texts in James also have the universal personification of reprehensible behaviour (cf. 2,20; 3,8.9; 5,17): 1,7: µὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος ὅτι λήµψεταί τι παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου. 1,19: ἔστω δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν. 2,24: ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως µόνον. To sum up: The SM offers less a universal ethics. James speaks more to an in-group and has relatively few exhortations/admonitions to a broader audience. He uses general arguments and a broad audience could reflect on his distinct message.

98

Cf. formulations like Jas 2,20: θέλεις, 2,22: βλέπεις, etc.

450

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

7.3.3 The Use of (Rhetorical) Questions According to Mark, Jesus often used questions in his teaching.99 These sayings have the rhetorical function of interrogatio. Questions arise, there is a challenge; this forces people to reflect and to make the right decisions. It must be a coincidence that both the SM and James have 17 questions, but one reason might be that both are protreptic speeches. They follow different patterns.100 James has no questions in the opening and closing parts. The first question comes in Jas 2,4, and according to Nestle there are no questions after 4,12. Nestle has 17 questions,101 but it is disputed whether Jas 2,20 and 4,6 are questions. On the other hand, there are good reasons for seeing Jas 2,18;102 4,5; 5,6;103 5,13f as questions. τίς/τις

τί/πόθεν/πῶς

οὐκ/οὐχ/οὐ

µήτι

εἰ

SM

τίς ἐξ ὑµῶν 6,27; 7,9

πῶς 6,28; 7,4

7,16

James

1,5.23.26; 2,14.16.18; 3,2.13; 4,12; 5,13.13.14.19.19

πόθεν 4,1.1 τί 2,14 + τὸ ὄφελος 2,14.16

5,14.36; 6,24.26.30; 7,3.18 1,20.23.25; 2,11.21.24.25; 3,2.10.15; 4,2.2.2.3.11,14; 5,12.17

5,13.29.30; 6,1.23.30; 7,11 1,5; 2,8.9.11; 3,2f.14; 4,11

3,11

We see a striking similarity between the two texts in general and in many details (οὐκ, µήτι, εἰ). Some of the minor differences should also be noted: τί is used about ten times, James uses it only twice (in the expression τί τὸ ὄφελος, 2,14.16). Πῶς is used twice in the SM, and πόθεν twice in James, and only James has ὄφελος. The rhetorical οὐ(κ/χ) is only used once in the SM (6,26: οὐχ ὑµεῖς µᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν; cf. 6,30), whereas it plays an important role in James (2,4.5.6.7; 4,1.4 and probably 5,6).104

99

Baasland, “Fourth Quest?” (2011), 53f. Matt 5,13.46.47; 6,25.26.27.30.31.31.31; 7,3.4.9.10.14.16.22; Jas 2,4.5.6.7.14.20.21. 25; 3,11.12.13; 4,1.1.3.4.6.12; 5,6. 101 Jas 2,5.6.7.14.14.14.15.16.17.(20.)21.25 (both examples from the Tanach); 3,11. 12.13; 4,1.1.4.6.12. 102 Burchard, Jakobusbrief (2000), 109, 117–121. 103 Alonso-Schökel, “James 5,2 [sic! = 5,6] and 4,6” (1973), cf. Baasland, “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes” (1988), 3657, and idem, Jakobsbrevet (1992), 139. 104 Οὐ(κ/χ) as contrast/negation in statements, Jas 1,20.23.25; 2,11.21.24.25; 3,2.10.15; 4,2(3x).3.11.14; 5,12.17. James has µὴ δύναται twice (2,14; 3,12) and οὐ δύνασθε once (4,2). Luke has only µήτι δύναται (Luke 6,39) and πῶς δύνασαι (6,42). The SM has οὐχί three times (Matt 5,46f; 6,25), also Luke 6,39, but not James. 100

7.3 Audience Analysis in James (and the SM)

451

2,4: οὐ διεκρίθητε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐγένεσθε κριταὶ διαλογισµῶν πονηρῶν; 2,5: οὐχ ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσµῳ πλουσίους ἐν πίστει καὶ κληρονόµους τῆς βασιλείας ἧς ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν; 2,6: οὐχ οἱ πλούσιοι καταδυναστεύουσιν ὑµῶν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἕλκουσιν ὑµᾶς εἰς κριτήρια; 2,7: οὐκ αὐτοὶ βλασφηµοῦσιν τὸ καλὸν ὄνοµα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾿ ὑµᾶς; 3,10: οὐ χρή(;) 4,1: οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν, ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑµῶν τῶν στρατευοµένων ἐν τοῖς µέλεσιν ὑµῶν; 4,4: οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσµου ἔχθρα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν; 5,6: οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται ὑµῖν(;) James has more rhetorical questions,105 and interrogation, than the SM (Matt 5,13.15; 6,27), and James here follows up a linguistic convention from wisdom literature. Another linguistic convention is the οὐ δύναται-sentences (five in the SM 5,14.36; 6,24.24; 7,18 and Jas 1,21; 2,14; 3,8.12).106 Both conventions have mainly the function of making clear, illuminating, confirming. Nearly all questions demonstrate the effort in the SM and James to challenge the audience. 7.3.4 Rhetorical τίς/τις-Sentences The use of τίς/τις in James is intriguing:107 We do find the expression τίς ἐξ ὑµῶν in the SM, but not the use of the rhetorical τις.108 τίς ἐξ ὑµῶν/ἐν ὑµῖν τίς/τις

Matt 6,27; 7,9 (Luke 6,47; 12,25)

Jas 1,5; 2,16; 3,13 Jas 2,14.16.18; 3,13; 4,12; 5,13.13.14.19

This τις is seemingly an imaginary figure: 2,14: ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν ἔργα δὲ µὴ ἔχῃ; µὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; 2,16: εἴπῃ δέ τις αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑµῶν· ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, θερµαίνεσθε καὶ χορτάζεσθε, µὴ δῶτε δὲ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ σώµατος, τί τὸ ὄφελος; 2,18: ἀλλ᾿ ἐρεῖ τις· σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις, κἀγὼ ἔργα ἔχω· 105

Jas 2,16.17.18; 3,11; 4,1.5.5.12. Prov 17,6; 26,15; 30,21; 31,15. 107 Τις/τι has the notion of ‘some/someone/something’ (1,7 τι; 1,18 τινα; 5,13) or is interrogative (2,14 τί). Cf. Burchard, Jakobusbrief (2000), 112f, who summarizes the attempts to identify the τις. One should concentrate on the rhetorical function of τις, however. 108 It refers in Jas 1,7.18; 2,14; 5,12 to an open reality. The τίς-question Jas 3,13 (τίς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήµων ἐν ὑµῖν;) picks up 1,5 (εἰ δέ τις ὑµῶν λείπεται σοφίας). Jas 2,16 (τις αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑµῶν) and 4,12 mention explicitly τίς. 1 Pet 3,13 has τίς ὁ κακώσων ὑµᾶς ἐὰν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταὶ γένησθε; 106

452

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

3,13: τίς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήµων; 4,12: σὺ δὲ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων τὸν πλησίον; 5,13f: κακοπαθεῖ τις ἐν ὑµῖν, προσευχέσθω· εὐθυµεῖ τις, … ἀσθενεῖ τις ἐν ὑµῖν. 5,19: ἐάν τις ἐν ὑµῖν πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἐπιστρέψῃ τις αὐτόν. The idenfication of this anonymous person has been confused in scholarship, due to the enigmatic sentence in Jas 2,18 and the Paul-versus-James debate. Jas 2,18 should rather be interpreted in the same way as other τις-sentences. James here challenges his audience, in a rhetorical and not in polemical way. James is more ἄσκησις than the SM.109 The admonition in 3,12 is followed by one of the key sentences, 3,13, about having wisdom (σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήµων): “Let him show it by his good life (ἐκ τῆς καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς), by deeds (τὰ ἔργα) done in the humility that comes from wisdom” (ἐν πραΰτητι σοφίας). We could add the five εἴ/ἐάν τις (cf. Matt 6,23.30; 7,11): 1,5: εἰ δέ τις ὑµῶν λείπεται σοφίας, αἰτείτω. 1,23: εἴ τις ἀκροατὴς λόγου ἐστὶν καὶ οὐ ποιητής, οὗτος … 1,26: εἴ τις δοκεῖ θρησκὸς εἶναι µὴ χαλιναγωγῶν γλῶσσαν αὐτοῦ. 3,2: εἴ τις ἐν λόγῳ οὐ πταίει, οὗτος τέλειος ἀνήρ. 5,19: ἐάν τις ἐν ὑµῖν πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἐπιστρέψῃ τις αὐτόν. These sentences are mostly followed by a οὗτος-statement (1,23: οὗτος ἔοικεν ἀνδρὶ κατανοοῦντι …; 1,25: οὗτος µακάριος ἐν τῇ ποιήσει αὐτοῦ; 1,26: τούτου µάταιος ἡ θρησκεία; 3,2: οὗτος τέλειος ἀνήρ …). Matt 7,21–23 has the same accusation. The SM and James challenge people who are just talking without doing. People in this peripheral group assume that they are wise; Jas 1,13; 2,14.17f; 4,13.16 and 1,26 (εἴ τις δοκεῖ θρησκὸς εἶναι …); 4,5. These sentences have the same function as the εἴ τιςsentences. It is irony against people who have words but no ethical acts. It is an overinterpretation to look for Pauline theology behind ‘somebody’ (τις) in the text. R. Bauckham has recently argued that this is not a polemical text. Jas 2,14–26 has rather diatribe-style, because James is here in “dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor”.110 It is impossible to recognise any specific Pauline theology behind the imaginary interlocutor in the rest of James and on this basis to say something specific about time, place or the theological position of James.

109 Baasland, “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes” (1988), 3678. 110 Bauckham, “The Wisdom of James and the Wisdom of Jesus” (2004), 57–60, here 57f.

7.3 Audience Analysis in James (and the SM)

453

7.3.5 Peripheral Audience in the SM and James James also has a wider audience. The author is reproving a peripheral group, reminding them also of things they should know (οὐκ οἴδατε in 4,4). James challenges the listeners/readers, often in a very sharp way: 1,8: ἀνὴρ δίψυχος, ἀκατάστατος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ 2,20: ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ 4,4: µοιχαλίδες, οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσµου ἔχθρα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν; 4,8: καθαρίσατε χεῖρας, ἁµαρτωλοί – ἁγνίσατε καρδίας, δίψυχοι 4,13; 5,1: ἄγε νῦν οἱ λέγοντες – ἄγε νῦν οἱ πλούσιοι James attacks certain misconceptions held by someone (2,14–26; 4,12: τίς/σύ) and certain people who act lawlessly (4,13; 5,1: ἀγε νῦν οἱ λέγοντες; ἀγε νῦν οἱ πλούσιοι). The implied audience are not only followers.111 The SM is less polemical. Matt 6,30 accuses persons with little faith (ὀλιγόπιστοι) and Matt 7,4 hypocrites (ὑποκριτά/οἱ ὑποκριταί in 6,1–18). Matt 5,21–48 argues against a ‘classical position’ (ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις). The Antitheses in Matt 5,21–48 indicate a polemical character and some adversaries. Jesus primarily attacks misconceptions that the ‘hypocrites’ have (6,1– 18) and their misinterpretation of important issues. The interpretation that Scribes and Pharisees accomplish, is not sufficient. Both the SM and the Epistle of James have a sapiential character, but James contains substantially more polemic than the SM.112 It is not a polemic against a certain theological position; it is a polemic against people who do not think and live wholeheartedly, who know what faith and God’s will is all about, and still do not act. The out-group in Jas 4,13–5,6 lacks knowledge and acts accordingly. To sum up: The SM and James use similar rhetorical tools. James uses rhetoric to correct an in-group and at the same time is much more polemical. The polemic is distinct, but not in the sense that it criticises certain theological positions.

111

Niehoff, “The implied Audience in the Letter of James” (2013). Wischmeyer, “Polemik im Jakobusbrief” (2011), concentrates on the problem James versus Paul, and has a balanced evaluation of the position of Hengel, Avemarie and Mitchell, Bauckham. 112

454

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

7.4 Ethical Argumentation in James Compared with the SM Both the SM and James primarily offer ethics, and both deliver a kind of wisdom ethics. The theme of ethics implies both an analytical approach of the text and a constructive one. A comparison of the ethics of the SM and James must start with an analytical approach. A historical approach includes, however, a constructive approach, in which the character of the ethics becomes clearer through comparison: with Old Testament commandments,113 halachic rules, wisdom or prophetic-apocalyptic ethics, with forms of Hellenistic ethics. Similarly, S. Luther/R. Zimmermann distinguish between three levels of argumentation: a) intra-textual level (form, style, logic, etc.), b) textual and intertextual level (discourse analysis), c) extra-textual level (speech-act and reader-response analysis).114 Both the SM and James contain mostly wisdom-sentences, but particularly the SM offers some prophetic sayings. The abundance of wisdom-sayings requires more profound reflections. Ruben Zimmermann has fruitfully provided tools for analysing ‘implicit ethics’ in New Testament texts.115 He analyses eight elements in the text: Linguistic forms – Norms and maxims for actions – History of tradition – Hierarchy of values – Motivational structure – Agents of ethical judgment – The actual behaviour – Addressees/field of application. Zimmermann, who developed the method in his analysis of Pauline texts, has already applied this on the SM. So far, the method has not been applied on James. Following Zimmermann, Susanne Luther emphasised the use of discourses116 and of parables in ethical argumentation.117 I will analyse the actual forms in James and the SM according to the following scheme: Imperatives Exhortations/admonitions Motivations and reasons

Maxims & general statements Antitheses

Questions & dialogues Parables

Norms (and their hierarchy) Principles

Philosophy – What is good life? Theological reasons118

113 There are many problems with such a comparison: many different ethical teachings exist in the Old Testament, and literary forms and historical contexts influence the ethical statements. 114 Zimmermann/van der Watt/Luther (eds.), Moral Language in the New Testament (2010), in the introduction p. 4. 115 In his article, “Sermon on the Mount” (2014), Zimmermann applies more or less the method he has proposed in “The ‘Implicit Ethics’ of New Testament Writings” (2009) and in Horn/Zimmermann (eds.), Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ I (2009), 259–264. 116 S. Luther, Sprachethik im Neuen Testament (2015). 117 S. Luther, “Protreptic Ethic in the Letter of James” (2010). 118 Theology in the strict sense, and Christology and eschatology also. The notion of prayer has importance in ethical reflection, cf. Matt 6,9–13 and Jas 1,5f; 4,2.3; 5,13–17.

7.4 Ethical Argumentation in James Compared with the SM

455

The distribution in the rhetorical outline of the SM is worth noticing: We have parable/ metaphorical language in all parts. The same must be said about antithetical sayings, Isayings and judgment-sayings. Beatitudes (5,3ff) and prayer (6,9ff) on the other hand are only found in one of the parts. The correctio is limited to two parts (5,21ff; 6,2ff) and the aphoristic sayings occur all over, but mainly in the last part (6,19ff). The three forms of wisdom-sayings reflect the three arts of persuasion: the epideictic, judicial and deliberative speech.

We do not expect many authoritative sayings in a deliberative speech. The function is to persuade through arguments and not through precepts and demands. The authority is more implicit, but very clear. 7.4.1 The Character of Wisdom-Sayings The wisdom-style in James is easy to discover, but many of the characteristics in Proverbs are missing in James:119 James addresses the audience as ‘brothers’, the Proverbs (1,8.10.15; 2,1; 3,1.11.21, etc.) and Sirach address ‘my son’. James never uses numerical sayings (Prov 6,16–19; 30,7.10–33; Sir 25,7–11) or onomastica, riddles, fable, allegory, etc. James and Proverbs/ Jesus Sirach also use the images differently (cf. Prov 26). James has ‘not better than’-sayings (‫טוֹב‬- or συµφέρει-sentences), which the SM has in Matt 5,29f. James rather uses the more protreptic expression τί τὸ ὄφελος; (Jas 2,16f). Both James and the SM have the two general types of sayings: – Mashal (‫שׁל‬ ָ ‫) ָמ‬, the sentence (German: ‘Aussagespruch’) often formed in 3rd person as parallelismus membrorum, with both synthetical and antithetical form. Bultmann called them principles (general and personal formulated sentences, beatitudes, arguments a minore ad maius, etc.).120 – Admonition/exhortation (German: ‘Mahnworte’). In 1925 P. Fiebig showed an interest in conditional and unconditional sayings,121 and D. Zeller concentrated on the wisdom exhortation (‘Mahnspruch’) with a 2nd person (singular or plural), often with a certain syntactic form (particularly the socalled vetitive). Zeller used insights from more recent Old Testament scholarship, particularly the results of W. Richter.122 119 Lang, Die weisheitliche Lehrrede (1972); P.J. Nel, Structure and Ethos (1982), here 9–17; Sæbø, Sprüche (2012), 9–17. 120 Bultmann, GST, 38f, was inspired by Baumgartner, “Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach” (1914), 165–169. 121 Fiebig, Erzählungsstil (1925), 3–31, starting with εἰ or ἐάν conditional sentences with imperative or indicative, adding imperative sayings with or without motives, πᾶς- and ἴσθι-sentences. 122 Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche (1977), based on Richter, Recht und Ethos (1966). Zeller analysed the structure and form of the individual texts (pp. 21f and 31f on Prov 10–29 plus p. 37 on Kohelet). The grammatical form and the distinction ‘with or without reasons’ (“mit/ohne Begründung”) are crucial for Zeller.

456

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

– A third category can be added: rhetorical questions (different from interrogatio).123 They are often seen together with the sentences, meshalim, and this will be done here also. In the wake of ‘The Third wave in Jesus-research’ the aphoristic sayings became crucial.124 Ronald A. Piper125 had defined the ‘aphoristic sayings’ as brief, selfcontained, pithy, succinct, often with third-person and impersonal form, and Dormeyer operates with three forms of wisdom-sayings.126 David E. Aune now offered a comprehensive description of aphorisms. His eight categories (macarism, whoever-sayings, synonymous couplets, antithetical/paradoxical, admonitions, sentences, statements of reciprocity)127 were applied by R. Bauckham to the Epistle of James. Bauckham elaborates aphoristic sayings, parables128 and also the diatribe, as a third major category. What he calls diatribe comes close to Bultmann’s (and Piper’s) category ‘larger units’ in the SM (Matt 5,39ff; 6,25–34; 7,1–5; 7,7–11).129 They have a similar structure to Jas 2,1–4.14–20; 3,2–11; 4,13–17. The dialogues (diatribe) in Jas 2,1–3,12 have many aphoristic sayings, and can be compared with Matt 6,25–33 or 7,1–12. 123 Zeller is closer to Fiebig’s categories in “Jesu weisheitliche Ethik” (2004), 195. Klaus Berger has a similar approach in “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament” (1982), 1056–1077; idem, Formgeschichte (1984), 92–94, 224–226, 226–245, 253f, 276 (Metaphorische Mahnrede, begründete Mahnrede, Mahnrede im Tat-Folge-Stil, Unheilsansage als Mahnung, personale Mahnrede, protreptische Mahnrede). Berger gives many sayings different names, and this results in overloaded descriptions and a lack of clarity. 124 William 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; Charles E. Carlston, “Proverbs, Maxims, and the Historical Jesus”, JBL 99 (1980), 87– 105; Perdue, “The Wisdom Sayings of Jesus” (1986). Cf. Crossan, In Fragments (1983), who counts 36 of 133 sayings in the SM as “aphoristic statements” (pp. 330ff). Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition (1989); Lips, Weisheitliche Traditionen (1990); Max Küchler, Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen: Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des frühjüdischen Jahweglaubens (OBO 26), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1979, 587ff. Zeller, “Jesu weisheitliche Ethik” (2004), offers a better overview. 125 Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition (1989), 4–6. 126 Dormeyer, Das Neue Testament im Rahmen der antiken Literaturgeschichte (1993), 67ff: “indikativische und interrogative Weisheitsworte und imperativische Weisheitsworte”. 127 Aune, “Oral Tradition and the Aphorisms of Jesus” (1991), 227–236. 128 G. Vermes uses only the categories proverbs and parables, The Religion of Jesus the Jew (1993), 76–119. Fiebig, Erzählungsstil (1925), 3–31 and 32–77 (adding stories, 78ff, and prayer, 131ff), saw aphorisms (‘Aussprüche’) and parables (‘Gleichnisse’) as the main forms. 129 These “longer passages” have a four-fold pattern: Exhortation – Maxim – Examples, Questions or Parables – Concluding exhortation, cf. Bultmann, GST, 82ff (“Größere Kompositionen”)/HST, 79ff (“larger passages”); Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition (1989), 15ff.

7.4 Ethical Argumentation in James Compared with the SM

457

7.4.2 Sentences in the SM and in James (Beatitudes, Maxims, etc.) The SM and James are relatively unique when it comes to the usage of imperatives, but less so for the sentences, meshalim. James and the SM have a variety of styles, as one can expect in rhetorical texts based on wisdom. 1) Beatitudes and woes. The Beatitudes dominate Matt 5,3–11; not so in James, except for the close parallel to Matt 5,11 in Jas 1,12 (µακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς ὑποµένει πειρασµόν, ὅτι δόκιµος γενόµενος λήµψεται τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς ὃν ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν), repeated in 5,11 (ἰδοὺ µακαρίζοµεν τοὺς ὑποµείναντας). However, we have similar sayings with the same promises and partly the same structure: 1,4: ἡ δὲ ὑποµονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι καὶ ὁλόκληροι … 2,5: οὐχ ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσµῳ πλουσίους ἐν πίστει καὶ κληρονόµους τῆς βασιλείας ἧς ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν; 3,3: οὗτος τέλειος ἀνὴρ δυνατὸς χαλιναγωγῆσαι καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶµα. 3,18: καρπὸς δὲ δικαιοσύνης ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην. On the other hand, James, like Luke in the SP, has many woes, without using the term οὐαί, Luke 6,24–26. Jas 4,13 and 5,1 (ἄγε νῦν) come very close. We have at least six ‘woes’ in James: 1,7: µὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος ὅτι λήµψεταί τι παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου 1,8: ἀνὴρ δίψυχος, ἀκατάστατος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ 1,11: οὕτως καὶ ὁ πλούσιος ἐν ταῖς πορείαις αὐτοῦ µαρανθήσεται. 1,26: τούτου µάταιος ἡ θρησκεία 4,9: ὁ γέλως ὑµῶν εἰς πένθος µετατραπήτω καὶ ἡ χαρὰ εἰς κατήφειαν. 4,13; 5,1: ἄγε νῦν οἱ λέγοντες … ἄγε νῦν οἱ πλούσιοι. The emphasis on woes in James illustrates the protreptic character of the epistle. 2) Maxims and general statements (πᾶς-/ὅς-/ὅστις-/οὐδείς-sentences). The SM contains four distinct γνώµαι/maxims (Matt 6,21.22.24.34), but there are more so-called ‘aphoristic sayings’,130 short, pithy, succinct in expression. Despite their brevity they are self-contained and do not necessarily require a narrative. James has many maxim-like sayings, e.g. Jas 3,6 and the following: 3,18: (δέ) καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην. 4,14: (γάρ) ἡ ζωὴ ὑµῶν· ἀτµὶς ἐστε ἡ πρὸς ὀλίγον φαινοµένη. 4,17: (οὖν) εἰδότι καλὸν ποιεῖν καὶ µὴ ποιοῦντι, ἁµαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστιν. 130 Crossan, In Fragments (1983), 330–341, operates with 133 sayings as aphorisms. Küchler, Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen (above, n. 124), 587–592, finds 108, and Charles E. Carlston, “Proverbs, Maxims, and the Historical Jesus”, JBL 99 (1980), 87–105, finds 102.

458

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

These sayings can be seen as popular wisdom (Jas 4,14; Matt 6,34), if one overlooks the theological reflection that all the maxims in the SM and James in fact have. The wisdom literature has abundant sayings about the possible consequences of the acts performed by a wicked, foolish or a righteous, wise person. Matt 7,24.26 and Jas 1,8; 3,2 point in this direction, but both speak more about what everyone/no-one should do. πᾶς ὅστις ὅς + (ἐ)άν οὐδείς/µηδείς

Matt (7+2) 5,22.28.32; 7,8.21.24.26 (7,17.19) Matt (6) 5,39.41; 7,15.24.24.26 Matt (4 + 4) 5,21.22.31.32 + 5,21.22.(26.)31 + 5,(23.)32 Matt 6,24

Luke (3) 6,30.40.47

Jas 1,19131 Jas (3) 2,10.10; 4,14 Jas 4,4 Jas 3,8; 1,13

Wholeness and totality are an important issue in James. Πᾶς occurs therefore in many contexts, meaning ‘wholeness’ in Jas 1,2 (πᾶσαν χαράν); 1,5 (πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς); 1,17 (πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρηµα) and ‘totality’ in Jas 1,8 (ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς); 1,21 (πᾶσαν ῥυπαρίαν); 2,10 (πάντων ἔνοχος); 3,7 (πᾶσα φύσις); 3,16 (πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγµα); 4,16 (πᾶσα καύχησις); 5,19 (πρὸ πάντων δέ). Against this background it is remarkable that James has only one πᾶςsaying (1,19: ἔστω δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν). The SM has at least 17 πᾶς-/ὅς-/ὅστις-sayings. These universal sayings occasionally provide reasons for their statements, or have conditional formulations. More of them are unconditional, and some πᾶς-sentences convey commandments (Matt 5,22: πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόµενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ …; 5,28.32, etc.) or general theological statements (Matt 7,8: πᾶς γὰρ ὁ αἰτῶν λαµβάνει; 7,21.24.26, etc.). Matt 7,24.26 combines πᾶς with ὅστις, but ὅστις is elsewhere used in the extreme examples in 5,39.41 (and 7,15). Some ὅς-sentences also present extreme examples (5,22.32).132 James has few, but important sayings of this type: 4,4: ὃς ἐὰν οὖν βουληθῇ φίλος εἶναι τοῦ κόσµου, ἐχθρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσταται. 2,10: ὅστις γὰρ ὅλον τὸν νόµον τηρήσῃ πταίσῃ δὲ ἐν ἑνί, γέγονεν πάντων ἔνοχος. 4,14: οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τὸ τῆς αὔριον ποία ἡ ζωὴ ὑµῶν· ἀτµὶς γάρ ἐστε …

131

The only πᾶς-saying, but πᾶς is very important in Jas 1,2.5.6.17.21; 2,10; 3,7.16; 4,16; 5,12. 132 Matt 5,22.32 combine πᾶς and ὅς. Otherwise Matt 5,19 (ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ µίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων καὶ διδάξῃ οὕτως). The SP uses a ὅς-saying in Luke 6,46 and never ὅστις.

7.4 Ethical Argumentation in James Compared with the SM

459

James can formulate general sentences without ὅστις, as we see if we compare with Luke 14,11; 18,14 (= ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον κυρίου καὶ ὑψώσει ὑµᾶς, Jas 4,10). Two οὐδείς-/µηδείς-sayings must also be mentioned:133 3,6: τὴν γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς δαµάσαι δύναται ἀνθρώπων 1,13: µηδεὶς πειραζόµενος λεγέτω ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ πειράζοµαι. The only οὐδείς-saying in the SM is extremely important (Matt 6,24: οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν). 3) Antithetical and synonymous sentences in the SM and James. Antithetical statements are very efficient. Wisdom literature prefers this type of statement, and the SM has a number of them. The so-called Antitheses in Matt 5,21–48 (–6,18) are an extreme variation of antithetical statements. The use of particles has not been sufficiently analysed. They are signals in the composition, and they are tools for the interpretation, showing what kind of saying we have. It is rather remarkable that the SM and James have nearly the same usages of negative particles: ἀλλά δέ ἤ καὶ µή µέν

SM (Matthew)

SP (Luke)

James

(6) 5,15.17.39; 6,13.18; 7,21 (35) 11 4 0

6,27 (7) 0 3 0

(5) 1,25f; 2,18; 3,15; 4,11 (35) 10 4 1

These particles occur frequently in longer arguments (Jas 1,13f; 2,1f.5f.8f.16; 3,13–17; 4,11.13–16; 5,1–3). The seven antithetical sayings in Jas 1 may serve as examples: 1,5: αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς – καὶ µὴ ὀνειδίζοντος 1,6: αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει – µηδὲν διακρινόµενος 1,9: καυχάσθω δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ ταπεινὸς … ὁ δὲ πλούσιος ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει 1,19: ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν 1,22: ποιηταὶ λόγου – µὴ µόνον ἀκροαταί 1,25: ποιητὴς ἔργου – οὐκ ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησµονῆς γενόµενος 1,26: εἴ τις δοκεῖ θρησκὸς εἶναι µὴ χαλιναγωγῶν γλῶσσαν αὐτοῦ ἀλλά … The contrast between two forces (outside – inside, from heaven/above – from the earth, etc.) is the basis for the argumentation. The antithetical sentences illustrate the struggle between the two forces. The antithesis in the SM is typical Matthean. Luke has at most some reminiscence of it. The SM has two types (Matt 5,21–48[–6,18]): the first 133

Cf. Jas 1,12: µακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς ὑποµένει πειρασµόν. Cf. 1,17; 2,5; 4,5 ὅς as relative pronoun, cf. 5,10.

460

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

confronts older maxims with Jesus’ authoritative sayings, whereas Matt 6,1– 18 confronts two types of behaviour and perceptions of devotion. Both ways of argumentation are not the issue in James. The antithetical sentences in James have a different context. 7.4.3 Analysis of Imperatives (Admonitions) in the SM and in James It is significant that imperatives dominate in both the SM and James. The SM and James have in fact nearly the same number of imperatives. In the 107 verses of the SM we have more than 70,134 and James in its 108 verses has more than 70.135 SM

Luke 6,20–49

ca. 70 imperatives Aor. 1 5,17 conj. Future 6 5,21.27.33.43.48; 6,5 Imp. 18 5,12.24.24.37.41.44; pres. 6,1.9.16.19.20.25.33; 7,1.7.12.15.23

19/20 imperatives 70 plus imperatives 1 6,29 3 2,8; 4,14.14 2 6,35.47 4 12 6,27.27.28.28 23 6,29.30.31 6,36.37.37.37 6,38

39 5,16.17.24.29f.36.39f.42 4 6,2.6ff.8.9ff.18ff.26.28.31.34 7,3ff.6.13 Inf. 0 0 Ptc. 1 (5,25: ἴσθι εὐνοῶν) 0 Frozen 1 (ἰδού, 7,4) imp. + 2 (ἄγε νῦν, 4,13; 5,1) Imp. aor.

Perf. Prep. 1 + injection

(5,38)

James

6,23.23.42.42 14

2,10; 4,15.15.15 1,4.5.6.8.9.10.13.16. 19.22; 2,1.3.12.16.24; 3,1.14; 4,11; 5,9.12.13.16.20 1,2.21; 2,5.10.18; 3,13; 4,7.9.10; 5,1.7.8.10.14

10 5 6

(ἰδού, 3,4.5; 5,4.7.9.11) + 1 ἴσθι + εὐνοῶν, 5,25) 1 (ἴστε, 1,19) 2–3 (1,10) + 4,17; 5,1

1) The singular/plural aorist and present tense imperatives. The number of exhortations and admonitions is slightly higher in the SM than in James (63 versus 54). James more often has present tense imperative (33 versus 22), whereas the SM prefers aorist imperative more frequently than James does (38 versus 23). Matthew has thus nearly twice as many aorist compared to the 134 In ten cases it is not clear whether the form is really imperative. In Matt 5,13f, ἐστε – ἐστε is disputable as we have seen. The form ἔνοχος ἔσται, used four times in 5,21f, is also disputable, even more so the γένησθε in 5,45. In 5,38 an imperative is presupposed and the imperatives in 7,5 (διαβλέψεις ἐκβαλεῖν τὸ κάρφος) and 7,4 (ἰδού) are less significant. 135 In addition the preposition ἀντί in Matt 5,38 and the injection in Jas 4,13; 5,1 (ἄγε νῦν) presuppose an imperative (Jas 1,10 does the same).

7.4 Ethical Argumentation in James Compared with the SM

461

frequency of the present tense. James has far more imperatives present tense than aorist (underlining indicates 3rd person imperatives):136 Sermon on the Mount Present (22) 5,12 χαίρετε ἀγαλλιᾶσθε 5,24 ὕπαγε – πρόσφερε 5,25 ἴσθι (εὐνοῶν) 5,37 ἔστω137 5,41 ὕπαγε 5,44 ἀγαπᾶτε – προσεύχεσθε 6,1 προσέχετε 6,9 προσεύχεσθε 6,16 µὴ γίνεσθε 6,19 µὴ θησαυρίζετε 6,20 θησαυρίζετε 6,25 µὴ µεριµνᾶτε 6,33 ζητεῖτε µὴ κρίνετε 7,1 αἰτεῖτε – 7,7 ζητεῖτε – κρούετε 7,12 ποιεῖτε 7,15 προσέχετε 7,23 ἀποχωρεῖτε

5,16 5,17 5,24 5,29 5,30 5,36 5,39 5,40 5,42 6,2 6,3 6,6 6,7 6,8 6,9 6,10 6,11 6,12 6,13 6,17 6,26 6,28 6,31 6,34 7,4 7,5 7,6 7,13

136

Aorist (38) λαµψάτω µὴ νοµίσητε ἄφες – διαλλάγηθι ἔξελε – βάλε ἔκκοψον – βάλε µήτε ὀµόσῃς µὴ ἀντιστῆναι – στρέψον ἄφες δός – µὴ ἀποστραφῇς µὴ σαλπίσῃς µὴ γνώτω εἴσελθε – πρόσευξαι µὴ βατταλογήσητε µὴ ὁµοιωθῆτε ἁγιασθήτω ἐλθέτω – γενηθήτω δός ἄφες µὴ εἰσενέγκῃς – ῥῦσαι ἄλειψαι – νίψαι ἐµβλέψατε καταµάθετε µὴ µεριµνήσητε µὴ µεριµνήσητε ἄφες ἔκβαλε µὴ δῶτε – µηδὲ βάλητε εἰσέλθατε

James Present (33) 1,4 ἐχέτω 1,5 αἰτείτω 1,6 αἰτείτω 1,7 µὴ οἰέσθω 1,9 καυχάσθω 1,10 (καυχάσθω) 1,13 λεγέτω 1,16 µὴ πλανᾶσθε 1,19 ἔστω 1,21 δέξασθε 1,22 γίνεσθε 2,1 µὴ ἔχετε 2,3 κάθου – στῆθι – κάθου 2,12 λαλεῖτε – ποιεῖτε 2,16 ὑπάγετε – θερµαίνεσθε – χορτάζεσθε 2,24 ὁρᾶτε 3,1 µὴ γίνεσθε 3,14 κατακαυχᾶσθε – ψεύδεσθε 4,11 µὴ καταλαλεῖτε 5,9 µὴ στενάζετε 5,12 µὴ ὀµνύετε – ἤτω 5,13 προσευχέσθω – ψαλλέτω 5,16 ἐξοµολογεῖσθε – εὔχεσθε 5,20 γινωσκέτω

1,2 1,21 2,5 2,11 2,18 3,13 4,7 4,8

4,9

4,10 5,1 5,7 5,8

5,10 5,14

Aorist (23) ἡγήσασθε (ἀποθέµενοι) δέξασθε ἀκούσατε µὴ µοιχεύσῃς µὴ φονεύσῃς δεῖξον δειξάτω ὑποτάγητε – ἀντίστητε ἐγγίσατε – καθαρίσατε – ἁγνίσατε ταλαιπωρήσατε – πενθήσατε – κλαύσατε ταπεινώθητε κλαύσατε µακροθυµήσατε µακροθυµήσατε – στηρίξατε λάβετε προσκαλεσάσθω

The SP has nearly 20 present tense imperatives and only two aorist imperatives (in the persecution tradition, Luke 6,23 – aorist conjunctive in 6,29). The pattern is remarkably different from both the SM and James. 137 The SM has ἔστω, whereas James has ἔστω in Jas 1,19, but ἤτω and not ἔστω in the parallel to Matt 5,37.

462

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

The frequency of imperatives is both surprising and illuminating. The SM and James are in a unique position in the New Testament. 1 Peter comes closest and the Pauline paraenesis does not have the same number and the same distinct use at all. Few exhortations/admonitions in the SM and in James are exactly the same when it comes to content. The only verbal parallels are: Do! (ποιεῖτε), Pray! (αἰτεῖτε), Love! (ἀγαπᾶτε), Do not swear” (µὴ ὀµνύετε) and the unspecific γίνεσθε and ἔχετε. They clearly show the emulation/elaboration of James. Another difference must be explained. Why does the SM have more aorist than present tense, while James has it the other way around? The imperative aorist normally has a ‘punctiliar’ and ‘ingressive’138 meaning, indicating spontaneous action in special situations. If the aorist indicates a singular event more than the present tense imperative – that normally has a durative and iterative aspect – the present form should generally have more theological significance.139 However, K.L. McKay and B.M. Fanning have correctly argued that this traditional view is not comprehensive: The aorist is ingressive, but can also be “constative” (“make it to a top priority”), whereas the present tense imperative has a more customary and iterative character.140 The aorist might therefore have a strong authoritative force. James, as a more typical wisdom text, therefore frequently has the present form, and the SM has more authoritative sayings. The SM has aorist almost two thirds more than the present tense (38 versus 23),141 whereas James has approximately one third more present tense (33 versus 22). In spite of the number of aorist imperatives in the SM,142 some positive present tense imperatives are significant: 5,12 χαίρετε – ἀγαλλιᾶσθε; 5,44 ἀγαπᾶτε – προσεύχεσθε; 6,20 θησαυρίζετε; 6,33 ζητεῖτε; 7,7 αἰτεῖτε; 7,12 ποιεῖτε). James has fewer aorist imperatives compared to the SM, but some of

138

BDR, 335–337. The use of the 3rd person aorist in prayers to God and in Matt 5,16 is an exception. 140 Daniel B. Wallace, An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1996, esp. 714–725, here 719–722. Also McKay, “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in the New Testament Greek” (1985). Most comprehensive is Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (1990); cf. idem, “Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek: Issues in Definition and Method”, in Stanley E. Porter/ Donald A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (JSNTSup 80), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1993, 46–62 and S.E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament (32003), 335–361. 141 Petersen, Zur Eigenart des Matthäus (2001), 120f. In this case he does not put it into a tradition–redaction scheme. 142 E.g. the crucial saying in Matt 5,16 (with 3rd person form: οὕτως λαµψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑµῶν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων) utters a clear exhortation, but the ethical content is explained elsewhere. 139

7.4 Ethical Argumentation in James Compared with the SM

463

them are in key sentences like 1,2 (ἡγήσασθε); 1,21 (δέξασθε); 3,13 (δειξάτω); 4,7 (ὑποτάγητε … ἀντίστητε). 2) The aorist conjunctive versus the future indicative. The SM is elsewhere closer to the wisdom literature with its admonitions and exhortations to the benefit of individuals and a community. Matthew 5,21 5,27 5,33 5,43 5,48 6,5

οὐ φονεύσεις οὐ µοιχεύσεις οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις ἀγαπήσεις ἔσεσθε οὐκ ἔσεσθε

James (2,11) (5,12) 2,8 4,15

(µὴ µοιχεύσῃς µὴ φονεύσῃς) (µὴ ὀµνύετε) ἀγαπήσεις θελήσῃ ζήσοµεν ποιήσοµεν

The aorist conjunctive and the future indicative forms are the most authoritative. The apodictic laws in the Decalogue and the Holiness Code are models, and the admonition (‫ )]א‬is translated with the Greek οὐ. The SM simply quotes the Septuagint and uses future indicative in Matt 5,21.27. It has οὐ φονεύσεις and οὐ µοιχεύσεις (= Exod 20,15.13: οὐ µοιχεύσεις/οὐ φονεύσεις = Masoretic Text: ‫֥]א ִתּ ְרצָח‬/‫]א ִתּ ג ְ֔נ ֹב‬, qal imperfect). The SM forms the commandment on swearing/oaths in Matt 5,33 by analogy to the apodictic law. Only in the ‘theses’ of the so-called Antitheses do we have the apodictic style. Future imperative can also be used in exhortation, like in Lev 19,18 ( ָ‫ה בְתּ‬ ַ ‫אָ‬, perfect consecutive). The same form is found in the SM in Matt 5,43 (= 19,19; 22,37.39; Luke 10,27, cf. Matt 6,24 = Luke 16,13 or Deut 6,5; 7,13; 11,1), and Jas 2,8 refers to the same text: ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν (= Lev 19,18 LXX, the Masoretic Text has ‫ ]א‬+ imperfect, cf. Rom 13,9) as Royal Law (νόµον βασιλικὸν κατὰ τὴν γραφήν). The SM also has four additional imperatives in future form: Matt 5,33 (οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, ἀποδώσεις δέ …) and in the key-sentence, Matt 5,48 (ἔσεσθε, cf. 6,5: οὐκ ἔσεσθε). James has limited the future form to the quotation from Lev 19,18 – except for Jas 4,15: ζήσοµεν καὶ ποιήσοµεν, cf. 4,14: ποιήσοµεν … κερδήσοµεν, in addition to future medium twice (πορευσόµεθα, ἐµπορευσόµεθα). It is rather surprising that Jas 2,10 uses aorist conjunctive twice: µὴ µοιχεύσῃς … µὴ φονεύσῃς, the same form as Jas 4,14f (ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ). This aorist conjunctive as imperative is rare in the Septuagint.143

143

Only Ps 30,24 = ‫ ;אֶ ֽהֱבוּ‬Zech 8,19 = ‫ ; ֱאהָ ֽבוּ‬Sir 6,33 (ἀγαπήσῃς) are parallels.

464

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

3) The usage of the 3rd person imperative form, of singular imperative form and of µή + imperative. The usage of the 3rd person imperative form is noteworthy both in the SM and James. First of all, frequency: The SM uses the 3rd person imperative form six times and James 12 (13 – Jas 1,10) times:144 SM Matt 5,16.37; 6,3 and in prayers 6,9.10.10

James 1,4.9.10.13.19 and 5,12.20 + 1,5.6.7 and 5,13.14.14

James uses it with great frequency in the first and last chapters. The SM has the form three times in the Lord’s Prayer and in the Gethsemane-prayer, Matt 26,42. The 3rd person imperative form is often used in the Septuagint in a respectful prayer form, giving the crucial exhortations in Matt 5,16(37) a certain flavour, with its theocentric orientation. They express humble petitions to God and are not ethical devices. The frequent use of 3rd person imperatives in James is relatively unusual. The best explanation is – as we will see – the genre. It is perhaps not by chance that the theme of prayer occurs in Jas 1 and 5. Another aspect is the usage of the singular form and the variation between 2nd person singular and plural. The imperatives are mostly plural, both in the SM and in James, but some are singular. Matthea a has nearly 20 (5,24.29.30.36.39ff.42; 6,2.6.9.10.16f; 7,4f) and James has few (2,3.3.18). 4) The use of the 2nd person singular imperative form and of µή + imperative. The use of plural versus singular “you” is at first glance arbitrary. ‘You’ has the same rhetorical function both in singular and plural, but R. Buth145 correctly sees a conscious use of singular ‘you’ plus aorist present tense imperative versus plural ‘you’ plus present tense imperative. The latter expresses a general statement and direction. The former gives particular examples and application of a general state. One should perhaps put it slightly differently: the 2nd person imperative form is used in parables and in the diatribe style. The difference between Matt 5,21f.27f; 6,19f (plural plus present tense imperative) and 5,23ff.29f.39ff; 6,2ff.6ff.16f.22f; 7,4f (singular plus aorist imperative) is used consistently. The same is true for the usage in the two occurrences in Jas 2,3.18, and even the SP in the parables, Luke 6,29f.42. These imperatives are mostly positive, but prohibitions are also used with the 2nd person form in examples: Matt 5,42 (µὴ ἀποστραφῇς); 6,2 (µὴ σαλπίσῃς – µὴ γνώτω); 6,7f (µὴ βατταλογήσητε – µὴ ὁµοιωθῆτε); 6,16 (µὴ γίνεσθε). 144 Luke does not use this 3rd person imperative form, in spite of his emphasis on prayer. 145 Buth, “Singular and Plural Forms” (1993).

7.4 Ethical Argumentation in James Compared with the SM

465

5) Negative imperatives: admonitions (encouragements) – exhortations (warnings). Μή + imperative or infinitive, the prohibitions, dominate in the admonitions of wisdom literature, and it is significant that both the SM and James prefer this form. We find the same pattern when it comes to the usage of the aorist and present tense imperatives. The SM has more aorist and James more present tense. The SM has about 15 and James has 11 occurrences, nearly the same number.146 SM 5,17 5,34 5,39 5,42 6,1 6,2 6,3 6,7 6,8 6,19 6,25 6,31 6,34 7,1 7,6

µὴ νοµίσητε µὴ ὀµόσαι ὅλως µὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ µὴ ἀποστραφῇς µὴ ποιεῖν ἔµπροσθεν … µὴ σαλπίσῃς ἔµπροσθέν σου µὴ γνώτω ἡ ἀριστερά µὴ βατταλογήσητε µὴ οὖν ὁµοιωθῆτε αὐτοῖς µὴ θησαυρίζετε µὴ µεριµνᾶτε µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε µὴ κρίνετε µὴ δῶτε

James 1,7 1,16 2,1 2,11 3,1 3,14 4,11 5,9 5,12

µὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος µὴ πλανᾶσθε µὴ ἐν προσωποληµψίαις ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν µὴ µοιχεύσῃς – µὴ φονεύσῃς µὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε µὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε καὶ (µὴ) ψεύδεσθε µὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων µὴ στενάζετε µὴ ὀµνύετε

In the SM the µή-sentences, mostly formulated in 2nd person imperative form, become a significant feature. Five of them are introduced as authoritative sayings: Matt 5,18.20.26.34.39, and two have also apodeictic style (Matt 5,39147 and 5,34, µὴ ὀµόσαι ὅλως = Jas 5,12: µὴ ὀµνύετε). It is somewhat strange that the SM has the warning against oaths in the aorist, whereas Jas 5,12 has the present tense. It might be the tendency in the two writings, but both formulate an authoritative saying, although the more comprehensive saying in Matt 5,34–37 uses the aorist in order to underline its ‘constative’ character. As in Proverbs, the admonition with µή comes right at the beginning of a sentence, but the µή is not repeated in every sentence, like in Sir 7, etc. More than in Proverbs, these sentences are structural sentences. Many of the 40 exhortations and admonitions play a key role in the outline of the SM, particu146 Luke gathers most of the imperatives in Luke 6,27–38 (15 of the total 20), and in the same section we have the only four negative warnings. Cf. Matt 5,43 (ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου καὶ µισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου). The first and the last one give clear directions for ethical behaviour. In the ‘pure’ Antitheses Matthew has two negative and three positive imperatives. In the ‘additions’ to the Antitheses Matt 5,21–48 has 14 imperatives. 147 Matt 5,39: µὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ … is nearly contradicted in Jas 4,8: ἀντίστητε δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ.

466

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

larly those in negative form (Matt 6,19: µὴ θησαυρίζετε, 6,25: µὴ µεριµνᾶτε, 7,1: µὴ κρίνετε, 7,6: µὴ δῶτε).148 Only some negative admonitions have the same structural function in James (1,16: µὴ πλανᾶσθε, 2,1: µὴ ἐν προσωποληµψίαις ἔχετε, 3,1: µὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε). (a) Are prohibitions/warnings dominant? The statistics gives us a good indication: about 20 of 70 imperatives in the SM have µή or οὐ(κ) before the imperative. James has even fewer prohibitions, – only 15 of about 80 imperatives. The character of a warning cannot, however, be evaluated on the basis of imperatives alone. Warnings dominate the peroratio. This indicates what the SM is all about. The peroratio sums up, appeals to potential followers and wants to move the audience to change their attitudes. Does it mean that the SM as such is a warning? The last word in the SM, Matt 7,27, is certainly a sincere warning. Four of five speeches in Matthew (13,50; 18,35; 25,31/41) end similarly, but the main part of the peroratio consists of warnings (7,13f.15.16/20.19.21. 22f). Warnings also dominate elsewhere, particularly in 5,13.20; 6,1.19.23. 25.31.34; 7,1.6. It is significant that the programmatic saying in Matt 5,20 is a warning. (b) Imperatives (exhortations/admonitions) and ethical sentences. Considering the frequency and importance of the imperatives, it is surprising that at least three quarters of the (70 plus) imperatives in the SM are not real ethical exhortations. The number is smaller in James, but still considerable. The imperatives should be seen from four perspectives: (i) Both the SM and James have apodictic commandments. The six ‘theses’ in Matt 5,21–48 are real ethical sayings, quoting the Pentateuch (5,21.27.31.33.38.43), as does Jas 2,8. James refers to the Law of Liberty (cf. Matt 5,17.19f; 7,12).149 (ii) Four imperatives in the SM have piety practices in mind: Matt 6,3 (give alms!), 6,9 (pray!), 6,17.17 (anoint, wash!). We have the same theme in James (1,5f; 5,13–16), but here the author refers more to Christian than to Jewish practices. (iii) Do the SM and James provide basically positive exhortations, or do they primarily give warnings? This question deals with grammar, but it has consequently to do with the genre and the character of the ethics. (iv) The three most significant ethical sayings in the SM (next to the Golden Rule) have parallels in James:150 148

Also Matt 5,17 (µὴ νοµίσητε), cf. the future form in 7,16 (ἐπιγνώσεσθε). Cf. the ἦλθον-saying in Matt 5,17. James does not have the authoritative ἀµὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑµῖν (Matt 5,18.26; 6,2.5.16) or λέγω γὰρ ὑµῖν ὅτι-sayings (5,20.22.32.32.39.44; 6,25.29). 150 Two of the commandments are the very core of the Inaugural Speech (= Luke 6,36.32.31). 149

7.5 Reasons and Motivation for Exhortations and Admonitions

467

SM

James

5,16: οὕτως λαµψάτω … ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑµῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα. 5,48: ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑµεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν. 7,1: µὴ κρίνετε ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε.

3,13: δειξάτω ἐκ τῆς καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. 1,4: ἡ δὲ ὑποµονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι. 5,9: µὴ στενάζετε ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε.

The common pattern in the SM and in James cannot be overlooked. We have indeed very few exhortations and admonitions in the SM and in James, and they aim to structure life. Matt 5,16 and Jas 3,13 are good examples here. This is a major difference between the SM and e.g. the Decalogue, the Holiness Code or the wisdom sentences in Proverbs and other Jewish wisdom texts, but the SM/James come closest to Jewish wisdom literature. To conclude: The imperatives have a predominant position in the wisdom teaching of the SM, not least because of its crucial theological and ethical consequences and premises. (a) Both the SM and James have apodeictic commandments. The seven ‘theses’ in Matt 5,21–48 are real ethical sayings, quoting the Pentateuch (5,21.27.31.33.33.42), as does Jas 2,8. James is here referring to the Law of Liberty (cf. Matt 5,17.19f; 7,12). (b) James does not give ethical advice concerning piety practices like the SM, which has four imperatives in Matt 6,3–17. James has only prayer as theme (1,5f; 5,13–16), and seems to refer more to Christian than Jewish practices. (c) Prohibitions are substantially fewer than positive ethical statements. The character of warning cannot be evaluated on the basis of imperatives alone, however. The SM (SP) and also James (Jas 5,19f) conclude with warnings. The peroratio sums up, appeals to potential followers and wants to move the audience to change their attitudes.

7.5 Reasons and Motivation for Exhortations and Admonitions The reasons for the wisdom sentences in the SM151 are different from the apodictic,152 casuistic laws153 and also from most of the wisdom sayings in the Old Testament. 151 Mogensen, Israelitiske leveregler (1983), 5ff, operates with the following reasons: final, consequence, sanctions, (theological) reflection. 152 The quotations from the Pentateuch (5,21.27.[31.33.]43, and presupposed in 5,38) do not offer any reason like the Decalogue (except for the fourth commandment). The same is true for other imperatives in the Antitheses, Matt 5,34.39.43. 153 Introduced in the SM with ἐάν (5,13.20.23.44; 6,14f.22f), ὃς δ᾿ ἅν (5,19.22.32) or εἰ (5,13.29; 6,1.23.30; 7,11).

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

468

As a comparison one should observe the difference between laws in the Pentateuch (Decalogue, Covenant Code – Exod 22–23, Holiness Code – Lev 18; 19, and Deuteronomy) on the one hand and the exhortations/admonitions in wisdom literature on the other. The former has few exhortations and many apodictic admonitions formed as ‫א‬6 + imperfect; they occur often in lists, offer fewer reasons and grounds, and if they do, they tend to name ‘social’ reasons and grounds. The wisdom literature has few apodeictic laws, and many exhortations and the admonitions have the form of ‫ אל‬+ jussive. They more often provide a variety of reasons and grounds, but should be characterized as ‘casuistic’. The difference is significant, but we have four forms in the whole of the Old Testament: the probative (‫א‬6 + imperfect such as e.g. Exod 20,5: ‫שׁתַּ ְחוֶה‬ ְ ‫א־ ִת‬6 or ‫ אל‬+ jussive, such as e.g. Prov 6,25: ‫)אַל־תַּ חְמ ֹד‬, the exhortation, prohibitive + exhortation, casuistic introduction. The Old Testament has a number of conjunctions that introduce the reasons for doing something, e.g. ‫כן‬, ‫למען‬, ‫פן‬, ‫ו‬, ‫ ל‬+ consequence, etc. or for avoiding what is detestable (‫)תועבה‬. W. Zimmerli, W. Richter, P.J. Nel, B. Gemser, H.J. Postel, B. Mogensen and others have analysed the forms in wisdom literature, and these results should have an impact on the analysis of the wisdom sayings in the SM and in James.154 Some sayings do not offer any reason, but the majority do. We will differentiate between five general reasons and five specific reasons: Causal Scriptural

Sanction & consequences Holiness

Reflection

Explanation

Rational & parabolic

Ethical/social

Theological

Philosophical

Both the SM and James have relatively few imperatives without rationale. The following list also shows that the SM and James prefer γάρ (Matthew 7/James 5), ὅτι (4/5) and the correlatives ἐάν/εἰ (4/6). This list covers only sentences with imperative + conjunctive. The imperatives that exhort to see, hear, mean, etc., are not listed here. 7.5.1 Causal and Explanatory The usage in the SM and James is similar to the usage in Proverbs, and the pattern is very clear; on this micro-level, the SM and James are very similar. γάρ

SM

SP

(19) 5,12.18.20.29.30.46; 6,7.8.14.16.21.24.32.34; 7,2.7.8.12.25

6,23.26.32f.38.43–45 1,6f.11.13.20.24; 2,2.10f.13.26; 3,2.7.16; 4,14

James

Richter, Recht und Ethos (1966); P.J. Nel, Structure and Ethos (1982), on admonition motivations, pp. 18–82; Mogensen, Israelitiske leveregler (1983). 154

7.5 Reasons and Motivation for Exhortations and Admonitions

ὅτι

οὖν

469

SM

SP

James

(25) 5,3–10.12.17.20–23.27f.32– 36.38.43.45; 6,5.7.26.29.32; 7,13.23

6,20f.24f.35

(15) 1,3.7.10.12f.23; 2,19f.24; 3,1; 4,4.5; 5,8.11.20 4,4.7.17; 5,7.16

5,19.23.48; 6,2.8f.22f.31.34; 7,12.24

Γάρ -sentences must be mentioned first, but not only due to their importance both in the SM and in James. The SM has about twice as many γάρsentences as Luke, and the usage is nearly the same in the SM (and the SP).156 The γάρ-sentences often follow after imperatives and thus provide a strong motivation (in Matt 5,12; 6,7; 7,7.12; Jas 1,7; 2,1; 6,31.34).157 The explanatory meaning is obvious both in the SM and in James, and occasionally the same objects are explained (Matt 5,46; 7,2.7, the same themes in Jas 2,2; 1,6; 2,13).158 The γάρ-sentences show what false behaviour is all about (Matt 5,46; 6,7f.14.16.32 and Jas 1,20; 2,10.26; 3,16) and point to basic theological convictions (Matt 6,7f.14.21.24.32; 7,2.7). Ὅτι (25 occurrences in SM, 15 in James, 7 in the SP) introduces at least three crucial sentences in the SM (Matt 5,12: χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε ὅτι …; 5,43: ἀγαπᾶτε ὅτι …; 7,13: εἰσέλθατε ὅτι …) and seven in James.159 Ὅτι has the same explanatory function as in the SM or like ‫כִּי‬, e.g. in Ps 1,2.160 The Beatitudes explain the blessed status of many unfortunate people. The ὅτι in 155

Γάρ has three functions, two types are the authoritative sayings Matt 5,18 (ἀµὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑµῖν) and 5,20 (λέγω γὰρ ὑµῖν ὅτι) and three negative sentences make exactly the same point: Matt 6,8 (οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν), 6,32 (πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν), 6,32 (οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος). 156 Matt 5,12 = Luke 6,23(.26), Matt 5,46f = Luke 6,32f, Matt 7,2 = Luke 6,38. It is somewhat surprising that Matt 7,16–20 = Luke 6,43–45 has no γάρ-sentence, which Matthew reserves for the other parallel to Luke 6,43–45 = Matt 12,33f.37 (also with three γάρ-sentences). In some cases ὅτι has also in the SM nearly the function of a colon (ἠκούσατε ὅτι, etc.). 157 Matt 5,12: χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε; 6,7: µὴ βατταλογήσητε … µὴ ὁµοιωθῆτε; 6,31.34: µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε; 7,7: αἰτεῖτε … ζητεῖτε … κρούετε; 7,12: ὑµεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς, and Jas 1,7: αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει µηδὲν διακρινόµενος; 2,1: µὴ ἐν προσωποληµψίαις ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν. 158 The SM refers to rare phenomena (5,29f); James explains normal phenomena (1,7.11). James gives examples from life (2,2), the SM refers to the persecuted prophets (5,12). 159 Jas 1,2: πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε ὅτι; 1,7: µὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὅτι; 1,9: καυχάσθω δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὅτι; 1,22: γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγου ὅτι; 3,1: µὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε … ὅτι; 5,8: µακροθυµήσατε … στηρίξατε ὅτι; 5,20: γινωσκέτω ὅτι. 160 The dictionaries (Bauer/Aland, Wörterbuch [ 61988], 1193; BAGD [1979], 588f) and also the grammars (cf. Turner/Moulton, Grammar III [1963], 318; BDR, 456,1.2) are misleading. Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1961, 456 (pp. 238f), avoids arguing for a causal meaning, but offers no alternative. 155

470

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

Matthew is often a ὅτι-recitativum,161 but has its normal causal meaning also.162 The explanation points to the differences to hypocrites and pagans (6,3.7) and to the way God acts (5,45; 6,32). The reasons are seldom based on dogmatic principles. The two ὅτι-sentences, 5,12 on reward and 5,46 on God’s righteousness, come relatively close. The other reasons are based on the example of the prophets (5,12), the significance of the whole body (5,30), the treasure (6,21), the future in God’s hand (6,34), against hypocrisy (6,17) and ambivalence (6,24). Five of the reasons are based on lex talionis, both in the sense that the principle is fundamental in daily life (7,1.1.7.12) and as an exhortation to replace the principle of retaliation with the principle of generosity (5,43). Ὅτι also functions like a colon in a majority of cases in James,163 but three ὅτι-sentences provide theological explanations: Jas 5,8.11 on the παρουσία and on God’s compassion and mercy, and Jas 1,10 on judging rich people, and Jas 1,23 which gives the definition of deceiving ourselves: it is hearing without doing. Many of the sayings have the theme of judgment, and demonstrate one main purpose of James – and the SM. Οὖν (12 times in the SM versus five in James and none in the SP) is often inferential and consecutive, as we see it in many Greek texts. It should be noted that the SP lacks οὖν + conjunctive and that the SM and James once more agree.164 James has the conjunctive only in the last part, but often in sentences that bridge two paragraphs, in the opening (4,4.7; 5,7) or in concluding sentences (4,17; 5,16). It is hardly a coincidence that the strange phrase ὃς ἐὰν οὖν

161 Matt 5,17.20; 6,26; 7,23 and in the theses/antitheses in 5,21ff. In the close parallels Matt 5,34–37 = Jas 5,12 the SM has explanatory ὅτι three times; James avoids it, but uses ἵνα at the end, which the SM drops. 162 Bauer/Aland, Wörterbuch [61988], think that 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 does not mention Luke 7,47, which he should have done. Charles F.D. Moule saw the problem, in An Idiom book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1953, 147: “Notes on ὅτι”, but did not deal with the Beatitudes. The difference between ὅτι and the causal use of διότι in Rom 1,19.21; 3,20; 8,7; Jas 4,3, etc. must not be overlooked. GTh 69,2 uses ϣⲓⲛⲁ, “so” – giving not too strong reasons, Nordsieck, Thomasevangelium (2004), 268. 163 After words for saying, understanding, etc. (Jas 1,3: γινώσκοντες, 1,6: οἰέσθω, 2,19: πιστεύεις, 2,20: γνῶναι, 2,22: βλέπεις, 2,24: ὁρᾶτε, 3,1: εἰδότες, 4,4: οἴδατε, 4,5: δοκεῖτε, 5,20: γινωσκέτω). 164 The οὖν has a rather weak meaning, and marks more a transition from one paragraph to the next, like Matt 6,31 µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε λέγοντες· τί φάγωµεν; or it has a stronger meaning as in the conclusions: 6,8 µὴ οὖν ὁµοιωθῆτε αὐτοῖς; 7,12 πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑµῖν …; 7,24 πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους. It is used with ὃς ἐὰν οὖν (5,19), ἐὰν οὖν (5,23; 6,22), ὅταν οὖν (6,2), εἰ οὖν (6,23; 7,11) or οὕτως οὖν (6,9).

7.5 Reasons and Motivation for Exhortations and Admonitions

471

occurs in the New Testament only in Matt 5,19 and Jas 4,4.165 Both the SM and James often closely combine the imperative and οὖν (Matt 5,48; 6,8f.31.34 and Jas 4,7; 5,7.16).166 These sentences have a great theological impact. All five occurrences in James have to do with God (friend versus enemy, God versus Satan, longing for the παρουσία, confessing sins) or with doing good (4,17). The SM emphasises the same issues, doing good (5,19; 7,12.24) and being devoted to God (programmatic in 5,48, also 5,23; 6,2; on prayer 6,8f and about worrying 6,31.34). 7.5.2 Consecutive, Consequential ἵνα, ὅπως, µήποτε ἵνα ὅπως µήποτε

SM

SP

James

5,29.30; 7,1.12 5,15.45; 6,2.4.5.16.18 5,25; 7,6

6,31.34

1,4; 4,3; 5,9.12 5,16

(12,58)

Ἵνα expresses not so much purpose as consequence. Matt 5,29f uses the wisdom-teaching form (συµφέρει σοι = ‫טוֹב‬-sentence), but puts it drastically through the harsh judgment sayings (ἀπόληται, βληθῇ εἰς γέενναν). Judgment is the theme in Matt 7,1 (µὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε) and Jas 5,9, and we see that James puts great emphasis on ἵνα.167 Jas 4,3 is a parallel to both Matt 5,29f and 7,7f, and reflects the philosophical term ἡδονή, which is peculiar to James. In Jas 1,4 he deals with the topos “persecution ends in perfection” (Matt 5,11f; Rom 5,2f; 1 Pet 1), using the term τέλειος. Luke avoids the term, while Matthew (5,48; 19,21) and James (1,4.17–25; 3,2) use it in key passages. If the consequence is to be τέλειος on Judgment Day, the very purpose of every human being is reached. The peculiar usage of ἵνα in the Golden Rule has often puzzled scholars, but ἵνα ποιῶσιν obviously indicates purpose or consequence. The Golden Rule is fundamentally an ethics of consequence. Luke 6,31 has exactly the same strange formulation, which indicates a solid tradition. The consequence is also the topic in Luke 6,34, an analogy to the sayings in Matt 5,46f = Luke 6,32f, using the same style, but with the theme of lending money and by

165 Only Jas 4,4 has ἐὰν οὖν, whereas the SM also has ὅταν οὖν (Matt 6,2), εἰ οὖν (6,23; 7,11) or οὕτως οὖν (6,9). 166 The SM has one very specific usage of οὖν: to conclude with πᾶς/πάντα οὖν as in the crucial sentences Matt 7,12.24, is rather exceptional. The premise – and the sanction – are often given very explicitly: ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ µίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων (5,19). 167 Jas 5,12 adds ἵνα (µὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε) in the very close parallel to Matt 5,37. James adds some words in 5,9: Matt 7,1 Luke 6,37 Jas 5,9 µὴ κρίνετε, µὴ κρίνετε … µὴ στενάζετε … κατ᾿ ἀλλήλων ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε. καὶ οὐ µὴ κριθῆτε. ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε.

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

472

using one of Luke’s favourite terms (τὰ ἴσα). Luke uses ἵνα in order to express the final consequence. Both ὅπως and µήποτε + conjunctive have the consequence and final purpose in mind.168 In the SM ὅπως has to do with the difference between a false human-oriented judgment (Matt 6,2.5.16.18) and God’s own judgment (5,16.45; 6,4). Μήποτε also deals with consequences, but does not have God’s judgment in mind. It is about the consequences of misbehaviour in Matt 7,6 and 5,25 (= Luke 12,58). James prefers to use the positive demonstrative adverb οὕτως in the same way as Matt 5,12.16.19; 6,9.30; 7,12, cf. Jas 1,11; 2,12.17.26; 3,5.10. This important ethical direction marker is found in the SM and in James, but not in the SP. 7.5.3 Conditional εἰ- and ἐάν-sentences. Pointing out Consequences ὅταν εἰ (δέ) ἐάν

SM

SP

James

5,11; 6,2.5.6.16 5,(13.)29.30; 6,1.23.30; 7,11 5,13.19.20.23.32.46.47; 6,14.15.22.23; 7,12

6,22.22.26 6,32 6,33.34

1,2 1,5.23.26; 2,8.9.11; 3,2.3.11; 4,11 2,2.14.15.17; 4,4.15; 5,15.19

Surprisingly similar is the use of ὅταν. The fact that the only ὅταν-sentence in James has the same form as Matt 5,11 = Luke 6,22/26169 indicates a strong tradition, even stylistically. The remaining occurrences in the SM refer to the three observances, alms, prayer and fasting (6,2–16). This presupposes that these observances are important also for Jesus’ (would-be) disciples. Not the hypothetical εἰ, but ὅταν is used, meaning every time you perform it. The conditional clause with εἰ and ἐάν mostly comes first in the sentence and always so in the SM. James uses εἰ and ἐάν (both twice) as motivation after the main clause. As in many wisdom sentences in Proverbs, the conditional follows an imperative in Matt 5,13.29f and Jas 1,5; 3,14; 4,11; 5,19. James uses these sentences in general statements (Jas 2,9.11.14.17; 4,15; 5,15) also, but the majority of the εἰ- and ἐάν-sentences occur in imageries (Matt 5,13.23.29f.46f; 6,22f.30; Luke 6,32–34; Jas 2,2.15; 3,3). The εἰ-and ἐάν-sentences describe possible consequences, and here also the theme is often judgment, with the sentences functioning as warnings.

168

The SP avoids the term and Jas 5,16 links it to the theme of prayer, a sort of parallel to Matt 7,7–11 (εὔχεσθε ὅπως ἰαθῆτε). 169 Matt 5,11: µακάριοί ἐστε ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν ὑµᾶς καὶ διώξωσιν; Luke 6,22: µακάριοί ἐστε ὅταν µισήσωσιν ὑµᾶς οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ ὅταν ἀφορίσωσιν; Jas 1,2: πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε, … ὅταν πειρασµοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις.

7.5 Reasons and Motivation for Exhortations and Admonitions

473

7.5.4 Explanation through Images and Reflection SM (Matthew) ὅπως ὅπου … οὕτως ὡς ὁµοίως καθώς ἔοικεν

5,16.45; 6,2.4.5.16.18 6,19.20.21 (+ ἐκεῖ170) 5,12.16.19; 6,9.30; 7,12.17 (6) 5,48; 6,5.10.12.16.29

SP (Luke) (12,34) 6,40 6,36 6,31.36

James 5,16 3,6 (+ ἐκεῖ).16 1,11; 2,12.17.26; 3,5.10 (5) 1,10; 2,8.9.12; 5,3 2,25 1,6.23

Reasons are introduced with ὅπως, denoting the correct behaviour (Matt 5,16.45; 6,4, etc.) or false behaviour (Matt 6,2.5.16), or with οὕτως, pointing to an example. The other particles indicate more of a comparison. The ὅπου (+ ἐκεῖ) formulates a general principle in Epictetus and the New Testament, and this is definitely the case both in Matt 6,19–21 and Jas 3,6. The argument is different, but goes in the same direction: to be bound to earthly elements (treasures or envy/selfish ambitions) is to be contrary to God (treasures in heaven or disorder/evil as opposed to a God of order).171 Ὡς frequently introduces parabolic language, so also in the SM (Matt 6,29) and James (1,10; 5,3), but not in Luke. All three use the style of ὡς + persons involved. Luke has ὡς πονηρόν (6,22), ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος (6,40), the SM has ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί (Matt 6,5.16, plus 6,14 and ὡς ἓν τούτων, 6,29), and Jas 2,9 (ὡς παραβάται); Jas 2,8 refers to Lev 19,18.34 (ὡς σεαυτόν LXX = l‫)כָּמוֹ‬.172 James has in general more expressions for parabolic language. Luke 6,31 uses it in an unusual way (Matt 7,12 has ὅσα) and in the Golden Rule he also uses ὁµοίως in a somewhat strange way. Jas 2,25 has the more ordinary usage, denoting another example. 7.5.5 Parables and Metaphorical Language – Arguments or Motivation? Particles like ὡς, οὕτως, ἰδού, ἔοικεν, etc., occur more often in James than in the SM.173

170

Matt 5,23.24 and Jas 2,3; 4,13 in the local, not the abstract meaning. Matt 24,28 (“Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather”) and Jas 3,4 on “the very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go” consider nature as teacher of philosophy. 172 Cf. Matt 19,11; 22,39 and Luke 10,27. The SM/SP avoid ὡς σεαυτόν and replace it with πλησίον or ἐχθρός. The expression ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν (Matt 5,48) is unique to the SM. 173 Jas 1,10 (ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου παρελεύσεται) and 5,5 (φάγεται τὰς σάρκας ὑµῶν ὡς πῦρ). Similarly 2,26 (ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶµα χωρὶς πνεύµατος νεκρόν ἐστιν) and 3,5 (οὕτως καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα µικρὸν µέλος ἐστὶν καὶ µεγάλα αὐχεῖ); 3,4 (ἰδοὺ καὶ τὰ πλοῖα τηλικαῦτα ὄντα); 3,5 (ἰδοὺ ἡλίκον πῦρ ἡλίκην ὕλην ἀνάπτει); 5,7 (ἰδοὺ ὁ γεωργὸς ἐκδέχεται); 1,6 (ἔοικεν κλύδωνι θαλάσσης); 1,23 (ἔοικεν ἀνδρὶ κατανοοῦντι … ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ). 171

474

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

The comparison often has no particle (Matt 5,13f.45; 7,13; Jas 3,6.7.8; 5,2f, etc.) or it is embedded in questions (εἰ, ποῖος, πόθεν, µήτι, etc.), and in same cases, image and reality merge into one meaning.174 Aphorisms and parables are dominant categories both in James and the SM. More than 70% of the 133 sayings (107 verses) in the SM include aphorisms or parables. About 30 of the sayings in the SM, more than 40 verses, which amounts to about one third of the SM, are parables. Numerically, we have more such sayings in James, but the total is roughly the same. To compare metaphorical sayings: plants/trees/flowers animals/birds (in)organic nature human creations

SM

SP

James

6,28–30; 7,16–20 6,26; 7,6.15 5,13.14.36.45; 6,22f.27; 7,25f 5,14f; 6,26; 7,13f.24.26

6,43–45

1,10f; 3,8.12.18; 5,8 3,3.7 1,6.11.17; 3,5.11f; 4,14; 5,2

6,46f 6,47.49

1,12.15.18.23; 2,26; 3,3.4.6; 4,1.4.13f; 5,1.2

The SM has fewer examples in the Tanach (only Matt 5,11; 6,30) than James (2,21–26; 5,10f.17–19), but the SM gives more room for narrative parables (Matt 5,23f.25f.29f.39–42.46f; 6,2–4.5–8.16–18; 6,26.27.28–30; 7,3–5; 7,9– 11; 7,15.22f). Similar parables are also given in Jas 2,2–4.15f; 4,13–16; 5,13– 15, but they are not ‘emulations’ of the parables in the SM. We have sayings similar to e.g. Prov 26,27: “Like one who seizes a dog by the ears is a passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own.” In Jas 1,6 the double-minded person is like the waves; the rich will perish like the flowers (1,10f), and earthly treasures will be corroded (5,2f). Often the metaphorical use is more open: to look in a mirror (1,23) is different from doing the Law, and a tongue out of control can be like a horse without a bit, a boat without a rudder, like poison or fire (3,3–8). Both the SM (Matt 6,19–24) and James (fresh water and saltwater, figs and olives or grapevine) have the imagery of conflicting forces. The metaphorical language in the SM has the same double character, and it argues more than motivates. The sayings illustrate more than analogies often do. To sum up: The clearest statement of the wisdom-character of the SM and James is the way they motivate their ethics. This they do to a large extent in the same way. The SM emphasises the causal, explanatory, consecutive and Οὕτως in Matt 7,17 (οὕτως πᾶν δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖ). Nonmetaphorical οὕτως = ‘do/act’ in Matt 5,16.19; 6,9.30; 7,12; Jas 1,11; 2,12.12.17; 3,10. The non-metaphorical ὡς in the SM Matt 5,48; 6,10.12.16.29; Jas 2,8.9.12. 174 Matt 7,13f.16–20; Jas 3,12 (συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι ἢ ἄµπελος σῦκα; οὔτε ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ); 3,18 (καρπὸς δὲ δικαιοσύνης ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται); 5,5 (ἐν ἡµέρᾳ σφαγῆς) – and 1,12 (τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς).

7.6 James – within Judaism: Comparison with the SM

475

conditional reasons equally strongly. The SM has slightly more consecutive, James slightly more explanatory, reasons. Both contribute to a philosophical reflection about faith and ethics. Both the SM and James also have explicit norms. These norms have to be seen within the framework of the SM/James within Judaism.

7.6 James – within Judaism: Comparison with the SM The formation of identity is obviously the purpose in some early Christian texts, and the protreptic speeches are among them. They do not provide a comprehensive collection of stories and ethical rules. They normally want to highlight certain aspects, and this is the case with the SM and James. According to Gunnar Garleff, the formation of identity has three dimensions: story, ethos and rite.175 These categories are indeed helpful when approaching James. Are the stories, the ethos and rite in James primarily Christian or Jewish or Hellenistic? We have to analyse the Jewish and Hellenistic features in James and ask: is the basically Jewish or Hellenistic identity in James just superficially Christian, or is it permeated by Christian convictions? How did James perceive Jewish identity? Scholarship has documented the huge variation within Judaism in the early Christian era. Did James as Jewish-Christian represent a branch of Judaism parallel to contemporary movements such as apocalypticism, Qumran, Essenes, Samaritans? Scholars tend to see James as eminently and thoroughly Jewish. But even a brief look at Billerbeck’s commentary indicates something else. Billerbeck devotes 300 pages to the parallels to SM and only 11 to the parallels to James.176 7.6.1 Jewish Identity James represents some kind of Jewish Christianity. His epistle is still – together with e.g. Matthew – labelled as the most typical expression of Jewish Christianity. The notion of ‘Jewish Christianity’ is problematic, however. Even before the Holocaust, scholars were cautious using that label, and after

175

Garleff, Urchristliche Identität (2004). Bill. I, 189–474 and IV/1, 1–22, and on James III, 751–761. It does not necessarily prove more than that even Billerbeck did not have the same energy at the end of his project. He could have given more cross-references, however. On the other hand, a counter-proof: Neuer Wettstein has nearly 100 pages with Hellenistic parallels (vol. II/2: Texte zur Briefliteratur und zur Johannesapokalypse. Der Jakobusbrief, Berlin: De Gruyter 1996, 1248–1342). 176

476

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

the Holocaust new light has been shed upon the phenomenon.177 In patristic texts and in scholarship until recently, Jewish Christianity has been associated with ‘particularistic’, ‘legalistic’ and in fact ‘heretical’. Ferdinand Christian Baur and the Tübingen school based their view on this assumption. Carl Heinrich von Weizsäcker summarized scholarship before 1900 by saying: James is “sicher judenchristlichen Ursprungs”, and he labelled James as an Ebionite product.178 Johannes Weiß located James in Syria, and separated the letter from ‘heretical Judaistic movements’.179 More and more scholars see Jewish Christianity as a strong movement,180 and as a revival movement within Christianity.181 The notion of Jewish Christians as genuine Jews who believe in Christ, has renewed the positive evaluation, but is disputed.182 The notion of two competing religions is unhistorical: fuzzy borders, common convictions, common attitudes towards paganism, etc. What kind of Jewish writing is James? Jewish scholars tend to overlook this epistle. It resembles wisdom literature, but there are no similar Jewish texts from the first century CE. Sirach’s wisdom is the closest parallel in the Septuagint. The Qumran text, 4QMMT, is comparable, but James is far from Pirke Avot and other early rabbinic texts. The Jewish character of James has not been disputed in scholarship, however. Rather, since Louis Massebieau, Friedrich Spitta and Arnold Meyer,183 the Christian character of James has been in dispute. What makes James so special in a Jewish context is indeed a Christian pattern of thought and the fact that it presupposes the same among its readers. Even more than the SM, James sounds like a Jewish text, and James is essentially Jewish in its content and character, a common ground between Jews and Christians. The Christology is less elaborate than in the SM, and we lack 177

Reed, Jewish-Christianity and the History of Judaism (2018). Weizsäcker, Das apostolische Zeitalter (1886), 377–381. His arguments were: the Synagogue (2,1–4), the community codex (5,12–20), the Law (2,8; 4,12), the rejection of Paul. 179 J. Weiß, Das Urchristentum (1913), 578–584 – together with Matthew, Ignatius (and ‘Samaritan Gnosis’). 180 Jervell, “The Mighty Minority” (1980). 181 Schnelle, Die getrennten Wege (2019), 121–132 (127: James wants “die judenchristliche Identität neu definieren”); idem, Die ersten 100 Jahre des Christentums (UTB 4411), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2015, 376–378, includes Matthew, James, Hebrews, Revelation and the Didache. 182 Cf. Skarsaune/Hvalvik, Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007); Jackson-McCabe (ed.), Jewish Christianity Reconsidered (2007). 183 Louis Massebieau, “L’Épître de Jacques est-elle l’œuvre d’un chrétien?”, RHR 31/32 (1895), 249–283; Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums, vol. II: Der Brief des Jakobus, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1896; A. Meyer, Das Rätsel des Jakobusbriefes (1930). 178

7.6 James – within Judaism: Comparison with the SM

477

more typical Christian ‘propositions’ than in the SM. The ecclesiology of Jas 5,13–16 is more elaborate than in the SM, but no really ecclesiological doctrine is offered. The two explicit references to Jesus (1,1: James as θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος; 2,1: µὴ ἐν προσωποληµψίαις ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης) are not enough to document its Christian character. We have to look for a broader pattern in James for constructing identity.184 Instead of concentrating on the origin of the author’s concepts, we should rather look at the audience: is it exclusively Jews? predominantly Jews? Diaspora Jews?, etc. To solve an enigma through the enigmatic addressee in Jas 1,1 (ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ) is too risky. The address indicates Jewish communities in the Diaspora, with some members of the Jesus-movement.185 Or are they Christian communities, and is the implied audience rather a literary construct?186 In the first century CE the notion of ‘the twelve tribes’ (ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς) was just symbolic or a part of theological reflections. The addition, “those in the Diaspora” (ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ) primarily has the meaning of ‘abroad’, but can entail theological reflection on the issue of ‘hope for Israel’.187 Jas 1,1 expresses at least the continuity of Israel.188 It must include the geographical dimension, which includes a life without the Temple189 and with Hellenistic cultural influence. The community apparently lives close to the Jewish community. The label in Jas 2,2, συναγωγή, is not an arbitrary name, but nothing indicates the architecture of a Jewish synagogue: Tora (shrine), lamp, etc. are not mentioned, and the higher/better place (2,3: σὺ κάθου ὧδε καλῶς) is not the table for reading the Scripture, Jas 2,1–13 attracts scholars for many reasons.190 184

Most comprehensive, Konradt, Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief (1998), 41–100 (“Grundlegung: Das soteriologische Fundament christlicher Existenz”). Here and elsewhere, Konradt has shown the broad theological argumentation in James. 185 Kloppenborg, “Diaspora Discourse” (2007). Cf. Dale C. Allison, “Blessing God and Cursing People: James 3:9–10”, JBL 130 (2011), 397–405 (Diaspora Jews); K.-W. Niebuhr, “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht frühjüdischer Diasporabriefe” (1998); Verseput, “Genre and Story” (2000). 186 Wischmeyer, “Reconstructing the Social and Religious Milieu of James” (2008). 187 Konradt, Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief (1998), 64–66; Ropes, James (1916/1961), 124–126; Baasland, Jakobsbrevet (1992), 14f. Allison, James (2013), 127–133, defends the literal meaning of both elements and rejects the metaphorical understanding. 188 Garleff, Urchristliche Identität (2004), 232–239. 189 K.-W. Niebuhr, “Tora ohne Tempel” (1999). 190 Roy B. Ward, “Partiality in the Assembly, James 2,2–4”, HTR 62 (1969), 87–97; Wachob, Voice of Jesus (2000); D.F. Watson, “James 2 in Light of Graeco-Roman Schemes of Argumentation” (1993); G. Theißen, “Nächstenliebe und Egalität: Jak 2,1–13 als Höhepunkt urchristlicher Ethik”, in Gemünden/Konradt/idem (eds.), Jakobusbrief (2003), 120– 142; Mongstad-Kvammen, Postcolonial Reading of the Epistle of James (2013).

478

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

James’ intention is seemingly to construct a Christian identity based on the Jewish identity. 7.6.2 Quotations and Examples from the Tanach The Decalogue, but not the essential narratives in the Tanach, is referred to only twice in the SM/SP: Matt 5,12/Luke 6,23: the sufferings of the prophets + Luke 6,26: the false prophets are warned against. Matt 6,30: the glory of Solomon (the flowers have the same glory) James refers in the same way to the prophets (τῆς κακοπαθίας καὶ τῆς µακροθυµίας τοὺς προφήτας, 5,10) as examples (ὑπόδειγµα λάβετε), but he refers to essential narratives: Abraham, 2,21–24 Rahab, 2,25 prophets, 5,10 Job, 5,11 Elijah, 5,17f

ὁ πατὴρ ἡµῶν ἡ πόρνη ὑπόδειγµα ἠκούσατε ὁµοιοπαθὴς ἡµῖν

his righteousness, faith and work her righteousness and (faithful) work speaking God’s word (ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατι κυρίου) his suffering and how God granted restitution his prayer and God’s response

Terms like speaking God’s word, or listening (ἠκούσατε), righteousness, the suffering and God’s restitution, resonated in the minds of the author and the audience of James. The Jesus traditions or the memories of apostles or the Pauline traditions, are perhaps implicitly, but not explicitly, referred to. Jas 1,1; 2,1 (τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης) provide headlines for the whole speech, however. 7.6.3 The Core Conviction: Shema, Yahve Is the Only God (‫) ֶאחָד‬ James does not quote the Shema, but has a similar statement to Matt 6,24. Jas 2,19 says: σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός. No doubt this refers to the Shema, even though the language is a little strange.191 The lexical field of the Shema can be found elsewhere in James, however: (a) The notion of listening (‫שׁמע‬/‫שׁ ַמע‬ ְ ): 2,5: ἀκούσατε, ἀδελφοί µου ἀγαπητοί· οὐχ ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο 5,11 (τὴν ὑποµονὴν Ἰὼβ ἠκούσατε) 1,19: the expression ‘quick to listen’ (ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι)

191 It is put in the mouth of an opponent (σύ). The ironic phrase “you do good” (καλῶς ποιεῖς), and the resistance of demons (καὶ τὰ δαιµόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν) is not what you expect.

7.6 James – within Judaism: Comparison with the SM

479

(b) The notion of loving God: 1,12: στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς ὃν ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν192 2,5: βασιλείας ἧς ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν (c) The notion of heart (καρδία), expressing the inward perspective, derived from the Shema: 1,26: εἴ τις δοκεῖ … ἀλλὰ ἀπατῶν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, τούτου µάταιος ἡ θρησκεία. 3,14: εἰ δὲ ζῆλον πικρὸν ἔχετε καὶ ἐριθείαν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑµῶν, µὴ … 4,8: ἁγνίσατε καρδίας, δίψυχοι. 5,5: ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑµῶν ἐν ἡµέρᾳ σφαγῆς. 5,8: στηρίξατε τὰς καρδίας ὑµῶν, ὅτι ἡ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου ἤγγικεν. In James, this is connected to reverence for God (θρησκεία, 1,26), to theocentric ethics (3,14; 5,5.8) and Jas 4,8 says: “Come near to God, purify your heart” (ἐγγίσατε τῷ θεῷ … ἁγνίσατε καρδίας), and within Judaism this means to keep the Shema. (d) The notion of God’s name: 2,7: about blasphemy (βλασφηµοῦσιν τὸ καλὸν ὄνοµα) 5,10: τοὺς προφήτας οἳ ἐλάλησαν ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατι κυρίου The Shema can be seen behind other theocentric texts in James: 1,13: about temptations (ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστιν κακῶν) 1,18: God as creator (τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισµάτων) 1,27: about true religion (θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀµίαντος παρὰ τῷ θεῷ) 3,9: about blessings (ἐν αὐτῇ εὐλογοῦµεν τὸν κύριον καὶ πατέρα) and man created in the image of God (τοὺς καθ᾿ ὁµοίωσιν θεοῦ γεγονότας) 4,4: A friend of the world (φίλος τοῦ κόσµου) is God’s enemy (ἐχθρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). 4,7f: ὑποτάγητε οὖν τῷ θεῷ, ἀντίστητε δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ … ἐγγίσατε τῷ θεῷ. A theocentric theology permeates the speech in James. We do not need to argue that the Shema percolates through every single saying. It permeates the theological/philosophical thinking in the whole speech. 7.6.4 Theology and Judgment as the Main Issues in James God is unique, and part of this uniqueness is the connection between two aspects of God:

192 Αὐτός in 1,5.8.9.10.11.11.11.23.25.26.26.27; 2,14; 3,2.2.9.9.10.13; 4,11.17; 5,7.12. 14.14.15.19.20.20. Αὐτός refers to certain persons/things (2,16.16.21.22.23; 3,11; 5,3.7.18) and rather opposition groups (2,6f).

480

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

1) God as the giver, the origin of what is good. God is the giver, and therefore the theme of giving and prayer is stronger than in the SM (Jas 1,5f; 4,2.3; 5,13–17). Four sayings show this: 1,5: αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς … καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ. 1,17: πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρηµα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστιν.193 2,5: οὐχ ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσµῳ πλουσίους ἐν πίστει. 4,6: µείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν; … ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν. God as giver will accomplish good and good alone. He never brings about evil (ἀπείραστός κακῶν, 1,13), and God, who cannot be tempted by evil, will not tempt anyone (πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα). Jas 4,6 quotes Prov 3,34 and continues: ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται.194 2) God is a righteous judge. Neither the SM nor James have an elaborate eschatology. However, future events, consequences and judgment sayings are significant for both. James speaks explicitly about God’s judgment only twice:195 1,20: ὀργὴ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ οὐκ ἐργάζεται. 1,27: θρησκεία … παρὰ τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ means ἐπισκέπτεσθαι orphans and widows. The theme of judgment is an important theme in both the SM (Matt 5,13.29.30; 7,1.16–20.22f.24–27) and James (Jas 2,12f; 3,1; 4,1.12; 5,9.12.20). Terms like ἐλέγχω, ‘rebuke, convict’,196 ἔνοχος,197 παραβάτης,198 etc. are used, and terminology like κρίσις, κρίνω (Matt 5,21f.40; 7,1f) is even clearer in James, who adds κριτής, ἀδιάκριτος,199 νοµοθέτης: 2,12: οὕτως ποιεῖτε ὡς διὰ νόµου ἐλευθερίας µέλλοντες κρίνεσθαι. 2,13: ἡ γὰρ κρίσις ἀνέλεος τῷ µὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος· κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος κρίσεως. 3,1: … εἰδότες ὅτι µεῖζον κρίµα ληµψόµεθα. 193 The sentence, continuing with καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων, is formed beautifully, the closest you get to a hexameter in the New Testament. 194 For a comprehensive treatment, Oda Wischmeyer, “Wie spricht der Jakobusbrief von Gott?”, in Renate Egger-Wenzel/Karin Schöpflin (eds.), Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage. FS F.V. Reiterer, Berlin: De Gruyter 2013, 385–400. 195 Cf. Jas 2,23: ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰµ τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην καὶ φίλος θεοῦ ἐκλήθη. 196 Jas 2,9: εἰ δὲ προσωποληµπτεῖτε, ἁµαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε ἐλεγχόµενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ νόµου ὡς παραβάται. 197 Matt 5,21f and 26,66 = Mark 14,64; elsewhere in the New Testament: Mark 3,29; 1 Cor 11,27; Heb 2,15. 198 Outside James, only in Rom 2,25.27; Gal 2,16 in the New Testament. Παράβασις in Rom 2,23; 4,15; 5,14; Gal 3,39, plus Heb 2,2; 9,15. 199 Hapaxlegomenon in Jas 3,17.

7.6 James – within Judaism: Comparison with the SM

481

4,11: ὁ καταλαλῶν ἀδελφοῦ ἢ κρίνων τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καταλαλεῖ νόµου καὶ κρίνει νόµον· εἰ δὲ νόµον κρίνεις, οὐκ εἶ ποιητὴς νόµου ἀλλὰ κριτής. 4,12: εἷς ἐστιν [ὁ] νοµοθέτης καὶ κριτὴς ὁ δυνάµενος σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι· σὺ δὲ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων τὸν πλησίον; 5,9: µὴ στενάζετε κατ᾿ ἀλλήλων ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε· ἰδοὺ ὁ κριτὴς πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἕστηκεν. 5,12: πρὸ πάντων δέ, ἀδελφοί µου, µὴ ὀµνύετε µήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν µήτε τὴν γῆν µήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον· ἤτω δὲ ὑµῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὒ οὔ, ἵνα µὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε. The judgment is the final consequence, and Jas 3,5 as well as Matt 5,22.29f mention the ‘hell’ (γέεννα) in particular. Outside the Synoptics, this term occurs only in James. The eschatological perspective is fundamental both to the SM and to James, but neither has a timetable or an elaborate eschatology. The criterion in the judgment is faith and works consistently combined. The grace of God and the judgment of God are paradoxically connected. 7.6.5 The Notion of Kingdom and Christology in James 1) Kingdom. Only βασιλεία is used in James,200 whereas the term βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν is clearly a key word in the SM (Matt 5,3.10.19.20; 6,10.33; 7,21). The term is, however, used in a crucial text in Jas 2,5: οὐχ ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσµῳ πλουσίους ἐν πίστει καὶ κληρονόµους τῆς βασιλείας ἧς ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν;201 This is clearly a parallel to Matt 5,3 (µακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύµατι, ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν).202 Βασιλεία and δικαιοσύνη are not 200 Wesley H. Wachob, “The Languages of ‘Household’ and ‘Kingdom’ in the Letter of James: A Socio-rhetorical Study”, in Webb/Kloppenborg (eds.), Reading James with New Eyes (2007), 151–168. 201 Ἐπαγγέλλοµαι – not in Matthew, but twice in Jas (1,12; 2,5). The verb and the notion of inheritance (κληρονόµος) is mostly linked to the Abraham tradition, at least five of 15 times in the New Testament: Gal 3,19; Rom 4,21; Acts 7,5; Heb 6,13; 11,11 (10,23; 12,26). Κληρονόµος also in Rom 4,13.14; Gal 3,29 (4,1.7), cf. Rom 8,17; Heb 1,2; 6,17; 11,7. In the New Testament, the term ‘to elect’ – about Israel’s election – is only found in Acts 13,17; ἐκλέγοµαι/ἐκλεκτοί are like ἀγαπητοί used mostly about the election of Christians. 202 Refers to a well-known tradition: γινώσκετε γὰρ τὴν χάριν τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι δι᾿ ὑµᾶς ἐπτώχευσεν πλούσιος ὤν, ἵνα ὑµεῖς τῇ ἐκείνου πτωχείᾳ πλουτήσητε (2 Cor 8,9). The notion of πλούσιος ἐν πίστει has a clear parallel in 2 Cor 8,5, but is surprising here in James, if we consider the harsh criticism of ‘rich’ people in Jas 1,10.11; 5,1. Cf. Jas 2,2–4 like Luke 6,24 and 12,16; 14,12; 16,1, etc.

482

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

connected, and instead of that βασιλεία is near (ἤγγικεν), Jas 5,8 says that ἡ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου ἤγγικεν. We have no ‘Kingdom ethics’ in James, however, and no parallel to the saying in Matt 6,33 (ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ). 2) Christology in James? The implicit Christology is very strong in the SM; the formula (ἀµὴν) λέγω ὑµῖν (Matt 5,18.20.22.26.28.32.34.39.44; 6,2.15.16. 25) dominates, and we have the expressions: ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ (Matt 5,11; Luke 6,22: ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου), and sayings with ἦλθον (Matt 5,17), ὁµολογήσω (7,23) and πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων µου τοὺς λόγους τούτους (7,24.26). James has nothing of all this, but we have a few Christological fragments: 1,1: θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος 2,1: πίστις τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης 5,7: ἕως τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου 5,8: ἡ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου ἤγγικεν 5,14: ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ κυρίου 5,15: ἐγερεῖ αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος In all six occurrences we find ὁ κύριος. There is no doubt that the title Χριστός is decisive for the understanding of κύριος. The three contexts, 2,1– 7; 5,6–11; 5,13–18, show the implicit Christology in James. The Christology is also explicit in Jas 2,1 and in the argumentation in Jas 2,1–5. The one who chooses the poor (ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχούς) to be rich in faith (πλουσίους ἐν πίστει), is Jesus. They inherit the promised Kingdom (κληρονόµους τῆς βασιλείας ἧς ἐπηγγείλατο). The expression “promised to those who love” (ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν) is also used in Jas 1,12. The context in Jas 5,6–11 provides an eschatology with Jesus as the key figure. The expression παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου is hardly conceivable in any other setting than that of Christology. The same is true for Jas 5,14f. The context is obviously prayer in Christian communities. Jas 5,14 refers to a Christian rite of praying for the sick – in the name of Jesus. This ὄνοµα-Christology is also found in 2,7 concerning blasphemy (βλασφηµοῦσιν τὸ καλὸν ὄνοµα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾿ ὑµᾶς). The SM emphasises the same name-Christology (κύριε κύριε … τῷ σῷ ὀνόµατι, Matt 7,23). 7.6.6 The Use of νόµος: Is the Jewish Torah the Norm? 1) The Law as basis in James. Moses, Sinai, the tablets, or the terms connected to the Sinai event, do not occur in James. A Jewish reader would have recognised what James is talking about. Like Matt 5,18/Luke 16,18 (ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ µία κεραία οὐ µὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόµου), he confirms the Torah as the norm, using the term νόµος ten times: 1,25: ὁ δὲ παρακύψας εἰς νόµον τέλειον τὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας καὶ παραµείνας …

7.6 James – within Judaism: Comparison with the SM

483

2,8: εἰ µέντοι νόµον τελεῖτε βασιλικὸν κατὰ τὴν γραφήν … 2,9: εἰ δὲ προσωποληµπτεῖτε, ἁµαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε ἐλεγχόµενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ νόµου ὡς παραβάται. 2,10: ὅστις γὰρ ὅλον τὸν νόµον τηρήσῃ πταίσῃ δὲ ἐν ἑνί, γέγονεν πάντων ἔνοχος. 2,11: ὁ γὰρ εἰπών· µὴ µοιχεύσῃς, εἶπεν καί· µὴ φονεύσῃς· εἰ δὲ οὐ µοιχεύεις φονεύεις δέ, γέγονας παραβάτης νόµου. 2,12: οὕτως λαλεῖτε καὶ οὕτως ποιεῖτε ὡς διὰ νόµου ἐλευθερίας µέλλοντες κρίνεσθαι. 4,11: ὁ καταλαλῶν ἀδελφοῦ ἢ κρίνων τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καταλαλεῖ νόµου καὶ κρίνει νόµον· εἰ δὲ νόµον κρίνεις, οὐκ εἶ ποιητὴς νόµου ἀλλὰ κριτής. It may come as a surprise that the SM has νόµος only three times, but the SM makes the same confirmation of the Law in Matt 5,17 and 7,12, the frame of the argumentation in the SM. 2) Law as Christian law? Does James merely have the Jewish Torah in mind? The quotation from the Decalogue proves that this must be the first option. Still, many exegetes see a kind of Christian transformation of the term in James.203 The strange usage of adjectives in James (τέλειος, βασιλικός) and the genitive ἐλευθερίας, serve as their main argument for this kind of identification. The same is indicated by the use of λόγος in James.204 It can have the meaning of human words, like in 3,2 (εἴ τις ἐν λόγῳ οὐ πταίει, οὗτος τέλειος ἀνήρ) and Matt 5,37. As a key term it refers to the word of God: 1,18: βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡµᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας εἰς τὸ εἶναι … 1,21: δέξασθε τὸν ἔµφυτον λόγον τὸν δυνάµενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑµῶν. 1,22: γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγου καὶ µὴ µόνον ἀκροαταί. 1,23: εἴ τις ἀκροατὴς λόγου ἐστὶν καὶ οὐ ποιητής, οὗτος ἔοικεν ἀνδρί … As we noted, nearly all λόγος-sentences are found in the propositio. Λόγος in the SM (Matt 7,24.26f, τοὺς λόγους τούτους) means the words of Jesus, and they are clearly distinguished from νόµος, or better provide the 203 Robert Wall, “The perfect ‘Law of Liberty’ (Jas 1,25)”, in Shemaryahu Talmon/ Craig A. Evans (eds.), The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (BIS 28), Leiden: Brill 1997, 475–497. Cf. idem, “Law and Gospel”, in Al Truesdale (ed.), Global Wesleyan Dictionary of Theology, Kansas City: Beacon Hill 2013, 295–297. 204 For a comprehensive treatment similar to this brief analysis, cf. Konradt, Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief (1998), 67–100; idem, “‘Geboren durch das Wort der Wahrheit’ – ‘gerichtet durch das Gesetz der Freiheit’: Das Wort als Zentrum der theologischen Konzeption des Jakobusbriefes”, in Gemünden/idem/Theißen (eds.), Jakobusbrief (2003), 1–15, and Jackson-McCabe, Logos and Law in the Letter of James (2001), 135– 192.

484

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

correct interpretation of νόµος. In James the distinction is not so clear, and νόµος occurs in the propositio together with νόµος. The following scheme illustrates both the differences and the connections between λόγος and νόµος: λόγος James

1,18 λόγος ἀληθείας 1,22 ἔµφυτος λόγος 1,18 ἀπεκύησεν

Matthew

1,22f ποιηταὶ λόγου µὴ µόνον ἀκροαταί 1,21 δέξασθε 3,2 οὐ πταίει 7,24.26 λόγους τούτους

νόµος 1,25 νόµος τέλειος 2,12 νόµος βασιλικός 2,12 νόµος ἐλευθερίας 2,12 ποιεῖν 4,12 ποιητής 1,25 οὐκ ἀκροατής 1,25 παρακύψας 2,8 τελεῖν 4,12 καταλαλεῖν κρίνειv 5,17 οὐκ … καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι 5,18 µὴ παρέλθῃ 7,12 ἐστιν

2,9.11 παραβάτης ἐλεγχόµενοι 2,10 πταίσῃ

The differences are overstated if one sees λόγος as higher, more Christian than νόµος. The distinction derives from the Tanach, where λόγος ἀληθείας is reminiscent of the Septuagint expression ἡ ἀλήθειά σου,205 and 1,22 ἔµφυτος λόγος of Jer 31,31–34 (Deut 30,11–14) and νόµος βασιλικός (cf. Exod 19,5f), νόµος ἐλευθερίας (cf. Lev 25,6–55) and νόµος τέλειος.206 On the other hand, the notion of the ‘will of God’ (θέληµα), which is crucial in the SM,207 does not occur in James.208 Νόµος certainly means the crucial commandments in the Tanach. Jas 2,10f (ὅστις γὰρ ὅλον τὸν νόµον τηρήσῃ πταίσῃ δὲ ἐν ἑνί, γέγονεν πάντων ἔνοχος) presupposes a Christian interpretation of the Law. The double love command-

205 Only in Psalms, and here 24 times, in close connection with LXX Ps 39,9.11 and 118,90.92. Ps 118,142 comes closest: ὁ νόµος σου ἀλήθεια, cf. λόγος σου (in Ps 50,6: δικαιωθῇς) and the poem of the Law, Ps 119 = LXX 118,9.16.17.25.28.42.49.55.74.81. 89.101.105.107.114.130.139.147.154.160f. Ἔµφυτος is used only once in the Septuagint (Wis 12,10) – and about evil (κακία αὐτῶν). 206 Βασιλικός – only in the later writings, the same for τέλειος. Deut 18,13 (τέλειος ἔσῃ ἐναντίον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου) is a remarkable parallel to Matt 5,48. Cf. Lev 19,37; Deut 30,10; and not least 33,4: νόµον, ὃν ἐνετείλατο ἡµῖν Μωυσῆς. 207 Matt 6,10: γενηθήτω τὸ θέληµά σου; 7,21: ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ πατρός µου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 208 Different from 1 Pet 2,15; 3,17; 4,2.19, or 1 Thess 4,3; 5,18; Rom 2,18; 12,2, etc. Cf. Jas 4,15: ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ.

7.6 James – within Judaism: Comparison with the SM

485

ment seems to be the centre both in the SM and in James. Both quote Lev 19,18, and James uses πλησίον twice:209 2,8: … ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν, καλῶς ποιεῖτε. 4,12 admonishes: σὺ δὲ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων τὸν πλησίον;210 According to Jas 1,27, caring for the poorest (widows and orphans) is the right expression of faith in God (θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀµίαντος παρὰ τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὕτη). The kernel sentence in ‘the law of holiness’, Lev 19,18, is quoted in its future-form both in the SM and in James, but with different additions: Matt 5,43 ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου καὶ µισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου

Jas 2,8 ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν, καλῶς ποιεῖτε

James introduces the quotation as ‘the royal law’ (νόµον βασιλικὸν κατὰ τὴν γραφήν). The use of πλησίον in Jas 4,12 indicates a conscious elaboration of the tradition. Luke Johnson argues that James interprets the ‘law of holiness’ (Lev 18–20) by calling Jas 2,8–12 “the royal law” (2,8). He sees at least six verbal similarities and allusions between James and Lev 19,12–18.211 7.6.7 Covenantal Thinking James, like the SM, does not mention circumcision, the Sabbath, Temple worship, dietary regulations, ritual purity laws or the ‘religious’ hierarchy.212 This fact must not be overstated. It is normal in a sapiential context. The historical books and the prophets reflect these issues more. The SM has a little more than James, with an almost halachic treatment of divorce, it mentions alms, prayers, fasting, and the term ἅγιος, ‘holy’, is found in Matt 7,6. James has at most a Christian halachah in Jas 5,13–18.213 209

In the epistles only in Rom 13,8.10; 15,2; Gal 5,14; Eph 4,25. John 4,5 and Acts 7,27 use the term πλησίον, but do not quote Lev 19. 210 Matthew quotes Lev 19,18 explicitly in 19,19; 22,39, and apparently in 5,43 (ἀκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη· ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου) in spite of the odd addition on hating the enemy. Cf. Mark 12,33; Luke 10,27.29.36 is a parallel to Matt 22,39. It is obviously Matthew’s concern to make this addition to Mark 10,19/Luke 18,20 in Matt 19,19. 211 Luke T. Johnson, “Leviticus 19 in James”, JBL 101 (1982), 391–401; Walter C. Kaiser, jr., “James’ View of the Law”, Miskan 8/9 (1988), 9–12; Ludwig, Wort als Gesetz (1991); M. Klein, “Ein vollkommenes Werk” (1995). Both Rom 13,8 (ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται) and Jas 2,8 (νόµον βασιλικὸν κατὰ τὴν γραφήν) see it as the quintessence of the Law. 212 Kazen, Scripture, Interpretation, or Authority? (2013), has analysed the halachic discussions in the Gospel narratives. The context of the SM, Matt 8,1–4, deals with purity matters. 213 Sigal, “The Halacha of James” (1985). He finds no discussion of halachic commandments, rather analogies to halachic debates.

486

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

The Temple in Jerusalem is out of sight in the letter of James, which is remarkable if one associates the letter with the historical James; in early texts he was called ‘OBLIAS’ (ὤβλιας).214 James does not mention the Temple with its festivals, offerings and tithings. Jas 5,12 warns against oaths, but does not mention Temple oaths like Matt 5,35 does. James and the SM provide no instructions for rituals, not even the two crucial Jewish identity markers, the ritual of circumcision and of Sabbath, are mentioned. James spiritualises purity rules more than the SM, like Jas 4,8: καθαρίσατε χεῖρας, ἁµαρτωλοί, καὶ ἁγνίσατε καρδίας, δίψυχοι. The notions of purity and perfection are spiritualised both in the SM and in James. James uses τέλειος five times in this sense.215 Matt 6,22 has the notion of ἁπλοῦς as an ethical term, which is far from the context of offerings in the New Testament.216 The Synagogue occurs twice in the SM (Matt 6,2.5), even though it was introduced in Matt 4. In Jas 2,2 συναγωγή denotes Christian gatherings.217 James mentions no hierarchy of priests, etc., nor Jewish leaders like Pharisees or Scribes (Matt 5,20), and only two other groups: teachers (διδάσκαλοι, 3,1) and elders (πρεσβύτεροι, 5,14).218 James has no ecclesiology, no Christian rituals, at most a Christian ritual of prayer for the sick, to be led by πρεσβύτεροι τῆς ἐκκλησίας. To sum up: James thinks ‘within Judaism’, and the Shema is the basic foundation. However, circumcision, the Sabbath, Moses, Sinai, the tablets, or Temple worship, dietary regulations, ritual purity laws or the ‘religious’ hierarchy are not even mentioned in James. Christian convictions interpret the faith according to the Shema.

214

According to Eusebius (H.E. II,23), James was “protector of the people” (περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ), and with its connotation to the Temple it is an irony that James was killed after being pushed from the Temple. Cf. Jonathan Bourgel, “Jacques le Juste, un Oblias parmi d’autres”, NTS 59 (2013), 222–246. 215 Matt 5,48 and 19,21 have their closest parallels in Jas 1,4 (ἔργον τέλειον); 1,17 (δώρηµα τέλειον); 1,25 (νόµον τέλειον); 3,2 (τέλειος ἀνήρ). 216 Matt 6,22 = Luke 11,34: ὁ ὀφθαλµός σου ἁπλοῦς, cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 351–354. In the New Testament epistles ἁπλοῦς means rather generosity (Rom 12,8; 2 Cor 1,12; 8,2; 9,11.13; 11,3 plus Col 3,22; Eph 6,3). 217 Paul never uses this language of συναγωγή. It can still be found in Ign. Pol. 4,2 (“Let the meetings be numerous”), but the notion of Church dominates entirely, cf. Ign. Eph. 5,2 (the whole Church) and on the role of presbyters, Ign. Magn. 7,1f. 218 Presbyteroi as leading in Corinth, 1 Clem. 1,1; 3,3; 44,3f.6; 47,6.

7.7 James and Hellenistic Philosophy of Life: Comparison with the SM

487

7.7 James and Hellenistic Philosophy of Life: Comparison with the SM Sapiential approaches could more easily enter into dialogue with questions raised in Hellenistic philosophy. In 1994 I presented an extensive paper at the Center of Theological Inquiry (CTI) in Princeton on James and philosophical argumentation, which was rather different from the scholarly debates at that time about the Jewish character of James.219 Twenty years later, this has become a major trend in scholarship. Already Wayne A. Meeks argued that a reader of James “familiar with popular philosophies of the day [would] find much in common with Cynic teaching: simplicity of life and speech, boldness and defencelessness, readiness to defy public conventions”.220 E.g. Luke T. Johnson’s and John S. Kloppenborg’s contributions and the edition of ‘New Wettstein’221 documented an enormous number of Hellenistic parallels to James’ letter.222 The exact Hellenistic environment, the Jewish component, and variations between different discourses are still open questions. 7.7.1 The Social Setting: Cities and Countryside in the Diaspora Even parts of Proverbs and Sirach had an urban setting.223 Jas 4,13–5,6 shows that this theme is a burning issue. The cities (πόλεις) people will travel to for business and making money, are obviously Hellenistic cities, and the landowners in Jas 5,1–6 also probably lived in cities. Hellenisation was a challenge for many Jews; for some of them, even the situation in Jerusalem was a concern. This is most likely the background for the inscription from Theodotus, son of Vettenus, who built a synagogue in Jerusalem “for the reading of the Law and teaching of the commandments”,224 probably the purity laws. James must be seen in a broader perspective, and even the language demonstrates its Hellenistic character, as Adolf Deißmann and Albert Wifstrand 219

The lecture I gave as a member of CTI in the 1994 seminar with the title “Rhetorical and philosophical argumentation in James” (James’ world-view and ethics compared with Paul’s in the setting of Jewish wisdom, Stoicism, and early Christianity) is in fact the basis for this paragraph. 220 Meeks, Origins of Christian Morality (1993), 200. 221 Johnson, Letter of James (1995) and many articles in his Brother of Jesus, Friend of God (2004); Kloppenborg, “Diaspora Discourse” (2007); idem, “James 1,2–15 and Hellenistic Psychagogy” (2010); idem, “Patronage Avoidance in James”, HTR 55 (1999), 755– 794. 222 Neuer Wettstein II, 1248–1342, compared to the previous most comprehensive lists, e.g. Mayor, James (1897/1990), 142–145 (CXXXIV–CXXXVII). 223 P.J. Nel, Structure and Ethos (1982), 82. 224 CIJ, no. 1404, cf. Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul (1983), 17, 148, n. 119.

488

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

have shown.225 David F. Kaden thinks the audience was familiar with Stoicism and other Hellenistic traditions.226 The question of location is difficult to handle. Kaden follows Margaret Mitchell, who thinks specifically of Rome, and a letter of reconciliation.227 Jas 4,13–17, however, points definitely not in this direction. Diatribe as style in James compared to Matt 6,25–34. This use of this form marks James out as something different in the New Testament. Johannes Geffcken, Paul Wendland and James H. Ropes had demonstrated that James was familiar with the diatribe-style, and even Martin Dibelius admitted that the SM has diatribe-style.228 Matt 6,25–34 has some elements from the diatribe-style,229 but Jas 2,1–13.14–26; 3,1–8; 4,1–6 come much closer to the diatribe-style we find in some of Paul’s letters and in Epictetus.230 The stories in Jas 2,2–4 and 2,15f are more example-stories (παραδείγµατα) than real events. 7.7.2 The Philosophy of Life in James and the Hellenistic Context 1) Happiness and good life, pain and comfort. James has two µακάριοςsentences (1,12: µακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς ὑποµένει πειρασµόν ὅτι …; 1,25: οὗτος µακάριος ἐν τῇ ποιήσει αὐτοῦ ἔσται). Sometimes terms and content come closer to Jesus-sayings rather than the form: 2,5: οὐχ ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσµῳ πλουσίους. 3,18: καρπὸς δὲ δικαιοσύνης ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην. The nearest parallel to Jas 2,5 is Matt 5,3/Luke 6,20 and Jas 3,18 echoes Matt 5,9. The parallels are even closer than the two parallels with the µακάριοςform. Jas 1,2 echoes Matt 5,11f/Luke 6,22f, about joy in persecution, but 225

Especially A. Wifstrand, “Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James and Peter”, ST 1 (1947/48), 170–182. 226 Kaden, “Stoicism, social stratification and the Q Tradition in James” (2014), 104– 111 (Epictetus as parallel). 227 Ibid., 116, based on the knowledge of Seneca and Epictetus and the stratification in Jas 2, and Mitchell, “The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism?” (2007). 228 Geffcken, Kynika und Verwandtes (1909), esp. 44–47; Ropes, James (1916/1961), 10–16, and in his exegesis of Jas 2f, cf. M. Dibelius, Brief des Jakobus (1921/121984), 36. The observations of P. Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur (1912), 75–96, also Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1910/1984, and Heinrici, Der literarische Character der neutestamentlichen Schriften (1908), 9–12, influenced both Ropes and M. Dibelius. Recently Bauckham, “The Wisdom of James and the Wisdom of Jesus” (2004), 57–60, has renewed the theory at least for Jas 2. 229 Heinrici, Bergpredigt II (1905), 75–79; Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 384–389. 230 Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt (above, n. 228); Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (SBLDS), Chico: Scholars Press 1981.

7.7 James and Hellenistic Philosophy of Life: Comparison with the SM

489

adds the element of patience. Jas 1,25 summarizes Matt 5,6–9, but is closer to Ps 1,1f; 128,1f; Prov 14,21, etc. James has more distant parallels to Luke’s Woes in 6,24–26, the woes of rich people in Jas 5,1 (ἂγε νῦν οἱ πλούσιοι, κλαύσατε). Echoes of the Woes can be seen in the injunctions in Jas 1,8 (ἀνὴρ δίψυχος); 2,20 (ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ); 4,4 (µοιχαλίδες); 4,7f (ἁµαρτωλοί – δίψυχοι); 4,13; 5,1 (ἄγε νῦν οἱ λέγοντες). A good life and limited goods are not a contradiction. A good life and ethical behaviour are identified, and so are a good life and patiently waiting for God. Tranquility and the question of emptiness and fullness are not topics here. 2) Anthropology. The rich anthropology in James has been analysed by e.g. Hubert Frankemölle and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr.231 Petra von Gemünden provided the broader Hellenistic framework for both the Antitheses and James, 232 and John S. Kloppenborg focused specifically on Hellenistic psychagogy as background.233 James makes the theme more explicit than in the SM. James has first of all the term ἐπιθυµία, ἐπιθυµεῖν, etc.: 1,14: ἕκαστος δὲ πειράζεται ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυµίας ἐξελκόµενος καὶ δελεαζόµενος. 1,15: εἶτα ἡ ἐπιθυµία συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει ἁµαρτίαν. 4,2: ἐπιθυµεῖτε καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε, φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε καὶ οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν. It corresponds with the SM only in Matt 5,28 (… πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυµῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐµοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ). Κακία, κακός, κακῶς: 1,13: ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστιν κακῶν, πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα. 2,1: διὸ ἀποθέµενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν κακίας ἐν πραΰτητι. 3,8: τὴν δὲ γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς δαµάσαι δύναται ἀνθρώπων, ἀκατάστατον κακόν … 4,3: διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε, ἵνα ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ὑµῶν δαπανήσητε. 231 Frankemölle, “Gespalten oder ganz” (1985); K.-W. Niebuhr, “Ethik und Anthropologie nach dem Jakobusbrief: Eine Skizze”, in Horn/Zimmermann (eds.), Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ (2009), 329–346 (ET: “Ethics and Anthropology in the Letter of James: An Outline”, in Jan Willem van Henten/Joseph Verheyden [eds.], Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts [STAR 17], Leiden/Boston: Brill 2013, 223–242); Walter T. Wilson, “Sin as Sex and Sex with Sin: The Anthropology of James 1:12–15”, HTR 95 (2002), 147–168; Konradt, “Sünde im Jakobusbrief” (2013). 232 Gemünden, “Der Umgang mit Zorn und Aggression in der Antike und der Bergpredigt”, in eadem, Affekt und Glaube (2009), 163–189; eadem,“Affekte in den synoptischen Evangelien” (2013). 233 John S. Kloppenborg, “James 1:2–15 and Hellenistic Psychagogy”, NovT 52 (2010), 37–71.

490

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

In the SM, only Matt 6,34 (ἡ κακία αὐτῆς) has this term, whereas πονηρός is a favourite term in the SM (5,11.37.39; 6,13.23; 7,11.17f). James has only two occurrences: 2,4: οὐ διεκρίθητε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐγένεσθε κριταὶ διαλογισµῶν πονηρῶν. 4,16: νῦν δὲ καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀλαζονείαις ὑµῶν· πᾶσα καύχησις τοιαύτη πονηρά. In Jewish-Hellenistic texts and the New Testament, the origin of evil is traced to the fall of Adam (Gen 3; Ps 9,7; Sir 25; 1 En. 98 and Rom 1,23; 5,12–21) or to the sin of Eve (Gen 3; Sir 25,24ff; and 2 Cor 11,3; 1 Tim 2,14) or the fall of the angels (Gen 6,1–4; 1 En. 6–36; CD 11,18 and 1 Pet 3,19). Satan (Wis 2,24; 1QS 3,13–4,26 – on the two spirits – and 2 Cor 4,4) and the evil inclination (yeṣer haraʿ) became more and more predominant in Jewish literature (Gen 6,5; 8,21; Sir 15,14; 1QS 1,13–15.21; 3,6–8.13–18; 4,1–3). Due to evil as an inclination, sin is, according to James, a strong power. He uses three overriding terms: ἁµαρτία (ἁµαρτωλός), πλάνη (πλανᾶν) and ἀδικία: 1,15: εἶτα ἡ ἐπιθυµία συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει ἁµαρτίαν, ἡ δὲ ἁµαρτία … ἀποκύει θάνατον. 2,9: εἰ δὲ προσωποληµπτεῖτε, ἁµαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε. 4,17: εἰδότι οὖν καλὸν ποιεῖν καὶ µὴ ποιοῦντι, ἁµαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστιν. 5,15: ἐγερεῖ αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος· κἂν ἁµαρτίας ᾖ πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ. 5,16: ἐξοµολογεῖσθε οὖν ἀλλήλοις τὰς ἁµαρτίας καὶ εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων … 5,20: ἁµαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ σώσει ἐκ θανάτου … καλύψει πλῆθος ἁµαρτιῶν. 4,8: καθαρίσατε χεῖρας, ἁµαρτωλοί, καὶ ἁγνίσατε καρδίας, δίψυχοι, cf. 5,20; Luke 6,33f 1,16: µὴ πλανᾶσθε … 5,20: ὁ ἐπιστρέψας ἁµαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ … 3,6: ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ· ὁ κόσµος τῆς ἀδικίας234 ἡ γλῶσσα καθίσταται ἐν τοῖς µέλεσιν ἡµῶν … Sin and ἐπιθυµία (1,15) and sin and death (θάνατος, 1,15; 5,20) are connected in James. ‘Sin‘ is a power, leading to transgression (παραβάτης, 2,9.11; πταίω, 2,10; 3,2).235 To know what is good and not do it, is sin (4,17) and favouritism that sins against the double love commandment, is certainly a sin. The theology of James, its preaching of good works, is not based on an optimistic anthropology. The deadly power of the tongue, the evil inclination 234 Ἀδικία is a key term in Romans (1,18.29; 2,8; 3,5; 6,13; and 9,14. Cf. the SM, Matt 5,45: δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους. 235 The SM has παράπτωµα (τὰ παραπτώµατα αὐτῶν/ὑµῶν, Matt 6,14).

7.7 James and Hellenistic Philosophy of Life: Comparison with the SM

491

(yeṣer haraʿ), threaten every community, and it is necessary for Christians to confess their sins to one another (5,16: ἀλλήλοις). The SM has the same anthropology (cf. 7,11: ὑµεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες) without going deeper into it. The phenomenon of aggression/wrath, envy, hate, etc. is hinted at, and a deeper reflection is presupposed. James has this reflexion, and often comments on the strong internal power. A variety of terms is used: ζῆλος, ζηλοῦν, ἡδονή, µέλος, and the language of war, πόλεµοι, µάχη, is spiritualised. 1,19: βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν. 1,20: ὀργὴ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ οὐκ ἐργάζεται. 4,2: ἐπιθυµεῖτε καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε, φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε. 3,14: εἰ δὲ ζῆλον πικρὸν ἔχετε καὶ ἐριθείαν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑµῶν … ψεύδεσθε. 3,16: ὅπου γὰρ ζῆλος καὶ ἐριθεία, ἐκεῖ ἀκαταστασία καὶ πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγµα. 4,1: οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν, ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑµῶν τῶν στρατευοµένων ἐν τοῖς µέλεσιν ὑµῶν. 4,3: οὐ λαµβάνετε διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε, ἵνα ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ὑµῶν δαπανήσητε. 3,5: οὕτως καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα µικρὸν µέλος ἐστὶν καὶ µεγάλα αὐχεῖ. 3,6: ὁ κόσµος τῆς ἀδικίας ἡ γλῶσσα καθίσταται ἐν τοῖς µέλεσιν ἡµῶν. 4,1: ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑµῶν τῶν στρατευοµένων ἐν τοῖς µέλεσιν ὑµῶν; 4,1: πόθεν πόλεµοι καὶ πόθεν µάχαι ἐν ὑµῖν; οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν … 4,2: µάχεσθε καὶ πολεµεῖτε, οὐκ ἔχετε διὰ τὸ µὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑµᾶς. James develops this theme much more than other texts in the New Testament.236 Very similar to the SM is the reflection on wrath (cf. Matt 5,22: πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόµενος …). Metaphors of war can be found elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g. Eph 6). Only ζῆλος is well-known from the Pauline letters.237 Paul reflects deeply on the power of µέλος (Rom 6f; 12; 1 Cor 12, plus Col 3,5; Eph 4,25; 5,30). 4 Macc 1,1–6.22–24; 8,25, etc. contain similar reflections, but in the New Testament no texts other than the SM (Matt 5,29f) have this terminology apart from the Corpus Paulinum and James.

It is indeed a spiritual-war perspective: It is about resisting evil (Jas 4,8: ἀντίστητε δὲ τῷ διαβόλῳ), not spending what you receive on pleasures (δαπανάω, 4,3), and Jas 3,7 puts all aspects into one perspective: it is about being tamed and having been tamed by man (δαµάζεται καὶ δεδάµασται τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ). 236 In addition to this list: ἀλαζονεία, Jas 4,16 (only 1 John 2,16 elsewhere in the New Testament); (3,5 hapaxlegomenon); δαπανάω (other aspect in 2 Cor 12,15). 237 Ζῆλος, etc. in Rom 13,13; 1 Cor 3,3; 2 Cor 7,7.13; 9,2; 11,2; 12,20; 13,4; Gal 5,20; Phil 3,6.

492

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

This anthropology is the background for James’ theology. It is based on a philosophical, realistic analysis of the human condition. 3) Law in a Hellenistic setting – righteousness and the ‘others’. Is it the Torah or the Scriptures that represent the norm? Is it rather ritual practices (purity rules, circumcision, etc.)? In this case James would argue from ‘within Judaism’. James has a more general approach, however: his argument is based on ethical principles/maxims, on theological convictions (God, Christology, judgment) and on philosophical arguments. (a) Νόµος in a Hellenistic context. Few people in the Hellenistic world would have associated the term νόµος with the strange Jewish book, Torah. Νόµος signified, depending on the context, the applicable laws or the best ethical norms.238 James’ expressions “royal law” (2,8), “perfect law”, “law of freedom” (1,25), and the Stoic-sounding ‘implanted’ word (τὸν ἔµφυτον λόγον, 1,25) must also be understood in a Hellenistic context. Many Stoic texts come close to these descriptions: “not only are the wise free, they are also kings”.239 Epictetus later makes the same reflection,240 and Cicero formulates it sharply in his Paradoxa Stoicorum: “Only the wise man is the free man (solum sapientem liberum esse)”.241 (b) The specific commandments. The SM, James (and Paul) list only two commandments, and they have a general character:242 Matt 5,27: οὐ µοιχεύσεις Matt 5,21: οὐ φονεύσεις

Jas 2,11: µὴ µοιχεύσῃς … οὐ µοιχεύεις Jas 2,11: µὴ φονεύσῃς … φονεύεις δέ

The SM deals more with the latter of the two commandments, and James repeats the first one. James has the metaphor ‘adulterous’ (µοιχαλίδες), but the other general theme, murder, is a more important issue:

238

Jackson-McCabe, Logos and Law in the Letter of James (2001). Cicero, Par. Stoic. 33–41; Diogenes Laertius VII,121; Epictetus, Diss. IV,1,3; Jason A. Whitlark, “Ἔµφυτος Λόγος: A New Covenant Motif in the Letter of James”, HBT 32 (2010), 144–165. 239 Diogenes Laertius VII,121 with references to Zeno and Chrysippus. 240 Epictetus, Diss. IV,1,3. 241 Cicero, Par. Stoic. 33–41, esp. 34: “What then is freedom? Ability to live as you wish. Who then lives as he wishes, if not the one who pursues upright things, who rejoices in duty, whose way of life is considered and planned, who doesn’t obey the laws because of fear, but follows and cultivates them because he judges that to be most advantageous, who says nothing, does nothing, in fact thinks nothing unless it is willingly and freely.” 242 The commandment outside the Gospels: only in Rom 13,9 with οὐ + future tense (οὐ µοιχεύσεις – οὐ φονεύσεις). These commandments are often emphasised in Jewish texts. Only the first commandment is interpreted more frequently.

7.7 James and Hellenistic Philosophy of Life: Comparison with the SM

493

4,2: ἐπιθυµεῖτε καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε, φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε καὶ οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν. 5,6: κατεδικάσατε, ἐφονεύσατε τὸν δίκαιον. This behaviour is the opposite of having an attitude of helping, comforting and doing good to others, which is the centre of the ethics in James. (c) On the way to ontological ethics – ‘others’ as a point of orientation. More recently, Emmanuel Levinas and Jürgen Habermas have tried to transcend Kantian ethics by seeing ‘the other’ as a starting-point for ethical reflections. In James the rhetoric/ethics of others is foundational: 1,26f: The right religion (θρησκεία) means to help orphans and widows. 2,1: Faith in God means to protest against favouritism (µὴ ἐν προσωποληµψίαις ἔχετε). It continues with an admonition against social stratification (2,2–4): 2,6 shows that this is the criterion, and there are negative examples (ὑµεῖς δὲ ἠτιµάσατε τὸν πτωχόν): 2,8: Faith in God means loving others (ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν). 4,11: The Law and the others are connected (ὁ καταλαλῶν ἀδελφοῦ … καταλαλεῖ νόµου). 4,17: It is a sin against God to neglect others (καλὸν … µὴ ποιοῦντι, ἁµαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστιν). 5,9: to be judged as result of judging others 5,19: ‘not your own sin, but the others’; to be saved means to save others. Good deeds/doing good and faith are two sides of the same coin. The concept of δικαιοσύνη implies a relation between justice and love, as we see in the Tanach and other Jewish texts. Righteousness in James and in the SM follows the same pattern: 1,20: ὀργὴ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ οὐκ ἐργάζεται. 2,23: (ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα)· ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰµ τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην καὶ φίλος θεοῦ ἐκλήθη. 3,18: καρπὸς δὲ δικαιοσύνης ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην. The SM is less specific: Matt 5,20; 6,1.33 obviously have the ethical aspect in mind, but do not exemplify its impact. (d) Forgiveness, reconciliation – giving and receiving. For the SM and James, mercy and forgiveness are crucial concepts. The SM strongly emphasises the theme of forgiveness (ἀφίηµι) (Matt 5,24.40; 7,4 and 6,12.14.15). James ends his letter with forgiveness before the final warning. On the other hand, the SM picks up the theme of mercy in the very beginning – whereas James has the theme at the conclusion of two paragraphs:

494

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

Jas 5,15: … κἂν ἁµαρτίας ᾖ πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ. Jas 2,13: ἡ κρίσις ἀνέλεος τῷ µὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος· κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος κρίσεως. Jas 3,17: µεστὴ ἐλέους καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν Matt 5,7: µακάριοι οἱ ἐλεήµονες, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθήσονται. Giving and forgiving are closely related both in the SM (cf. Matt 5,23f) and in James. God as the giver, as patron and benefactor in James: 1,5: αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς καὶ µὴ ὀνειδίζοντος καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ. 1,18: πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρηµα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστιν καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρός. 4,3: αἰτεῖτε καὶ οὐ λαµβάνετε διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε, ἵνα ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ὑµῶν … 4,6: µείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν; διὸ λέγει … ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν. 5,18: πάλιν προσηύξατο, καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς ὑετὸν ἔδωκεν. Accordingly, man should also give: 2,16: µὴ δῶτε δὲ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ σώµατος. 3,18: καρπὸς δὲ δικαιοσύνης ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην. These themes are expressed in terms that Hellenistic readers could grasp more easily, compared to convoluted theories of atonement. 4) Honour and shame. The theme of ‘honour and shame’ is important in the SM, starting in Matt 5,3–12 with µακάριος as a dominating issue, and in Matt 5,12.46; 6,1.2.5.16 (10,41f; 20,8) with reward, µισθός, as the focus.243 To praise and be praised (δοξάζειν244) is important, as we see in Matt 5,16; 6,2. The glory of Solomon is mentioned in a parenthesis (6,30). It is about glory in the eyes of man but primarily in the eyes of God. The basic perspective – derived from both Jesus and the Stoics – is that only the wise person is rich. The example-story in Jas 2,2–4 is definitely about honour.245 The rich person is nothing compared to Christ (2,1: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης) and the 243 James uses µισθός only for ‘wages’ (ὁ µισθὸς τῶν ἐργατῶν). Visible and invisible and that God sees the inside are not the theme in James. The terms for seeing are used more in the sense of considering, being alert, etc.: Jas 2,22: βλέπεις ὅτι ἡ πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ; 2,24: ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων …; 5,11: τὸ τέλος κυρίου εἴδετε, ὅτι πολύσπλαγχνός ἐστιν ὁ κύριος καὶ οἰκτίρµων. 244 Cf. 1 Pet 1,8: πιστεύοντες δὲ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασµένῃ; 2,12: ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καταλαλοῦσιν ὑµῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων ἐποπτεύοντες δοξάσωσιν τὸν θεὸν ἐν ἡµέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς; 4,11.16: δοξάζηται/δοξαζέτω θεός/θεόν. 245 Jas 2,2: ἀνὴρ χρυσοδακτύλιος ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαµπρᾷ.

7.7 James and Hellenistic Philosophy of Life: Comparison with the SM

495

glory of the rich will decay (5,1–3).246 To act like them is a shame (2,6: ὑµεῖς δὲ ἠτιµάσατε τὸν πτωχόν) and the ideal is “to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (ἄσπιλον ἑαυτὸν τηρεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσµου, 1,26). The paradoxical thesis was introduced in Jas 1,9: the humble should take pride in his high position (καυχάσθω δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ ταπεινὸς ἐν τῷ ὕψει αὐτοῦ) and a reversal will take place: the rich will be humiliated (ὁ δὲ πλούσιος [καυχάσθω] ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ). The terms for honour, καυχάοµαι, καύχησις, κατακαυχάοµαι, occur in two key sentences: Mercy will be honoured (2,13: κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος κρίσεως) and evil will be subjected to dishonour (4,17: πᾶσα καύχησις τοιαύτη πονηρά). This language is primarily used by Paul247 and his usage is slightly different compared to James; more so when it comes to a related term, grace, χάρις. In Jas 4,6 James quotes Prov 3,34 (ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν). James has other terms for honour and dishonour: µακάριος (1,12), µακαρίζω (5,11).248 The great reversal is also the theme in 4,9f, the reversal of joy and sorrow (ὁ γέλως ὑµῶν εἰς πένθος µετατραπήτω καὶ ἡ χαρὰ εἰς κατήφειαν) and the humble will be exalted (ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον κυρίου καὶ ὑψώσει ὑµᾶς).249 This corresponds perfectly with the Beatitudes in the SM. To sum up: Scholarship has recently rediscovered the Hellenistic atmosphere in James. Some exegetes think specifically of Rome, whereas others insist on James as a Diaspora letter from Jerusalem. This question must be left open, and allows us to be fascinated by the literary and philosophical competence of the Jewish speaker, who combines wisdom literature, Jesus traditions and familiarity with certain philosophical debates.

246

Jas 5,5 uses dramatic terms for dishonour: “you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter” (ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑµῶν ἐν ἡµέρᾳ σφαγῆς). 247 Ragnar Asting, Kauchesis: Et bidrag til forståelsen av den religiøse selvfølelse hos Paulus, Oslo: Grøndahl 1925, corresponding to Bultmann’s treatment in Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1958), 242f, etc. 248 The verb is used in the New Testament only here and in Luke 1,48 – one indication of the Lucan language. 249 Todd C. Penner, The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient Letter (JSNTSup 121), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1996, 163f (pp. 158–213), here offers a comprehensive treatment.

496

§ 7 Wisdom Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount and in James

7.8 Summary The purpose of this paragraph has been to compare the ethical argumentation in the SM and in James, and to compare the radical philosophy of life in the two writings. In the ethical argumentation we have observed a remarkable similarity between the two speeches. They are both protreptic speeches, with some similarities in rhetorical composition. The forms are similar (beatitudes, maxims, antithetical formulations, etc.), the use of imperatives and the reasons/motivation are the same. The audience is different. James speaks to an in-group, living in a hostile environment. We have more polemical features in James. The SM presents unpolemically a universal ethos. Both speeches are formulated from ‘within Judaism’ in a Hellenistic context. Jewish identity is the starting-point, but it is reformulated through ‘Christian’ convictions in a language that a Graeco-Roman audience was able to follow. The task here is not to explain the historical relation between the SM and James and search for a place for James in the history of the Early Church. The similarity can be explained as quotations from oral tradition, from certain sources, from one or two Gospels, through the knowledge that James the Brother of Jesus had, etc. The best approach is to see them as emulation, and the way the speech rephrases the Jesus-sayings is a function of early Christian schools. Jesus-sayings and wisdom-sayings were used in teaching and in dialogue with the Jewish and Graeco-Roman culture.

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34: An Illuminating Riddle It is easy to understand why Matt 6,34 is so frequently used in sermons. The text touches on deep existential questions and engaging themes, and can be used for many situations in life. One example: The royal chaplain, Thomas Sheridan (1687–1738), lost his job due to a sermon delivered on Matt 6,34. Sheridan was Irish, a close friend and biographer of Jonathan Swift. As poet and Anglican priest, he was asked to preach on the occasion of the funeral of Queen Anne in 1714. His sermon on Matt 6,34 moved the audience, and many people kept this sermon for the last ‘Stuart’ in mind. Sheridan was later appointed to the position of royal chaplain to the protestant King George I, from the ‘House of Hanover’. At the tenth anniversary of his accession in 1724 Sheridan reused the excellent sermon on Matt 6,34. He was probably just complacent with his speech, or was he a bit absent-minded? The audience, who remembered the speech to Queen Anne, blamed him for being a Jacobite and a crypto-Catholic. He had to leave his position as royal chaplain, due to an excellent sermon about not worrying for the future.

It is surprising that scholarly exegesis has neglected this popular saying. The literature on other sayings in the SM is immense, but only a few articles are devoted to this saying.1 In the commentaries we find mostly only brief remarks. The reason for the popularity of the text is its existential question and its profound wisdom. How can biblical scholars overlook this text?

8.1 Preliminary Analysis An obvious reason for neglecting this text is a one-sided eschatological interpretation of the SM and of Jesus’ teaching in general. Its Hellenistic flavour causes problems for scholars who interpret the SM on its Jewish background alone. Scholars have often favoured a theological interpretation, and hesitate to offer a broader philosophical interpretation. Matt 6,34 should be raised to the centre of the SM. Its profound philosophical wisdom from its angle sheds some light on the central message of 1

Zorell, “Ἀρκετὸς in Mt. 6,34” (1920); Griffith, “Wisdom about to-morrow” (1960); Derrett, “Morality not to Be Codified (Matthew 6,34)” (2006).

498

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

the SM. To listen to the saying with the connotations that a ‘Jewish’ and ‘Hellenistic’ audience had in the first century, makes it clear that Matt 6,34 is a challenging message for people in the modern and the post-modern eras. In troubled times, of epidemics, of conflicts and wars, anxiety for the future make people depressed. 1) The riddle of Matt 6,34. Matt 6,34 is a riddle or the sum of many intertwined riddles: – The form, vocabulary, grammar, and rhetorical argumentation in Matt 6,34 are rare. – There is a huge number of parallels to Matt 6,34 in world-literature, particularly in Jewish and Graeco-Roman texts, but we have no exact parallel to the saying. – Is Matt 6,34 – like 6,25–33 (?) – an authentic saying of Jesus? – Matthew is often seen as a Jewish author; why do we have this ‘Hellenistic’ addition? – Why is 6,34 added to 6,33 and the whole argument in 6,25–33 (Luke 12,22–31)? Does it deepen or distort the argumentation in Matt 6,25–33? – Is there any connection to the following saying about judging etc. in Matt 7,1f? The meaning of the saying depends on the meaning of the words and the grammar, the meaning of the three sentences and of the combination of sentences, its metaphorical value.2 2) Text and context of Matt 6,34. Matt 6,34 can be read as two or three sentences. Is v. 34c primarily subordinated to v. 34b? It is more likely three, but the two subordinated sentences (6,34b/c) give reasons for v. 34a. µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον, ἡ γὰρ αὔριον µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς. ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς. Matt 6,34 is mostly read as part of the section Matt 6,25–33, and in this context exegetes devote relatively few comments to the saying. The saying is rarely given a separate headline.3

2

The origin of the saying and the context are of course also important. Theodor Zahn, Matthäus (41922), 301, saw correctly that the admonition is an exaggeration, similarly to the saying against casuistic thinking, Matt 5,22 (“… nicht ohne Ironie die rabbinische Kasuistik unter Anwendung ihrer eigenen Formen ad absurdum geführt”). 3 Zeilinger, Zwischen Himmel und Erde (2002), 181f (headline: ‘Carpe diemʼ, v. 34).

8.1 Preliminary Analysis

499

The argumentation is certainly part of Matt 6,25–34 and partly repeats the parallel sentences in it: 6,25: µὴ µεριµνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑµῶν τί φάγητε, µηδὲ τῷ σώµατι ὑµῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε. 6,31: µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε λέγοντες· τί φάγωµεν; ἤ τί πίωµεν; ἤ τί περιβαλώµεθα; 6,34: µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον, ἡ γὰρ αὔριον µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς … These parallel sayings have the same future-aspect. The first two concentrate on concrete matters (eating, drinking and clothing). Matt 6,34 speaks more generally about the future. It gives reasons why anxiety about the future should be avoided. Matt 6,34 is seemingly the climax in the section 6,25–34 with its beautiful and conscious rhetoric. Matt 6,34 is the last word in the section, introduced with οὖν, which normally (in Matt 5,48; 7,12.24) draws a conclusion.4 Is 6,34 a second climax next to the key-sentence in Matt 6,33? Scholars tend to emphasise Matt 6,33 and see Matt 6,34 as an arbitrary addition, as a joke, or as an anticlimax5 which reduces the theological program of v. 33 to the level of popular wisdom.6 Does it just give some practical advice after the theological statement in v. 33? Or is this third admonition a new aspect that broadens the perspective? Neither Matt 6,31 nor 6,34 are really conclusions. Οὖν in v. 34 indicates a conclusion, which brings the argument to an end or adds just an extra warning, adding a new aspect? The basic need for food and clothing raises questions about necessities and priorities in life, about worrying and seeking, about creation and the Kingdom of God. The question is not: what should we do? It is rather about what do we fear or what should we think? The SM deals with doing. Matt 6,25–34 is seemingly an exception. It has a philosophical character. Does Matt 6,25–33 Provide the basis for 6,34, or is Matt 6,34 important for the understanding of Matt 6,25–33? What about the following context with the saying on judging? It follows so abruptly that we have to deal separately with the question of how 6,34 relates to Matt 7,1f (see below, section 7.4). 3) Translation and interpretation. The text is not undisputed. Its elliptic character opens up for a number of interpretations and textual improvements. Nestle/Aland have correctly reconstructed the following text:

4

Matt 5,19.23; 6,2.3.9.22.23.31; 7,11 – a Matthean usage, which does not occur in the

SP. 5

Guelich, Sermon (1982), 348f. Fornberg, Matteusevangeliet I (1989), 118f; Carson, Sermon on the Mount (21994), 95: “I think Jesus must have said the words … with a wry smile”. 6

500

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον, ἡ γὰρ αὔριον µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς· ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς. The translations can go in different directions, due to the gnomic character of the saying, the odd grammatical constructions, linguistic ambivalences and the openness of the meaning of the key-terms µεριµνᾶν, αὔριον and κακία. The challenges turn every translation deeply into an interpretation. The Vulgate interprets the Greek text in this way: nolite ergo esse solliciti in crastinum – crastinus enim dies sollicitus erit sibi ipse – sufficit diei malitia sua. “Do not therefore be solicitous (anxious/worried) for the coming (day) – for the coming day will be solicitous for itself – sufficient for the day is (the) evil (malice/ill will/misfortune) thereof.” The elliptic sentences are made clearer through the translations of sollicitus (µεριµνᾶν), malitia (κακία) and of the pronouns ‘itself’ (ἑαυτῆς) and ‘thereof’ (αὐτῆς).

The first task is to translate the verb µεριµνήσητε and µεριµνήσει (worry, be anxious, busy, be careful, etc.). The translation here gives direction for the interpretation of the whole saying. Secondly, it is about ‘today’ (ἡ ἡµέρα) and ‘tomorrow’ (ἡ αὔριον) or about present and future. The almost poetic ending of v. 34b (µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς) and v. 34c (ἡ κακία αὐτῆς) creates a beautiful style, but complicates the meaning. Does it give reasons for not worrying or reasons for concern? Is it about the necessity or the possibility of fighting against evil? 4) The form and rhetoric of Matt 6,34. The genre of Matt 6,34 is apparently a ‘maxim’ or ‘wisdom-sentence’, ‘prudence-saying’ (German: ‘Klugheitsregel’), etc.7 It therefore has the mashal-form. But do we have two or three maxims/sentences? R. Bultmann finds two sayings in Matt 6,34: an admonition (German: ‘Mahnwort’), a “zweigliedriger Maschal” is combined with an independent wisdom-saying, an “eingliedriger Maschal” in v. 34b.8 Matt 6,34c is another independent sentence.9 This means that we are close to three sentences, and H.D. Betz makes clear that we have three sayings in Matt 6,34. He sees the initial sentence as an exhortation, which is followed by two maxims or ‘proofs’:10 Exhortation (theme): µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον. First saying (reason I): ἡ γὰρ αὔριον µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς. Second saying (reason II): ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς.

7

Heinrici, Bergpredigt II (1905), 79; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium I (1986), 251. Bultmann, GST, 84 (“sachlich formuliert”), cf. 77, 80, 111, and 88: “zwei ursprünglich selbständige Sprichwörter … angefügt” – from the “rabbinische Tradition”. 9 Ibid., 77, 80. 10 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 484f. 8

8.1 Preliminary Analysis

501

Betz finds – as does Luz – a chiastic structure in Matt 6,34a/b:11 µὴ µεριµνήσητε (A+B) εἰς τὴν αὔριον (C), – ἡ αὔριον (C) – µεριµνήσει (B) – ἑαυτῆς (A). The chiastic structure is not clear, but indicates that Matt 6,34a/b is one unit. All the sentences in the saying 6,34 lack one word, which gives the saying a strong gnomic character. It is not unusual that maxims skip one word. To skip all/three is very strange: µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον scil. ἡµέραν. ἡ γὰρ αὔριον µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς scil. τά/τό.12 ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς scil. ἐστιν. The rhythm is not impeccable. Matt 6,34 is far from being a hexameter or a pentameter. The style is still sophisticated due to many rhetorical figures, including at least the following: – The rhetorical ellipsis is dominating, – we have an ‘e contrario-argumentation’ in v. 34b/c,13 – anadiplosis, repetition of the last word or phrase from the previous line, at the beginning of the next.14 – This figure of anadiplosis is often used in combination with climax. Is the epiphonema, the concluding sentence in v. 34c (ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς), such a climax? – We have perhaps an example of personification in v. 34b.15 Matt 6,34b/c gives two reasons for the admonition in v. 34a. The first (v. 34b) is about the future (αὔριον), the second (v. 34c) is about ‘today’ (ἡµέρα). To sum up: Matt 6,34 is a beautifully composed elliptic sentence with many rhetorical figures. The first unit (v. 34a/b) is an admonition rather than an exhortation, and v. 34b gives the reason for this admonition. Matt 6,34c is a maxim, giving a second reason for the admonition.

11

Luz, Matthäus I (52002), 485 = Matthew 1–7 (22007), 346. Or τὴν κακίαν or τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ? 13 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 486. 14 Anadiplosis (ἀναδίπλωσις) and nearly epiploke, the repeated anadiplosis. Matt 6,25 and 6,34 form an inclusion and together with 6,31 an anaphora. 15 Keener, Matthew (1999), 288, argued and gathered some evidence in favour of this thesis. John Chrysostom, Hom. XXII,5, says: “he personifies the time”. 12

502

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

8.2 Its Sources The following question has an impact on the interpretation: is Matt 6,34 a popular wisdom-sentence that could be found anywhere, or is it a saying rooted in Jesus’ teaching with a clear theological meaning? Can a sentence with a sophisticated philosophical meaning be a genuine Jesus-saying? 1) Pre-synoptic, universal wisdom? Many scholars see the saying as ‘secondary’, but ‘pre-Matthean’. But what does ‘secondary’ mean? Is it a literary or an historical statement? Is it ‘pre-Matthean’ because it lacks Matthean features,16 or because we have many Jewish and Hellenistic parallels? A main argument in favour of both statements is its secular and proverbial character: it is seemingly a general wisdom-saying, like Prov 27,1 (“you do not know what a day may bring forth”).17 If the uneschatological and pessimistic understanding of the saying is emphasised, the origin in Jesus’ teaching or in earliest Christianity is unlikely. 2) Matt 6,34 and the Q-tradition. Matt 6,25–32 and Luke 12,22–31 are nearly identical (about 95%). 80% has exactly the same wording. The climax is the same in Luke 12,31/Matt 6,33. Here the transition particles (πλήν versus δέ) are different, and Matthew has three additions: Luke 12,31

Matt 6,33

ζητεῖτε τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ,

ζητεῖτε πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑµῖν.

καὶ ταῦτα προστεθήσεται ὑµῖν.

The changes are significant, largely because both sayings continue and are followed by an additional saying. Does Luke 12,32 replace the saying in Matt 6,34 or does Matt 6,34 replace the Kingdom-saying? Matt 6,34

Luke 12,32

µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον. ἡ γὰρ αὔριον µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς· ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς.

µὴ φοβοῦ, τὸ µικρὸν ποίµνιον, ὅτι εὐδόκησεν ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν δοῦναι ὑµῖν τὴν βασιλείαν.

Luke emphasises the Kingdom-saying and creates a powerful climax. If Matthew knew this Kingdom-saying, why should he omit a beautiful saying like Luke 12,32 when the notion of βασιλεία is extremely important for him? Why does he add a logion that removes us from the Kingdom to our troubled world?18

16

Strecker, Bergpredigt (21985), 145: “vermutlich ein sekundärer, vormatthäischer Zusatz”. 17 Bultmann, GST, 111, refers to b.Sanh. 100b. 18 Only one word, the negative particle µή before an imperative is identical. Luke’s saying fits extremely well after the key-sentence in Luke 12,31 (= Matt 6,33).

8.2 Its Sources

503

Is it possible that Luke omits a saying like Matt 6,34? The warning against false planning is a theme in Luke 12,12–21 and 14,28–32. Luke 12,22–32 is a speech with words of consolation to the disciples – contrary to the more general address in Matt 6,25–34 – and in this context Luke 12,32 fits extremely well. It is strange that the phrase τὴν βασιλείαν δίδωµι occurs only in Luke 12,32 and in Matt 21,43 – in an extremely critical saying against Jesus’ Jewish audience.19

Matthew has not influenced much the language and style of Matt 6,34. Luke influenced the language somewhat more (ποίµνιον, and µὴ φοβοῦ) and uses terminology we have elsewhere in the Gospels.20 3) The origin of the saying in Matt 6,34. Five theories have been debated: (a) The verse came from Q. The problem is that Luke did not convey the saying. H.D. Betz and U. Luz escape this objection by their theory of two editions of Q.21 They leave it open as to whether Matthew/Luke or an earlier redaction of the SM/SP inserted this saying. (b) Its origin is in early Christian paraenesis. As part of Q it was previously located in Palestine, but due to a later dating of Q and the Hellenistic parallels many scholars see its origin in Hellenistic communities.22 In Phil 4,6 Paul combines an admonition against worrying, with prayer (µηδὲν µεριµνᾶτε, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ …). Or is Matt 6,34 a late addition, reflecting a time when the young church opened up for more universal wisdom?23 G. Lüdemann supposes that Matt 6,34 is “an addition which sounds more pessimistic and in fact takes back what has been said previously. It reflects the reality of the community and its failures”.24 This kind of mirror-reading was possible in historiography a hundred years ago. Today, more precise tools are required. (c) Is the saying created by Matthew or his community? Many scholars label Matt 6,34 as redactional or ‘probably redactional’,25 which can mean 19 Matt 21,43: διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι ἀρθήσεται ἀφ᾿ ὑµῶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ δοθήσεται ἔθνει ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς. 20 Ποίµνιον – here and in Acts 20,28.29 (+ 1 Pet 5,2.3); µὴ φοβοῦ – only Mark 5,36 and Luke 1,11.30; 5,10; 8,50; Acts 18,19; 27,24 (mostly µὴ φοβεῖσθε in the New Testament, also Luke 2,10; 12,4.7). Mark 1,11 has εὐδοκέω (= Matt 3,11/Luke 3,22); Matt 12,18; 17,5 and otherwise 15 times in the New Testament. Luke has the theme of consolation as we have it here in Luke 12,32 more often than Matthew. 21 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 484: “due to the redaction of Q”. Luz, Matthäus I (52002), 474 = Matthew 1–7 (22007), 340. 22 Heb 10,35 has the same intention: µὴ ἀποβάλητε οὖν τὴν παρρησίαν ὑµῶν, ἥτις ἔχει µεγάλην µισθαποδοσίαν. This is, however, no real parallel. 23 Fornberg, Matteusevangeliet I (1989), 139. 24 Lüdemann, Jesus after Two Thousand Years (2000), 149. 25 Plummer, Matthew (1909), 110; Davies/Allison, Matthew (1997), 662; Strecker, Bergpredigt (21985), 145; Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 346: “secondary interpretation … in wisdom style”; Beare, Matthew (1981), 188; Petersen, Zur Eigenart des Matthäus (2001), 240, and Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (1993), 315, find mostly Matthean language.

504

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

two or three things: it has a redactional character, or the profile of Matthew as redactor is visible, or that it is more than style: Matthew and his community added their theological convictions. The stylistic and rhetorical aspirations of Matthew are visible: Matt 6,34 is formed by analogy with Matt 6,25 and 6,31. The main sentence, v. 34a, has the same wording as v. 31. Is Matthew just copying and reformulating v. 31 as a conclusion in v. 34? Does he add one further argument in order to give a more comprehensive view?26 Is Matthew really the author and not only editor? There are in fact many links to the style and theology in the SM, but few to Matthew outside the SM.27 The key term αὔριον occurs only in the SM, and κακία only here in the Synoptics, while the terms ἀρκετόν and µεριµνάω occur only in the Q-traditions that Matthew conveys in Matt 10.28 Matthew’s specific language is lacking in Matt 6,34. The odd formulations in Matt 6,34 are unlikely to have been created by Matthew, and its theology/philosophy are not typical for Matthew and his community. Matt 6,34 does not have a Jewish character. We find closer parallels only in post-Christian Jewish texts. Matt 6,34 reflects more a discussion in the Graeco-Roman world than a specific Jewish theology. (d) An Aramaic saying? J. Wellhausen was persuaded that the odd construction of ἡ κακία αὐτῆς should be explained by the Aramaic pronoun ‫ד‬ or ‫( דלא‬hardly the relative, ‫ דל‬or ‫)מחר‬.29 He thought the peculiar expression was a genuine Jesus-saying, and W.C. Allen agreed: “the harsh construction is due to translation from Aramaic”.30 The reconstruction of an Aramaic text entails many uncertainties, and it is worth noticing that J. Jeremias, M. Black, G. Schwarz, et al. do not reconstruct this saying. The Aramaic language is often used as criterion for ‘historicity’, which is highly problematic. At most is it an indication of Semitic origin and of a longer transmission process. e) A saying of Jesus? Matt 6,25–33 is mostly understood as genuine sayings of Jesus. There must be another reason than the possible use of Aramaic. The odd constructions in Matt 6,34 can be used as an argument in two ways: they can either indicate a different origin from 6,25–33 or the peculiar language originates from the historical Jesus. One can compare it to the say-

26

Schweizer, Matthäus (1973), 105. Konradt, Evangelium nach Matthäus (2015), 116, based on Matt 6,11 and 6,33. 28 Ἀρκετόν in Matt 10,25 (plus 1 Pet 4,3) and µεριµνάω in Matt 10,19 = Luke 12,11 (Q) and 10,41, and in Paul: 1 Cor 7,32.33.34; 12,25; Phil 2,20; 4,6. Ἀρκετόν not in the Septuagint (but in T.Job 24,6–8 and ἀρκέω twelve times in the Septuagint). 29 Julius Wellhausen, Evangelienkommentare, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1987, 29: “Der Genitiv ist ungriechisch und gerade darum echt; wohl dileh = τὰ ἑαυτῆς.” 30 W.C. Allen, St. Matthew (31912), 65, referring to Wellhausen. He thinks τὰ ἑαυτῆς is an effort “to ease the Greek”. Cf. idem, “The Aramaic Background of the Gospels” (1911). 27

8.3 The History of Interpretation

505

ing in Matt 6,27 (= Luke 12,25), that has a similarly peculiar content and language (προσθεῖναι – ἡλικία – πῆχυν). Since Bultmann, two main arguments have been used to denounce its authenticity: first, the interpretation of Matt 6,34 as a general wisdom-saying, which does not reflect Jesus’ specific message.31 Second, arguments from tradition-criticism: Matt 6,34 is “one of the secondary interpretations of our text”, etc.32 However, the content in Matt 6,34 is unique. It has no parallel in early Christian literature, except perhaps Jas 4,14. The parallels in Jewish literature are mostly later than the first century CE, and only a few aspects are similar. Hellenistic parallels have many similar aspects, but the argument runs differently in Matt 6,34. The saying could therefore be genuine according to the criterion of dissimilarity. The other criteria, such as criteria of consequence, coherence, etc. cannot easily be applied to this saying.

8.3 The History of Interpretation Exegetical studies on the text are lacking, and the brief comments in the commentaries make it difficult to reconstruct the history of research. Contributions over 1,800 years still provide an exciting history of research. Due to the elliptic statement and open spaces in the saying, exegetes have to fill in what they think is hinted at. Exegetes expand on e.g.: – further reflections on the given terms and indicated themes – comparison with similar sayings – confronting actual problems/questions (cf. in times of war, famine, epidemics, etc.) – philosophical (theological, existential) understanding of the given themes 1) Exegesis before 400 CE. In the Early Church the use of Matt 6,34 was more in focus than its interpretation. An early interpretation was given by Clement of Alexandria, who read Matt 6,34 as an exhortation to “lay aside the cares of this life and depend on the Father alone”.33 31

Bultmann, GST, 92f; idem, “µεριµνᾶν”, TWNT IV, 597: “eine allgemeine profane Weisheit … die an sich nicht für Jesus charakteristisch ist” (“a bit of worldly wisdom which in itself does not seem to be typical of Jesus”, TDNT IV, 593). 32 Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 346. 33 Clement of Alexandria, Paed. I,5,12 (Ch. 5 has the headline: “All who walk according to truth are children of God”). The most extensive treatment before Augustine and John Chrysostom is by Jerome in one of his letters (NPNF2, vol. 6): “While then Christ forbids us to take thought for things future, He has allowed us to do so for things present, knowing as He does the frailty of our mortal condition. His remaining words ‘sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof’ are to be understood as meaning that it is sufficient for us to think of the

506

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

Tertullian’s tendency towards ascetic attitudes can be seen in his usage of Matt 6,34. ‘Sufficient’ means moderation and modesty, because worldly things have no ‘tomorrow’. The future Kingdom implies the end of this world, and that God takes care of tomorrow’s trouble.34 Cyprian (200–258) reflected more on the contradiction between longing for a long life and the prayer that the Kingdom should come quickly.35 He – like many interpreters in the Early Church – read Matt 6,34 in light of Matt 6,33: “But he who has begun to be Christ’s disciple, renouncing all things according to the word of his Master, ought to ask for his daily food, and not to extend the desires of his petition to a long period, as the Lord again prescribes, and says, ‘Take no thought for the morrow, for the morrow itself shall take thought for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.’ With reason, then, does Christ’s disciple ask food for himself for the day, since he is prohibited from thinking of the morrow; because it becomes a contradiction and a repugnant thing for us to seek to live long in this world, since we ask that the kingdom of God should come quickly.”36

The first extensive interpretations by Augustine and John Chrysostom are very different from modern studies. Augustine focuses on the time aspect: ‘tomorrow’ does not have temporal meaning. It is about the future and basically about eternity. The one who seeks the Kingdom should not fear. God cares about the future even more than about food and clothing. Calamities and evil will happen to everybody: “Do not add, therefore, to the punishment

present troubles of this life. Why need we extend our thoughts to contingencies, to objects which we either cannot obtain or else having obtained must soon relinquish? The Greek word κακία rendered in the Latin version ‘wickedness’ has two distinct meanings, wickedness and tribulation, which latter the Greek call κάκωσις and in this passage ‘tribulation’ would be a better rendering than ‘wickedness’. But if any one demurs to this and insists that the word κακία must mean ‘wickedness’ and not ‘tribulation’ or ‘trouble’, the meaning must be the same as in the words ‘the whole world lieth in wickedness’ and as in the Lord’s prayer in the clause, ‘deliver us from evil’: the purport of the passage will then be that our present conflict with the wickedness of this world should be enough for us.” – Orig., Fragments in Luke, according to Erich Klostermann, Origenes X: Matthäuserklärung I (GCS 40), Berlin: De Gruyter 1935, ad loc. 34

In Tertullian, Ux. 4, comes the exhortation to modesty and Cult. fem. 12 is closer to asceticism. 35 Cyprian says in light of Matt 6,10 (Dom. or. IV,19) that one “ought to ask for his daily food, and not to extend the desires of his petition to a long period, as the Lord again prescribes, and says, Take no thought for the morrow, for the morrow itself shall take thought for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof”. Cyprian is more extensive in De dominica oratione. 36 Cyprian, Treatise XII (Ad Quirinum, testimoniorum libri tres = Testimonia against the Jews), 3,11, interprets Matt 6,34 in light of Matt 6,33: “Sufficient unto the day is its own evil”. Tertullian, Or. 6,4.

8.3 The History of Interpretation

507

of temporal necessity anything more burdensome.”37 The necessities in life will never give satisfaction in life, but as soldiers of God one can combat them. John Chrysostom thinks Matt 6,34 “personifies the time, speaking unto them according to the custom of generality”.38 He focused therefore more on the possible impact of evil and argues that evil is not wickedness. It is affliction, trouble, and calamities. But nothing pains the soul more than anxiety itself. Time is not the basic problem. A delay gives no comfort; what matters is repentance and consideration – and the grace of Christ. The task is to drive away the devil and call forth the lovingkindness of God. Matt 6,34 is therefore a word about providential care.39 2) Exegesis before the Enlightenment. Matt 6,34 fits perfectly into the setting of monastic life. According to Legenda Aurea Matt 6,34 (and 19,21) were decisive for Anthony the Great (251–356), when he was called to live as a hermit in the desert.40 Anthony anticipated the rule of Benedict and the monastic movement. Matt 6,(25–)34 was an important text for all of them. The hardship of daily life and the efforts of replacing anxiety with tranquility, goes to the very centre of their piety.41 Matt 6,34 and the piety in Matt 6,25–34 were not equally important outside the monasteries. Luther’s secularisation of monastic ethos gave less room for the piety of Matt 6,25–34. The basis for Luther in his interpretation of Matt 6,34 was his theology of creation, that God the Creator provides everything for a good life. ‘The first article of Faith’ and the Lord’s Prayer establish the basis for the interpretation, and the interpretation of Matt 6,34 therefore has, according to Luther, a rather optimistic tone.42 He is far from understanding evil as an evil force. It is possible to prevail over the calamities of today and look forward to the next day, full of trust in God. God often accomplishes more through hardship and adversities than through success. God is at work when we sleep also, but we should – like God – work hard, and Luther uses Prov 10,3f as a model.43 But God can both shorten and prolong the hardship and find the best timing.

37 In Serm. II,XVII,56, Augustine continues with references to the Temptation Narrative, and to Paul’s life (Serm. II,XVII,57), before he returns to the impact of Matt 6,33 for the understanding of 6,34 (Serm. II,XVII,58). 38 John Chrysostom, Hom. XXII,5–8. Like Augustine he uses a number of examples from the Bible to illustrate his points. 39 John Chrysostom, Hom. XXII,8. 40 Athanasius, Vit. Ant. 3; Jerome, Ep. 55,1. 41 Regula Benedicti 33–35 reflects Matt 6,33f. 42 WA 32, 470–472. 43 Prov 10,3f: “The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the craving of the wicked. Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.”

508

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

Calvin’s sermons and exegetical works have nearly the same optimistic tone. He translated Matt 6,34: “Be not therefore anxious about tomorrow: for tomorrow will take care of itself. Its own affliction is sufficient for the day.” He does not comment on this translation in his exegetical work. Only in his sermons does he go more deeply into the text. “When he forbids them to be anxious, this is not to be taken literally, as if he intended to take away from his people all care. We know that men are born on the condition of having some care; and, indeed, this is not the least portion of the miseries, which the Lord has laid upon us as a punishment, in order to humble us. But immoderate care is condemned for two reasons: either because in so doing men tease and vex themselves to no purpose, by carrying their anxiety farther than is proper or than their calling demands; or because they claim more for themselves than they have a right to do, and place such a reliance on their own industry, that they neglect to call upon God. … Though the children of God are not free from toil and anxiety, yet … through their reliance on the providence of God, they enjoy calm repose.”44

In the wake of Calvinism, we see the first signs of blooming capitalism,45 and in this setting an optimistic view of the future is natural. We see this optimism in the sermons of Thomas Sheridan and John Wesley (1703–1791). Wesley argued, like Luther and Calvin, that God’s care is the real message and that even afflictions can lead to something good. In his sermons he puts the carpe diem in a Christian perspective: one must live today, let the past be past, because the future may never belong to you.46 3) Exegesis before 1945. In the period of the Enlightenment Matt 6,34 was taken to express a Christianity with no supernatural elements and with an understanding of life one could relate to. On the other hand, Matt 6,34 was one of Schleiermacher’s favourite texts (“dieser herrliche Ausspruch des Erlösers” in his theological response to the Enlightenment).47 To be wise is not to be anxious about the future, because anxiety has to do with things that 44

Calvin, in the “Introduction” in his commentary on Matt 6,25(–34), in idem, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (above, p. 45, n. 181), 257–371 = idem, Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift in deutscher Übersetzung vol. 8/1: Evangelienharmonie, Neukirchen: Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins 1906, 158–236. Recently: Calvin’s Commentaries, Logos Research Edition, Westminster 2010, ad loc. 45 Max Weber, Protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus, Tübingen: Mohr 1904/05. 46 Wesley, Sermon 29 (the 13 sermons on the SM are available in Wesleyan-Holiness Digital Library). He says in Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (New York: J. Soule and T. Mason 41818, 29): “The morrow shall take thought for itself – That is, be careful for the morrow when it comes. The evil thereof – Speaking after the manner of men. But all trouble is, upon the whole, a real good. It is good physic which God dispenses daily to his children, according to the need and the strength of each.” For Sheridan see above, n. 1. 47 Particularly in his sermons. Many sermons are devoted to this text alone. In addition, there are other sermons on Matt 6,25–34, 6,31, 6,33, etc.

8.3 The History of Interpretation

509

will take place more arbitrarily, with certain needs we see today, with our limitations to seeing what is required in the future.48 It is unwise to be anxious for things that will not happen, and the present is not merely a preparation for a task to be done later.49 Schleiermacher’s optimistic tone in his exegesis of Matt 6,34 continued in Liberal Theology, as we see in the exegesis of H.J. Holtzmann,50 et al. Johannes Weiß saw a healthy and fresh joy of life behind the text.51 Still in the wake of the eschatological interpretation in the 1920s, Hans Windisch protested against a pessimistic understanding; the saying has no tone of resignation, rather a spirit of enlightenment.52 Among pietists this saying was not high on the agenda. August Tholuck found an ‘oriental character’ in the saying, which comes close to incongruity with the argumentation in Matt 6,25–33. Regardless of incongruity, he thought the admonition had a practical purpose: it shows that “philosophy throws care to the winds”, and that the freedom of care Christ commends “casts it upon the Lord”.53 The conflict between Liberal and Orthodox Theology is not visible in the exegesis of this text. Theodor Zahn drew an interesting parallel to Matt 5,21f, because both sayings lead to an ad absurdum conclusion: anger and negative words are difficult to avoid, and anxiety about the future is even more so.54 Adolf Schlatter even emphasised the active meaning of µεριµνᾶν = care. The one who is anxious about tomorrow does not see the heavenly treasures.55 Arthur Schopenhauer found on the contrary a pessimistic tone in the saying, a tone of resignation that leads to asceticism. He thought Jesus’ prescription

48

Schleiermacher, “Sermon on Matt 6,34”, in idem, Kritische Gesamtausgabe III/1, Berlin: De Gruyter 2012, 137–148 (undated, the quotation from p. 137). 49 Schleiermacher, “Sermon” (1831), in idem, Kritische Gesamtausgabe III/12, Berlin: De Gruyter 2013, 568–578 (26 June 1831), here 569: “… wir uns nicht sollen mit der Plage künftiger Zeiten voreilig belästigen”. 50 Holtzmann, Die Synoptiker (HKNT 1/1), Tübingen/Leipzig: Mohr 31901, 187ff. Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums (1900). 51 J. Weiß, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments I/1 (1906). Cf. Lagrange, Matthieu (71948), 143, who summarized Weiß’ position in the following way: he “y voit une saine et fraîche joie de vivre”. 52 Windisch, Sinn der Bergpredigt (1928/1937), 17: “ Dann ist eben in ein von starkem Gottvertrauen durchdrungenes Weisheitslied als letztes und stärkstes Argument der eschatologische Imperativ eingestellt …”, and p. 18: “Der im Schöpferglauben begründete Vorsehungsglaube und der eschatologische Reichsglaube schließen sich darin zusammen, daß sie dem Menschen für sein irdisches Dasein völlige Sicherheit verbürgen.” 53 Tholuck, Commentary (1869), 391–395, here 394. 54 Zahn, Matthäus (41922), 301. 55 Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus (21933/61983), 236f.

510

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

leads to total poverty, similar to the ideal for the beggars/monks (bhikkhus) Buddha prescribed.56 In the time of the religio-historical school the comparison with similar texts was intensified. Not only Hellenistic and rabbinic parallels were analysed, but similar sayings from all over the world were found and seen as partial parallels. Bultmann draws the conclusion from these findings:57 Matt 6,34 is a general rule of prudence (German: ‘Klugheitsregel’), not a genuine Christian maxim. This is the tone of Dialectical Theology in the time of the World Wars. Karl Barth did not use Matt 6,34 in his theological argumentation. The anthropological argument illustrates at most the misery of life without God.58 The eschatological interpretation of Jesus’ teaching and also of Matt 6,25–33, made the saying in Matt 6,34 problematic. Rudolf Bultmann – after he turned to ‘Dialectical Theology’ – could use his insights as an historical scholar: Matt 6,34 was certainly not genuinely Christian.59 But as a dialectical theologian with an existentialist understanding of life, he could say more and offer a deeper understanding of Matt 6,34. It has in mind people who struggle for self-security. Matt 6,34 uses popular wisdom “mit ihrem resignierten Humor” to show the absurdity of this kind of worrying.60 Bultmann did not directly relate to the situation of his audience in NaziGermany, contrary to the approach of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Already in his Nachfolge (1937) he gave rise to profound reflections on Matt 6,34: “By trying to ensure for the next day we are only creating uncertainty to-day. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. The only way to win assurance is by leaving to-morrow entirely in the hands of God and by receiving from him all we need for to-day. If instead of receiving God’s gifts for to-day we worry about to-morrow, we find ourselves helpless victims of infinite anxiety. … 56

Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Presentation, vol. II, London/New York: Routledge 2016, 726. 57 Bultmann, GST, 84, 111. 58 Overlooked in his treatment of the SM in Kirchliche Dogmatik III, 766–782, but referred to in Kirchliche Dogmatik IV/2 (“Die Lehre von der Versöhnung. § 65. Des Menschen Trägheit und Elend”), 529–531. In a beautiful sermon on Matt 6,34 from 1921 in Safenwil he has an almost existentialistic approach (“Unsicherheit kann sich kein Einzelner ganz entziehen” … “es ist nicht da und nicht dort, sondern es ist hier, wo du bist!”, Karl Barth Gesamtausgabe, vol. 44: Predigten 1921, Zürich: TVZ 2007, 141–145, here 141, 142, 143. 59 Sermon 10 November 1925 in Marburg. Also, Rudolf Bultmann, Marburger Predigten, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1956, 14–25 (15 November 1939); idem, “µεριµνᾶν”, TWNT IV, 597 = TDNT IV, 593. 60 Bultmann, Jesus (1926/1964), 116, offered a pessimistic interpretation of the saying. It is exciting to read his article on µεριµνᾶν in 1941 – during the War (TWNT IV, 593–597, here 597 = TDNT IV, 589–593, here 593: “with its resigned humour”). The troublesome life during the war is not reflected in this article. The existentialistic interpretation opens up the text in a new way.

8.3 The History of Interpretation

511

‘Be not anxious for the morrow.’ This is not to be taken as a philosophy of life or a moral law: it is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and only so can it be understood. Only those who follow him and know him can receive this word as a promise of the love of his Father and as a deliverance from the thraldom of material things. It is not care that frees the disciples from care, but their faith in Jesus Christ.”61

In his letters from prison during the War he speaks of “the very narrow way … of living every day as if it were our last, and yet living in faith … as though there were a great future”.62 Helmut Thielicke’s lecture on the SM in 1945 is a moving document. He reflected the situation in the last months before and after the capitulation on the 8th of May. The clue is not to deny our concerns, but rather to replace them with the real concern: for God and his healing power.63 4) More recent exegesis: debates about pessimism versus optimism. After 1945 the eschatological interpretation was still dominating in scholarship. Crises that create anxiety (atomic power, poverty, wars and terror, climate changes, etc.) now had universal impact. A universal saying like Matt 6,34 is listened to outside the Christian communities, and through all the crises the people’s mood oscillated rapidly between optimism and pessimism. The political situation and the eschatological interpretation in scholarship often gave priority to the pessimistic interpretation.64 H.D. Betz and U. Luz have recently made the optimism versus pessimism factor the key for the interpretation:65 Matt 6,34 expresses a teaching about optimistic concern for the future or a teaching of pessimistic resignation, that uncertainty and evil are dominant and escapism and asceticism are a good answer. Both Betz and Luz leave the question open in accordance with the openness in proverbial tradition, and they hesitate to link Matt 6,34 too closely to 6,33. Betz thinks Matt 6,33 strengthens the more optimistic tone. Luz is

61 Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship (21963), 198. In the paragraph “on the simplicity of the carefree life”: “The way to misuse our possessions is to use them as an insurance against the morrow. Anxiety is always directed to the morrow, whereas goods are in the strictest sense meant to be used only for to-day …” (ibid., 197f). 62 Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from the Prison, New York: Macmillan 1971, 15. 63 H. Thielicke, Life Can Begin Again: Sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, Philadelphia: Fortress 1963 (= Das Leben kann noch einmal beginnen: Ein Gang durch die Bergpredigt, Stuttgart: Quell 1956). 64 Cf. Schniewind, Matthäus (61953), 95; T.W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (1949), 173: “This saying, as a whole, breathes that pessimism which commonly goes with Oriental fatalism”. Manson adds: “The attempt to square it with Jesus’ faith in the fatherly providence of God may be regarded as wasted labour”. 65 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 485; Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 346. It is, however, too broad a categorisation.

512

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

inclined to accentuate the pessimistic tone, and many exegetes after 1980 have followed his approach.66 J.D.M. Derrett argues directly against the pessimistic interpretation of Matt 6,34. He thinks the ethical demands for Jesus’ disciples are a commitment for every day without concerning themselves about the morrow.67 Some emphasise more the optimistic view, like Luz’ teacher E. Schweizer, who interpreted the sayings in terms of Christian freedom.68 H. Weder interprets the text in the same way, and includes elements from existentialistic interpretation.69 Scholars who see an echo of the Lord’s Prayer in 6,34 do the same: the prayer about daily bread ends in this saying about being confident (Bornkamm, Guelich, Schnackenburg, Gundry, et al.).70 The strongest argument in favour of an optimistic interpretation is the connection to Matt 6,33. The opposite to pessimism is not so much ‘optimism’ as it is trust in God,71 or the longing for the Kingdom of God and his righteousness. Preachers and many biblical scholars have linked them together, and after renewed scholarly interest in the literary text (redaction-criticism, structuralism, etc.) more and more scholars connect the two texts.72 Some think it is impossible to reconcile or unlevel the discrepancy. Luz thinks Matt 6,34 “shows how in early Christianity the hope for the Kingdom of God did not completely determine life; eschatological hope and pessimistic realism could coexist”.73 The debates on pessimism versus optimism continue, but is this the real issue? A broader approach to Matt 6,34 is necessary.

66 Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium I (1986), 251 (“uneschatologisch, dafür pessimistisch gestimmt”); Hans Kvalbein, Fortolkning til Matteusevangeliet, Oslo: Luther 1998, 187. 67 Derrett, “Morality not to Be Codified (Matthew 6,34)” (2006). He uses also b.Ber. 9b (“Sufficient is the trouble for its own time”). 68 Schweizer, Matthäus (1973), 105f: “faßt … den ganzen Abschnitt zusammen, indem er … zu jener Freiheit aufruft, die fähig ist, den ersten Schritt zu tun, auch wenn der zweite und dritte noch nicht abgeklärt und abgesichert sind”. Also, Strecker, Bergpredigt (21985), 145f. 69 Weder, Rede der Reden (1985), 215 (213–216). 70 Guelich, Sermon (1982), 315f; Schnackenburg, Matthew (1968/2002), 73 (“The pessimistic sounding final observation expresses a realism that only lends increased urgency to the petition for bread in the Our Father”; Gundry, Matthew (1982/21994), 119. 71 Schniewind, Matthäus (61953), 95; Allison, Sermon (1999), 151, etc. 72 Strecker, Bergpredigt (21985), 146; Davies/Allison, Matthew (1997), 663; Konradt, Evangelium nach Matthäus (2015), 116 (“im jeweiligen Heute im Vertrauen auf Gott nach seinem Reich und seiner Gerechtigkeit trachten”). 73 Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 346.

8.4 Parallels: Parallelomania versus Interpretation

513

8.4 Parallels: Parallelomania versus Interpretation Matt 6,34 has at least about 50 parallels. A simple collection of parallels can be helpful, but is rather misleading. It is indeed ‘parallelomania’.74 The parallels have their own contexts, and the meaning and impact of the parallel is dependent on the context. We cannot escape the hermeneutical circle: both text and context have to be interpreted. However, it is possible to exclude many parallels as real parallels, and to argue that some parallels to Matt 6,34 are closer, clearer, deeper and richer than others. Criteria are dating, vocabulary and content/purpose. 1) Parallels to Matt 6,34. We have to analyse parallels to every issue. The main issue is, however, the question of ‘tomorrow’ (περὶ τῆς αὔριον). This is a classical question in conversations in daily life and in popular wisdom: What will happen tomorrow? What impact has ‘tomorrow’ on my life today? The issue is debated in literature from Egypt since Amen-em-Opet, in Jewish wisdom-literature, in rabbinic texts, in philosophical treatises in the Graeco-Roman world, in early Christian literature, in Arabic philosophy and in Chinese and Hindu philosophy. We have to deal with popular wisdom and some philosophical or theological answers to the question of περὶ τῆς αὔριον. The most frequently quoted Jewish parallels to Matt 6,34 are much younger than the New Testament. They can therefore not be used as ‘background’. They illustrate at most how certain texts were reused in Jewish circles. Billerbeck collected few Jewish parallels to the Jesus-saying: – to 6,34a: b.Sanh. 100b – basically a reference to Sir 30,21; 38,20 – to 6,34c: b.Ber. 9b, a commentary on Exod 3,14.75 The basic texts in the debates were taken from Exodus, and these discussions go back to the first centuries CE. The starting-point is Exod 3,14 (“I am that I am”) and continues: “The holy one, blessed be He, said to Moses … He said to him, ‘Lord of the universe, “Sufficient is the evil in the time thereof”.’”76 Wettstein and Heinrici collected some Hellenistic parallels,77 and Neuer Wettstein lists 13 parallels to Matt 6,34; six of the 13 quote Horace and two quote Seneca.78 The Odes of Horace were perhaps read among the Roman

74 Sandmel, “Parallelomania” (1962). His presidential address at the SBL meeting in 1961 leveled harsh criticism against Billerbeck and especially the usage of Billerbeck by many exegetes. 75 Bill. I, 441. Fiebig, Jesu Bergpredigt (1924), 129f. Cf. also m.ʾAbot 2,14. C.G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (1930), 144, saw the parallels, but the new spirit also. 76 Or “the suffering of the (present) hour is enough for it”, b.Ber. 9b. 77 Heinrici, Bergpredigt II (1905), 73–80, esp. 78f. 78 Neuer Wettstein I, 664–669.

514

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

elite in Galilee and Judea in the first century CE. Their outreach was hardly wide, but many sayings corresponded with popular wisdom. 2) Interpretation of Matt 6,34. One should not expect too much information in these three brief sentences. They entail nothing about the past and the impact of the past on ‘today’ and on the future. A warning against the paralysing effect of the past on both ‘today’ and the future is not the theme. Nor do we have here a reflection on how other people, institutions and society make plans that influence ‘today’ and the future for everybody. If we do not care about the future, others have already done so. Nor do we have a reflection on how coincidences randomly influence ‘today’ and the future for all of us. We have more of this kind of admonition in Hellenistic literature than in Matt 6,34.79 Matt 6,34 is in some respects a unique saying. We have to analyse the text exegetically in order to test it out against the implications of the sophistication behind the ellipsis in Matt 6,34. The brief statements in Matt 6,34 tempt us to over-interpret the saying, but we still have to see the saying in light of other contemporary statements related to ‘carpe diem’. In Matt 6,34 the general admonition about not worrying is given for two reasons and the two reasons reflect two issues: what about the coming day(s)? What about today? αὔριον (v. 34b) – the coming day ἡ γὰρ αὔριον µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς About uncertainty? About unnecessary thinking? About trust in God?

ἡµέρα (v. 34c) – today ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς About hedonistic pleasures? About possibilities? About realism?

The exegesis has to be compared with the parallels, the reasons given for ‘carpe diem’ in Graeco-Roman and Jewish literature. Is Matt 6,34 a variation of ʻcarpe diemʼ, or do the two reasons for not worrying implicitly reject some of the answers given in Jewish and Graeco-Roman literature?

8.5 Interpretation of µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον (Matt 6,34a) Many reasons for not worrying are adduced in Graeco-Roman literature. Can they be compared with the reasons adduced in Matt 6,34? 8.5.1. Linguistic Remarks: The Admonition and the First Reason 1) The function of the transitional οὖν and γάρ, denoting a reason. The particles οὖν and γάρ link Matt 6,34 to the context. Οὖν indicates that his saying 79

Syr. Men. 385f (after 150 CE) says: “Let anxieties never dominate your heart, because it is a bad thing to nurse anxiety.”

8.5 Interpretation of µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον (Matt 6,34a)

515

introduces a new theme into the discussion and does not necessarily summarize the whole passage Matt 6,25–34. It is somewhat surprising that we have two particles so close. Οὖν and γάρ structure the sentences (µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον, ἡ γὰρ αὔριον µεριµνήσει). This usage is unique in the SM.80 Matthew uses the particle οὖν much more than the other evangelists,81 and in the SM important sayings are introduced by it (5,48; 7,12.24).82 Some translations emphasise οὖν at the beginning (= “Therefore …”), but some see it just as transitional.83 Οὖν has mostly concluding force (5,48; 7,12.24),84 and this has to be considered first. Both in 6,31 and 6,34 οὖν has primarily a transitional function, announcing an important saying. The meaning of ‘therefore’ connects Matt 6,34 too strongly to the argumentation in 6,25–33. Οὖν in Matt 6,34 points in the first place to the γάρ-sentence in 6,34b.85

Γάρ normally gives reasons for the previous admonition. It underlines certain crucial statements (in the SM: Matt 5,12.18.20.46; 6,14; 7,12.25).86 In the closest context, Matt 7,1 has exactly the same structure, and Matt 6,32 has this particle twice: πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν· οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν ὁ οὐράνιος ὅτι χρῄζετε τούτων ἁπάντων. This saying prepares for the argument of God as the real necessity in life. 2) The meanings of µεριµνᾶν. The six occurrences of µεριµνᾶν in Matt 6,25–34 are unique and occur in Matthew and Luke exclusively in Jesussayings.87 In Matt 6,25–31 µεριµνᾶν refers to concrete matters (food, clothing, our body), the two in 6,34 refer to more abstract matters, to insecurity for a person, and to a phenomenon, αὔριον. Μεριµνάω is both a distinct term and a polysemy. The German term ‘sorgen’ functions similarly, whereas the English translation ‘to worry’ must 80 Rare in the New Testament as well. Among the more than 500 occurrences very few combine οὖν and γάρ. In the Synoptics only Matt 22,28 = Luke 20,33 (not in Mark); Mark 13,35; Matt 23,23; Luke 8,18. On οὖν, Margaret E. Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament (NTTS 3), Leiden: Brill 1962, 10f. 81 Matthew: 57 times, and in Mark only three (or five, depending on text-critical evaluation) times. Luke has 31 occurrences. 82 Matt 5,48 also introduces new terminology. Matt 7,12 has the same terminology, but still only has a general link to the previous texts. Cf. Matt 5,19.23; 6,2. 83 Οὖν also points to the following paragraph. We find οὖν in this transitional sense elsewhere in the SM (Matt 6,2.9). 84 Like Matt 7,24, Matt 6,34 has strong links to the context; Matt 7,23 deals with doing and 7,24 continues this theme, but the following parable is the real concluding text. 85 Like most γάρ-sentences it gives reasons for the previous admonition, in this case 6,34a. Both elements in the text, αὔριον and µεριµνήσητε/µεριµνήσει, refer to the previous argumentation in v. 34a, and οὖν refers to the wider context also. 86 Also: Matt 5,29.30; 6,7.8.16 and 7,8. 87 With minor variations: 6,25 (µὴ µεριµνᾶτε); 6,27 (µεριµνῶν); 6,28 (τί µεριµνᾶτε); 6,31.34 (µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε); 6,34 (also µεριµνήσει). In the commissioning discourse, Matt 10,19.41 and the parallel to Matthew in Luke 12,22.26, plus Luke 10,41; 12,11. Elsewhere only 1 Cor 7,32.33.34; 12,25 and Phil 2,20; 4,6.

516

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

often be replaced by ‘to be anxious’ or ‘to care’, which demonstrates the polysemy. Is the emphasis on fear (ʻanxious’, etc.) or planning, planning good, (be busy, etc.), or having an attitude of hedonism (business, materialism, etc.)? The antonym can be safety/assurnace, but could also be confidence, sobriety, prudence, trust in God, etc. The syntax does not restrict the ambiguity. Grammatically we have a change in tense from aorist to future tense and the change in mood from passive to active. The µή + aorist conjunctive has a different aspect from a future indicative.88 Μεριµνήσει with the future form underlines that αὔριον denotes the future in a broader sense. Why aorist imperative? Is it a prohibition, a recommendation, an advice, or merely a statement? What does the change from aorist imperative to the future, µεριµνήσει, imply in v. 34b? Is µεριµνήσητε merely negative89 (worrying should be abandoned),90 or does it have a neutral meaning? A positive understanding (‘do not have concern for’) is impossible because of the particle µή.

The meaning of the verb µεριµνᾶν is open and translations vary (‘to worry’, ‘to be anxious’, ‘to have concern’).91 In Hellenistic literature µεριµνᾶν is a key term, especially in philosophical diatribe-texts,92 and the meanings range from worrying, to working and seeking in general, to feel anxiety, to care, or to denote tranquility. The term has no exact parallel in Hebrew.93 The Tanach speaks about worrying in different contexts because of the variety of threats (wars, disasters, hunger, enemies, etc.) and burdens (sin, transgression for the individual or the people).94

88

BDR, 337.3; Moulton, Grammar (1967), 202, 204. Compare 1 Cor 12,25; Phil 2,20. These sayings have a negative force (like 1 Cor 7,32–34; Phil 4,6) – with the same form (µηδὲν µεριµνᾶτε). 90 Seneca, Ep. 5,7–8: “a soul that is made anxious by concern with the future”, quoted in Martha Nussbaum, The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1994, 389 (on “Extirpation of the Passions”). 91 “Do not worry” (NIV/NET/NRSV), “Be not anxious” (ASV), “Be not careful” (Darby), “Take no thought” (KJV), “Do not ye be busy into the morrow” (Wycliffe). German translations since Luther have mostly preferred ‘sorget nicht’, because the German verb opens more for the same ambiguity as the Greek verb µεριµνᾶν. 92 Bultmann, “µεριµνᾶν”, TWNT IV, 593f. It is not easy to understand why the terms φρόντις, φροντίζω are not used. Philo and Josephus use these terms. 93 The Septuagint uses one term for µέριµνα, but has at least six terms for the verb. An idiomatic translation of a Hebrew term is hard to find. Cf. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 392. Josephus and Philo prefer the more philosophical term φροντίζω (only Tit 3,8 in the New Testament). 94 E.g. Ps 38,18 (“I confess my iniquity: I am troubled by my sin”) is indirectly based on the conviction that God is the shelter, cf. Ps 31,20 and 55,8.22 (“Cast your cares on the Lord and he will sustain you; he will never let the righteous fall”). 89

8.5 Interpretation of µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον (Matt 6,34a)

517

The context, Matt 6,25–33, indicates that the pre-text in the Tanach is the creation narrative, Gen 3,16f. This approach to the question of ‘work and toil’, the physical struggle for the necessities of life, would be rather strange for a Hellenistic reader.95 According to wisdom literature the fear of the Lord is expressed as wisdom and this provided a platform for a dialogue with Hellenistic philosophy. 96 We see this in two beautifully formed ‫טוֹב‬-sayings: Prov 15,16 (“Better a little with the fear of the Lord than great wealth with turmoil”) and Eccl 4,6 (“better one handful with tranquility, than two handfuls with toil”).97 Envy, false zeal, struggle for money and earthly goods are also the main sources for worrying in Jewish texts.

3) The meaning of εἰς τὴν αὔριον. Tomorrow, ἡ αὔριον, and not the persons involved, is in focus. In spite of this change in focus, µεριµνάω both in v. 34a and v. 34b is mostly translated in the same way.98 The object of µεριµνήσητε is here εἰς τὴν αὔριον sc. ἡµέραν.99 Here and in Exod 13,14; Josh 4,6 it is pars pro toto and denotes future in general. Most curious is the construction with the preposition εἰς. Matt 6,25–34 has no less than six different constructions with µεριµνᾶν.100 Why not a dative as in 6,25 (µεριµνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑµῶν) or rather the more normal preposition περί, denoting the topic of περὶ τῆς αὔριον? Εἰς obviously has its normal meaning of ‘into’, ‘towards’, ‘in the direction of’, etc. This seems to correspond with the meaning of αὔριον.

Αὔριον means mostly ‘the coming day’.101 ‘Tomorrow’ can, however, have an extended meaning: what will happen soon, and can be used metaphorically about the future, about things we do not know are coming. Αὔριον can mean a time period (a short, not a longer period of time), or what can happen immediately. Possibly αὔριον has a metaphorical sense, meaning what we 95

2 Thess 3,10f is a mirror-image of this theological theme. For the whole issue: Göran Agrell, Work, Toil and Sustenance: An examination of the view of work in the New Testament, taking into consideration views found in Old Testament, intertestamental, and early Rabbinic writings, Lund: Verbum 1976, and Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 393f. 96 Cf. the programmatic word in Prov 1,7: ‫אשׁית ָ ֑דּעַת‬ ֣ ִ ‫י ְִר ַ ֣את ֭י ְהוָה ֵר‬. 97 In more general terms Eccl 7,12 says: “Wisdom is a shelter as money is a shelter, but the advantage of knowledge is this: that wisdom preserves the life of its possessor.” Sir 30,23f: “Love your own soul, and comfort your heart, remove sorrow far from thee: for sorrow hath killed many, and there is no profit therein. Envy and wrath shorten the life, and carefulness brings age before the time.” Sir 31 warns against property as a key to happiness, cf. Wis 6,15; 7,23. 98 The translation of the verb varies from ‘worry’ (NET, NIV, NRSV), ʻbring worries’ (NRSV), to ‘be anxious’ (ASV) or ‘have thought for’. 99 Gen 30,33 (= ἐν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ τῇ αὔριον). W. Bauer, Wörterbuch (61988), 242 (BDAG, 151), mentions a number of Greek texts. 100 Matt 6,34 (+ genitive – the normal construction with verbs of affection), 6,25 (+ dative), 6,27 (absolute), 6,27 (+ περί + genitive), 6,31 (+ participle plus λέγοντες), 6,34 (+ εἰς), cf. Petersen, Zur Eigenart des Matthäus (2001), 255, n. 988. Luke 10,35 has ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον and Josephus, Ant. III,231, has εἰς, Ant. XVII,91 has τῇ αὔριον. 101 As in Gen 30,33. Αὔριον is used in combination with ‘today’ (σήµερον καὶ αὔριον) as in the parallels in Luke 12,28 and 13,32f and it has this restricted meaning.

518

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

cannot calculate, something we do not know, something we cannot control, something that eventually might happen. Alone and in combination with ἡµέρα it has the meaning of the immediate future, soon, etc.102 The opposition ‘today’ – ‘tomorrow’ is about things we can survey and things that we cannot survey, what is foreseeable and where it is impossible to gain an overview. Αὔριον most likely has this open meaning in Matt 6,34. The reasons for not worrying can be at least four: uncertainty, unnecessary considerations, enjoying life or trusting in God. 8.5.2 (a) Reflection on the Uncertainty of Tomorrow – the Basis for Matt 6,3 4? The feeling of uncertainty for tomorrow is universal. We can therefore find parallels in all cultures, and we list them according to geography and chronology: From Egypt come some of the oldest: the entertaining text about ‘The Eloquent Peasant’ admonishes: “Do not prepare for tomorrow before it arrives. One knows not what evil/mischance may be in it.”103 The most famous collection, Amen-em-Opet has a similar saying: “Do not spend the night in fear of tomorrow. At dawn what is the morrow like? One knows not what the morrow is like.”104 Adolf Erman also refers to a later Egyptian saying: “Do not prepare for tomorrow before it comes. You do not know what troubles will come.”105 Jewish wisdom literature has similar teachings. Prov 27,1: “Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth.” Eccl 8,7 is even clearer: “Since no man knows the future, who can tell him what is to come?” God has made the one as well as the other. “Therefore, a man cannot discover anything about his future.” A later addition to Pseudo-Phocylides – on the uncertainty of life – says it similarly: “Nobody knows what will be after tomorrow or after an hour. Death is heedless of mortals, and the future is uncertain.”106 This tone resonates in much later rabbinic texts, such as b.Sanh. 100b: “Worry not about the worries of tomorrow, for you do not know what the day will bring forth; perhaps you will be no more, and then you would have 102

W. Bauer, Wörterbuch (61988), 242 (BDAG, 151). The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, from the Middle Kingdom (ca. 2040–1782 BCE, but set in the ninth or tenth dynasty (before 2001 BCE) about the peasant Khun-Anup, and his meeting with Rensi son of Meru and his overseer, Nemtynakht. Quoted from James B. Pritchard, ANET (1913) (3rd ed. 1969), 409. Also, 413: “One does not know what may happen, so that he may understand the morrow.” 104 Amen-em-Opet, 19,11–13. ANET, 423. 105 Erman, Die Literatur der Ägypter (1923), 167. 106 Ps.-Phocylides 116f. 103

8.5 Interpretation of µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον (Matt 6,34a)

519

worried about a world that will belong to you no more.” b.Yeb. 63b says: “Do not fear over tomorrow’s troubles, for you know not what a day may bring forth. Tomorrow may come, and you will be no more and you will have grieved over a world that is not yours.” Many sayings in the Graeco-Roman world have similar content. A Pythagorean exhortation advises not to be constantly thinking of the morrow, rather leave something for the future, and reflect on today.107 Horace’s reflections have a long history of reception. He starts with an exhortation “show wisdom” (Latin: sapientia) and says: “cease to ask what the morrow will bring forth” (Latin: quid sit futurum eras, fuge quaerere), and “set down as gain each day that Fortune grants”.108 This is for Horace the context of the popular phrase ‘carpe diem’. He continues in Ode I,11: “in the moment of our talking, envious time has ebbed away” (Latin: dum loquimur, fugerit invida aetas), and then follows the famous phrase: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero (“Reap the harvest of today, putting as little trust as may be in the morrow”).109 Marcus Aurelius reflected deeper in Med. VIII. He says: “Look to the essence of a thing, whether it be a point of doctrine, of practice, or of interpretation … for thou choosest rather to become good tomorrow than to be good today.”110 He continues: “Then remind yourself that it is not the future or the past that weighs heavy upon you, but always the present” (VIII,36). The uncertainty-argument in Matt 6,34. We do not know much about the future; why should we be worrying about things we do not know? Exegetes even presuppose that Matt 6,34 has a sort of ‘carpe diem’-idea, in fact meaning: concentrate on ‘today’!111 The New Testament has one saying with this perspective, Jas 4,14f: “Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, ‘If it is the Lord’s will, we will live (ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ καὶ ζήσοµεν) and do this or that.’ As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil (πονηρός).” Is this about ‘deo volente’?

However, Matt 6,34b does not express a thoughtless attitude of unconcern, a superficial and fatalistic attitude of ‘que sera, sera’ (‘whatever will be, will

107

W. Bauer, Wörterbuch, 245: διδάσκει ἀεί τι τοῦ παρόντος εἰς τὸ µέλλον καταλιπεῖν, καὶ τῆς αὔρ[ιον] ἐν τῇ σήµερον µνηµονεύειν (“Philosophensprüche verschiedener Art”, in Fragmenta philosophorum Graecorum, ed. Friedrich Wilhelm August Mullach, vol. I, Paris: Didot 1860, 504). Bauer thinks the Pythagoreans say the opposite. 108 Horace, Carm. I,9,13. 109 Horace, Carm. I,11, cf. I,11,8. 110 Marcus Aurelius, Med. VIII,22: πρόσεχε τῷ ὑποκειµένῳ ἢ τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ ἢ τῷ δόγµατι ἢ τῷ σηµαινοµένῳ. 111 Zeilinger, Zwischen Himmel und Erde (2002), 181f; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium I (1986), 251.

520

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

be’).112 If so, the text should be: “you will perhaps never experience the future” or “about the future we do not know anything”. The reason given in Matt 6,34b is different, and the whole argumentation is far from que sera, sera. The reflection about the uncertainty of the future comes closer to Matt 6,34. Jerome gives exactly this explanation. Jesus speaks about evil in the present situation, and the message is: “let us relinquish concern about the future, which is uncertain”.113 Is it an ideal to live without uncertainties? Planning is not only a modern phenomenon. The effort is widespread: to make uncertainties more certain, to secure oneself, to reduce uncertainties to a minimum. The presupposition in Matt 6,34: uncertainties will certainly always exist. The task is to cope with them, and not to be depressed by them. 8.5.3 (b) Unnecessary Considerations – Possible Basis for Matt 6,34? Is Matt 6,34 one of the Hellenistic texts saying that it is realistic and wise not to reflect on what will happen in the days to come?114 Seneca (4 BC–65 CE) thought it is indeed foolish to be unhappy now because you may be unhappy at some future time: “Why, indeed, is it necessary to summon trouble – which must be endured soon enough when it has once arrived – or to anticipate trouble and ruin the present through fear of the future?”115 The Epicureans were even more wary of reflections on possible events in the future.116 Due to the many possible scenarios in the future it is indeed unnecessary to plan the future in detail. Jewish texts like Sir 40,1–7 and a number of GraecoRoman texts117 come close to Matt 6,25–34 in this respect. To confront sorrows in advance is a bad strategy, and this is part of the argument in Matt 6,25–34 as well. Worries will remain, but one should get rid of unnecessary 112 The Spanish phrase became a slogan through the lyrics of Jay Livingston/Ray Evans in Alfred Hitchcock’s movie ‘The Man Who Knew too Much’ (1956). Best edition: David A. Campbell (ed.), Anacreon, Anacreontea (LCL 143), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1988. 113 Jerome, Commentaria in Evangelium S. Matthaei, PL 26, 33–50 = ET, Commentary on Matthew, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press 2008, 92. 114 Zahn, Matthäus (41922), 301. 115 Seneca, Ep. 24,1: quid enim necesse est mala accersere et satis cito patienda cum venerint, praesumere ac praesens tempus futuri metu perdere? 116 Michel Foucault, The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège de France 1981–1982, New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2005, 463–473, esp. 468–471. In his first lecture (24 March 1982) he exemplified this scepticism in Hellenistic philosophy against an attitude of praeoccupatus, concern for the future. Stoics – against Epicureans – could consider the praemeditatio malorum, dealing with possible negative events, as meaningful. 117 Dio Chrysostom, Or. 10,15f; Plutarch, Tranq. an. 14–16 (Mor. 473B–C); Epictetus, Diss. I,9,8 and 19.

8.5 Interpretation of µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον (Matt 6,34a)

521

worries: about eating/drinking and clothing – and about αὔριον, about things that will happen. It aims at unnecessities and unconcerned laziness, unseasonable cares or burdensome preoccupation about the future. It is not against planning, nor against the effort of putting up fences against the worries. Instead of worrying, one should be confident or even happy. The SM starts with the admonition to be joyful, even in times of distress and persecution (Matt 5,12: χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε) and even more so in daily life. This joy must, however, not be confused with a hedonistic lifestyle. “Joy in affliction” (German: ‘Freude im Leiden’) is something totally different, and this Jewish topos received new impact through Jesus’ life and sayings in the SM (5,10– 12).118 Jesus made a number of predictions about the future. Early in the SM (5,3– 10.11f; 7,15.22f and in other judgment-sayings), but mainly in the timetable of Jesus’ eschatological speech (Matt 24f and par.). He underlined uncertainty: only God, not even the Son, knows the timetable (24,36). The uncertainty of the future was never an argument on its own. Here is the uselessness of worrying about things we are not able to control (plague, epidemics, enemies, death, etc.). Our concern must concentrate on what we can do something about, what is within our control. 8.5.4 (c) The Hedonistic and Epicurean Understanding of ‘Carpe diem’ – and Matt 6,34 Horace is often given a ‘hedonistic’ interpretation, but these tones are visible only in the periphery, like in his treatise Enjoy the passing hour. He says here: “Be not anxious for the needs of life … fugit retro levis iuventas et decor (fresh youth and beauty are speeding fast away behind us) so enjoy life …”119 He had previously argued: “Let the soul be joyful in the present, let it disdain to be anxious for what the future has in store, and temper bitterness with smile serene! Nothing is happy altogether.”120 The hedonistic attitude was introduced long before Horace. Anacreon (ca. 582–ca. 485 BCE) shows the influence from Dionysos and the cult of Bacchus. In his praise to Bacchus he says:

118 Cf. Wolfgang Nauck, “Freude im Leiden: Zum Problem einer urchristlichen Verfolgungstradition”, ZNW 46 (1955), 68–80. 119 Horace, Carm. II,11,4. Like Matt 6,30f he uses the flowers as an example (“not for ever do the flowers of spring retain their glory/honour”). 120 Horace, Carm. II,11,25–28. Shakespeare refers to ‘Carpe diem’ in Twelfth Night, II, scene 3, in the reflection of Feste, the clown: “What’s to come is still unsure. In delay there lies no plenty.”

522

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

“To-day I’ll haste to quaff my wine, As if to-morrow ne’er should shine. But if to-morrow comes, why then –. I’ll haste to quaff my wine again.”121

The hedonistic attitude towards life was refined in the Epicurean philosophy. Aristippus (435–350) had learned from Dionysius that he could always turn the situation to a good account: “He derived pleasure (ἡδονή) from what was present and did not toil to procure the enjoyment of something not present.”122 Enjoy life, every day can bring delight and ease. Often even Martial’s playful insistence that today is the time for living can be understood in this way (“Will you live tomorrow? It is already late to live today”).123 This is more likely the intention behind the slogan collige, virgo, rosas (“gather, girl, the roses”) that is attributed to Virgil. The hedonistic perception of ‘Carpe diem’ is to enjoy good food and good wine, have free sex, and a luxurious life as much as possible or as much as it gives pleasure. Sir 11,19 reacts against precisely this attitude: “when he says, ‘I have found rest, and now I shall enjoy my goods!’ he does not know how much time will pass until he leaves them to others and dies.” This text obviously influenced Luke’s text about the rich farmer. The rich farmer uses the hedonistic slogan “Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry” (Luke 12,19).124 Non-hedonistic understanding of ‘Carpe diem’ in Matt 6,34. Why not concentrate on things we know, and rather enjoy life today? Fullness of life means, according to many texts in the Tanach, enjoying eating and drinking (Prov 25,16; Eccl 9,7; Song 5,1; Neh 8,10).125 Eccl 7,14 has a broader reflection: “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God 121

Anacreon is best known through Thomas Moore’s translation, here: Thomas Moore, Odes of Anacreon: Ode VIII, in The Poetical Works of Thomas Moore, vol. 1, London: Longman etc. 1840, 57. 122 Diogenes Laertius II,66: in hoc et stoici et epicurei consentire videntur. Heinrici, Bergpredigt II (1905), 78, refers to Aristippus (ἐφ᾿ ἡµέραν τὴν γνώµην ἔχειν) according to Aelian, Var. hist. XIV,6. 123 Martial, Epigr. V,58,5: cras vives? Hodie iam vivere tardum est. It starts as a dialogue: “You say you will live tomorrow, Postumus, always tomorrow. Tell me, Postumus, when is it coming? How far off is tomorrow, where is it, or where will you go to get it?” (Latin: dic mihi, eras istud, Postume, quando venit, 58,2). 124 Ameling, “Φάγωµεν καὶ πίωµεν” (1985); Piet W. van der Horst, “Das Neue Testament und die jüdischen Grabinschriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit”, BZ NF 36 (1992), 161–178, esp. 173f; Joseph S. Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions (WUNT II/121), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000, 67–72. 125 Most explicit Eccl 9,7: ∆εῦρο φάγε ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ ἄρτον σου καὶ πίε ἐν καρδίᾳ ἀγαθῇ οἶνόν σου, ὅτι ἤδη εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ποιήµατά σου. Cf. 7,14: ἐν ἡµέρᾳ ἀγαθωσύνης ζῆθι ἐν ἀγαθῷ καὶ ἐν ἡµέρᾳ κακίας ἰδέ· καί γε σὺν τοῦτο σύµφωνον τούτῳ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς περὶ λαλιᾶς …

8.5 Interpretation of µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον (Matt 6,34a)

523

has made the one as well as the other. Therefore, a man cannot discover anything about his future.” Bultmann suggests that Matt 6,34 is dealing with the theme of maintenance: enjoy what we have today. 126 This is not the theme here, but rather in Matt 6,11, the fourth prayer in the ‘pater noster’.

The whole text, 6,25–34, and not least 6,34 is in fact a protest against the hedonistic attitude. This is not what life is all about. Life is rather about being content with what is at hand (ἀρκεῖσθαι τοῖς παροῦσιν).127 It is not about quantity. Matt 6,19–21 says the opposite: opulence and plenty of things to enjoy increase worries. Both Sir 11,19 and the parable about the rich farmer (Luke 12,19) criticise this attitude. In his eschatological speech Jesus warns: “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap” (Luke 21,34). Paul warns even more sharply: “If the dead are not raised, you can say: ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’ Do not be misled: ‘Bad company corrupts good character’” (1 Cor 15,32f). These texts are a reaction against the hedonistic and Epicurean understanding of ‘carpe diem’ being to enjoy good food and good wine, have free sex, and altogether as luxurious a life as possible or as much as it gives pleasure. Rom 14,17f (“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit”) certainly comes close to Matt 6,33f. To live as if this were your last day, does not necessarily lead to a hedonistic lifestyle. On the contrary, today is the day for joy, to be happy, to be confident. If this is our last day it should be used to convert, confess, live in a new way. It provides a chance to do good.128 A good life is an attractive goal in the Decalogue and is repeated in the New Testament (Eph 6,3: ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται καὶ ἔσῃ µακροχρόνιος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς). The theme in Matt 6,34 is, however, not about ‘carpe diem’ in the sense of enjoying life. It speaks against worrying in order to reach tranquility of mind. 8.5.5 (d) About the Possibilities of Today – Premise in Matt 6,34? Hedonistic understanding in its egocentric meaning is modern capitalistic, popular culture. In Graeco-Roman culture it existed in the circles that took 126

Bultmann, GST, 111, thought the Arabic proverb “Jeder Tag bringt seinen Unterhalt mit sich” (no. 514 in Albert Socin, Arabische Sprichwörter und Redensarten, Tübingen: Heinrich Laupp 1878) is a parallel. 127 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 484. 128 Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship (21963), 159, overstated the matter: “This is not to be taken as a philosophy of life or a moral law; it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ …” Therefore, “it is not care that frees the disciples from care, but their faith in Jesus Christ”. Against the Nazis he added: “Only God can take care, for it is he who rules the world.”

524

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

philosophy seriously. Horace had a more profound reflection on ‘carpe diem’. He said, “Cease to ask what the morrow will bring forth (Latin: quid sit futurum eras, fuge quaerere), and set down as gain each day that Fortune grants.”129 He thought that now is the time for taking action for the future, and that a clear conscience makes us superior to fortune. He also dealt with anxiousness and fear for the city, etc., and he exhorted: “Remember to settle with tranquil heart the problem of the hour! (Latin: quod adest memento componere aequus).”130 Seneca, Ep. 101, offered a more comprehensive treatment ‘on the futility of planning ahead’131 where he referred to a slogan used by Roman intellectuals, that one should every day sing: βεβίωται, βεβίωται.132 It was basically an Epicurean slogan, formulated by Epicurus’ student Metrodorus of Lampsacus: ὡς εὖ ἡµῖν βεβίωται,133 and Seneca reformulated it in Latin: Vixi et quem dederat cursum fortuna, peregi (“I have lived; the course which Fortuna set for me is finished”). Seneca is specific in his reflection on the good life: “And if God is pleased to add another day, we should welcome it with glad hearts. That man is happiest (Latin: ille beatissimus) and is so secure in his own possession of himself, who can await the morrow without apprehension (Latin: qui crastinum sine solicitudine expectat) … When a man has said ‘I have lived’ (Latin: vixi), every morning he arises, he receives a bonus (Latin: cotidie ad lucrum surgit).”134

Sophocles conveyed a much older saying in his second – more philosophical – play on Oedipus, a saying of Theseus: “For I know well that I am a man, and that my portion of tomorrow is no greater than yours” (τῆς εἰς αὔριον οὐδὲν πλεῖον µοι σοῦ µέτεστιν ἡµέρας).135 The Tanach provides, in Prov 3,28, an ethical aspect of this reflection also: “Do not say to your neighbour, ‘Come back later; I’ll give it tomorrow’ – when you have it with you now.” If many future scenarios are possible, one should rather look for the possibilities. ‘Tomorrow’ = the future, will always bring new possibilities, but the same possibilities and tomorrow can be planned – today. What happened yesterday cannot be changed, only be reflected on. Every day can be 129

Horace, Carm. I,9,13. Horace, Carm. III,28–34, esp. 29. 131 Seneca, Ep. 101, here esp. 101,4. 132 Cf. Cicero, Att. XII,2,2. 133 Metrodoros (331–277 BCE) could say every day, even on his last day: “How well we have lived.” We have only fragments of this favourite student of Epicurus, here Frag. 49K, cf. Richard Tarrant, “Custode rerum Caesare: Horatian Civic Engagement and the Senecan Tragic Chorus”, in Martin Stöckinger/Kathrin Winter/Andreas T. Zanker (eds.), Horace and Seneca: Interactions, Intertexts, Interpretations (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 365), Berlin: De Gruyter 2017, 93–112. 134 Seneca, Ep. I,12,9. 135 Sophocles, Oed. col. 567. 130

8.5 Interpretation of µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον (Matt 6,34a)

525

the best day in life, and this gives a better prospect for the future. What we do today, has an impact on the future. Possibility-thinking in the Bible – and in Matt 6,34? In the Bible we have a number of exhortations about the importance of ‘today’, like Ps 90,12–14 (LXX 89,12–14). It says: “Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a heart of wisdom … Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days (ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἡµέραις ἡµῶν). Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us (εὐφράνθηµεν ἀνθ᾿ ὧν ἡµερῶν ἐταπείνωσας ἡµᾶς), for as many years as we have seen trouble (ὧν εἴδοµεν κακά).”

The two terms αὔριον and ἡµέρα are not about minutes and hours, rather about possibilities and challenges. ‘Today’ is the decisive day. Chronological time (χρόνος) is one thing, decisive is the timing (καιρός).136 The only moment for timing is today, now, the moment filled with presence. The exhortation is therefore: Do not postpone to the future what can be done today. Prov 3,28 (“Do not say to your neighbour, ‘Come back later’”) is followed up in Jas 2,15: “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed’, but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?”137 Col 4,5 speaks in the same way about making the most of every opportunity (τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόµενοι).138 Many key-texts in the Bible emphasise that today is a gift from God (Deut 11,27; 30,11–15; Josh 24,15; Ps 118,24; Heb 3,13.15; 4,7).139 To listen to God, to be wise and to do beneficial acts are the great opportunities of today. 136 Cf. Augustine’s reflections on time as a category in Confessiones, book XI – and in Sermo XVII,56 (“let us not think of what is temporal, but of what is eternal”). Considering the influence of existentialism in theology since Bultmann, it is amazing that Karl Barth, in his sermon from 1921, reflects on today as decisive moment: “Der Augenblick ist wichtig, der Augenblick ist Ernst, im Augenblick verborgen ist Alles, das Ziel, die Wahrheit, die Drohung, das Gericht, die Erlösung, die Hilfe … im Augenblick ist die Ewigkeit” (KarlBarth-Gesamtausgabe, vol. 44: Predigten 1921, Zürich: TVZ 2007, 142f). 137 Jas 2,15f: ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυµνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν καὶ λειπόµενοι τῆς ἐφηµέρου τροφῆς εἴπῃ δέ τις αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑµῶν· ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, θερµαίνεσθε καὶ χορτάζεσθε, µὴ δῶτε δὲ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ σώµατος, τί τὸ ὄφελος; 138 It continues: “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt.” Gal 6,10 says similarly: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people” (ἄρα οὖν ὡς καιρὸν ἔχοµεν, ἐργαζώµεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας). 139 Deut 11,27: “the blessing if you obey the commands of the Lord your God that I am giving you today” (σήµερον); 30,11: “what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach” (ὅτι ἡ ἐντολὴ αὕτη, ἣν ἐγὼ ἐντέλλοµαί σοι σήµερον, οὐχ ὑπέρογκός ἐστιν οὐδὲ µακρὰν ἀπὸ σοῦ); Ps 118,24: “This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it”; Heb 3,13.15: “But encourage one another daily (καθ᾿ ἑκάστην ἡµέραν), as long as it is called today” … “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion” = Heb 4,7.

526

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

Is this implicit argument the meaning of Matt 6,34? Many theologians and preachers (Wesley, Schleiermacher and Bonhoeffer) thought so.140 Bonhoeffer called it the narrow way “of living every day as if it were our last, and yet living in faith”.141 To live today as if a great future will come and to see each day as a gift from God can implicate worry on behalf of others – not for one’s own life and destiny. Worrying on behalf of others is both possible and a Christian duty. According to 1 Pet 5,7 the recipe is: “Cast all your anxiety on him (πᾶσαν τὴν µέριµναν ὑµῶν ἐπιρίψαντες ἐπ’ αὐτόν) because he cares (µέλει) for you.” The day today is the great opportunity for doing so (Prov 3,28; Jas 2,15f). That today we have the opportunity to do good, means that individualism has its limitations. Matt 6,34 presupposes, but does not spell out, a concept of ethical behaviour or the role of the community. 8.5.6 (e) Retardant to Reflecting about the Future Due to Determinism – also in Matt 6,34? In philosophical circles the question of the future, was a question about denying the deterministic view of future events.142 Leucippus (in the fifth century BC, student of Democritus) provided the classical formulation: “Nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity.”143 Philosophy should primarily deal with necessities, and Aristotle therefore formulated the statement about future contingencies: “A sea battle must either take place tomorrow or not, but it is not necessary that it should take place tomorrow, neither is it necessary that it should not take place, yet it is necessary that it either should or should not take place tomorrow.”144

Aristotle was influenced by Diodorus Chronus’ so-called ‘Master Argument’: only one answer to a question about a future event can be true. Either Yes or

140

Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 346, n. 69. Bonhoeffer, Letters (above, n. 62), 15. Bonhoeffer anticipated the gloomy future in Nazi Germany, Nachfolge (1937), cf. Cost of Discipleship (1949), 158–161: “by trying to ensure for the next day we are only creating uncertainty today” (p. 158) and “Jesus does not tell us what we ought to do but cannot; he tells us what God has given us and promises still to give” (ibid., 161). 142 Cicero, Fat. 41–45. Cf. Baasland, “ἀνάγκη bei Paulus im Lichte eines stoischen Paradoxes”, in Hermann Lichtenberger (ed.), Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion. FS M. Hengel, vol. III, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1996, 357–385. 143 Leucippus (ca. 480–420): οὐδὲν χρῆµα µάτην γίνεται, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἐκ λόγου τε καὶ ὑπ’ ἀνάγκης, Frag. 569 (from Frag. 2 Actius I, 25), cf. Diogenes Laertius II,9,6 (30–33). 144 Aristotle, Int. IX (19a30). 141

8.5 Interpretation of µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον (Matt 6,34a)

527

No. This actualism denied the theory of future contingency and/or that only one future is possible.145 This kind of actualism might be the basis for the beautiful and universally recognisable reflection in Sir 40,1–7. It speaks about anxious expectation, particularly “anger, envy, confusion, unrest, fear of death, fury and conflict” … “they wake up at the most desperate moment and are astonished that they were afraid for nothing” (40,2.5.7). Dio Chrysostom’s saying comes closer to Matt 6,34: “Are you going to secure first … You will spend all your life worrying (λυπήσῃ) over them without getting any benefit whatsoever from them.”146 Plutarch has exactly the same theme as in Matt 6,25ff – characteristically in De tranquillitate animi: “For the foolish overlook and neglect (ἀµελοῦσιν) good things even when they are present, because their thoughts are ever intent upon the future, but the wise by remembrance make even those benefits that are no longer at hand to be vividly existent for themselves (τῷ µνηµονεύειν ἐναργῶς ὄντα ποιοῦσιν ἑαυτοῖς).”147 ‘Today’ is worth nothing without this ‘remembrance’. It forms the event because the past is interwoven with the present. This attitude must be avoided: to ‘empty’ (κενούς) each day and make it ‘dependent on tomorrow’ (τῆς αὔριον ἐξεκρεµαµένους). Epictetus has nearly the same theme. As a former slave he tells the slave that he should stop lamenting περὶ τὴς αὔριον: “As soon as you have fed your fill today, you sit lamenting about the morrow, wherewithal you shall be fed (ὅταν χορτασθῆτε σήµερον, κάθησθε κλάοντες περὶ τῆς αὔριον, πόθεν φάγητε).”148 No determinism in Matt 6,34. These Hellenistic reflections have nothing to do with Matt 6,34. According to the SM the future is not at all determined. Matt 5,11f with its prediction of future persecutions is something else, and in the same category as the Beatitudes. According to Matt 6,34 (5,3.10.19f; 6,10; 7,21) the Kingdom of God is not the result of human efforts. Matt 6,34 underlines in the same way that the future is not determined by human

145 He asks: “What does it profit to care about future contingencies which perhaps will never come about?” This was crucial for the students of Ammonius Saccas (Plotinus/ Porphyry, both called Theodidaktos). 146 Dio Chrysostom, Or. 10,15f in a treatise on servants. 147 Plutarch, Tranq. an. 14 (Mor. 473B–C). He continues (16,1) with a quotation from Epicurus, “He who has least need for the morrow most gladly advances to meet the morrow.” Wealth, reputation, power, public office “delight most of all those who least fear their opposite. For the violent desire for each of these implants a most violent fear that they may not remain, and so render pleasure in them weak and unstable, like a floating flame” (Mor. 474B–C). 148 Epictetus, Diss. I,9,19, refers to I,9,8: καὶ πόθεν ϕάγω, ϕησίν, µηδὲν ἔχων, which is even closer to Matt 6,25: µὴ µεριµνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑµῶν, τί ϕάγητε ἢ τί πίητε.

528

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

struggle alone. The saying exhorts man to take up the struggle against the evil today. Evil is a fact, but not a destiny. To prevail over evil is the task, not to be resigned to it. This does not mean that each day will be better. 8.5.7 (f) About Trust in God – the Message in Matt 6,34? The theological argument already appears in texts from ancient Egypt. “The god who rules tomorrow will care for tomorrow.”149 Horace brings in the dimension of god in his Odes, when speaking about true happiness. He says: “Joyful will that man live who day by day can say: ‘I have lived today’; tomorrow let the Father fill the heaven with murky clouds or radiant sunshine. Yet will he not render vain whatever now is past, nor will he alter and undo what once the fleeting hour has brought.”150 He adds in his Epistles the following reflection: “And you – whatever hour god has given for your weal, take it with grateful hand, nor put off joys from year to year; so whatever place you have them, you may say that you have lived happily. For it is this reason and wisdom that take away cares.”151 Marcus Aurelius makes this into a crucial theme. Confidence in God and his ordering of the universe (διακοσµήσει) should prevent any worrying and struggling for short term pleasure.152 In the Quran there are parallels to the general topic. A Turkish fairytale is more specific: we can see every day as a gain and enjoy it cheerfully. God will care for tomorrow.153 This idea – God’s care for tomorrow – has a strong voice in the Hebrew Bible. In the song of Moses in Deut 33,25 the promise to Asher is: “The bolts of your gates will be iron and bronze, and your strength will equal your days (ὡς αἱ ἡµέραι σου ἡ ἰσχύς σου).” The creation-psalm, Ps 19,3 (LXX 18,3), says: “Day after day they [heavens/skies] pour forth speech (ἡµέρα τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἐρεύγεται ῥῆµα); night after night they display knowledge (LXX: γνῶσιν = ‫) ָדּ עַת‬.” Ps 55,23 warns: “Bloodthirsty and deceitful men will not live out half their days. But as for me, I trust in you.” Eccl 7,14: “When times are good, be happy ἐν ἡµέρᾳ (‫ )בְּיוֹם‬ἀγαθωσύνης (‫ )טוֹבָה‬ζῆθι ἐν ἀγαθῷ, but when times are bad, consider (ἐν ἡµέρᾳ κακίας [‫ ] ָר עָה‬ἰδέ): God has made the one as well as the other.”

149

Socin, Arabische Sprichwörter (above, n. 126), no. 513. Horace, Carm. II,11,16 and here 41–48. 151 Horace, Ep. I,11,22–30. 152 Marcus Aurelius, Med., esp. XII,1–5. 153 Friedrich Giese (ed.), Türkische Märchen, Jena: Diederichs 1925, 220: “… wollen den heutigen Tag als Gewinn ansehen und ihn fröhlich genießen. Für Morgen wird Gott schon sorgen.” 150

8.5 Interpretation of µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον (Matt 6,34a)

529

This conviction in wisdom literature is obviously also fundamental to Matt 6,25–34, but the closest parallels in Jewish texts are found in later rabbinic writings. b.Sotah 48b blames its listeners: “Whoever has a piece of bread in his basket and says: ‘What shall I eat tomorrow?’ belongs only to them who are little in faith.” Basic here is the Manna-text, which Mekilta, Wayassa 3 on Exod 16,4, interprets in the following way: “He who has what he will eat today and says, ‘What shall I eat tomorrow?’ Behold, this man has little faith.”154 The notion of little faith (ὀλιγόπιστος) occurs in the double tradition, Matt 6,30 and Luke 12,28. Due to the combination of lack of food and worries for tomorrow b.Sotah 48b is clearly a close parallel. About trust in God in Matt 6,34. We have seen that many Hellenistic texts – not only Stoic texts – and the Tanach have this aspect. An atheistic attitude towards the future is rare. Even formulations that sound like fatalism entail the attitude of trust in God. Trust in God is a basic confession in the Tanach, particularly in the Psalms and the Prophets, e.g. Isa 41,10: “So do not fear, for I am with you (µὴ φοβοῦ, µετὰ σοῦ γάρ εἰµι); do not be dismayed, for I am your God (µὴ πλανῶ, ἐγὼ γάρ εἰµι ὁ θεός σου). I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”155 In the SM trust in God is the conviction in nearly every sentence from the Beatitudes onwards. The saying in Matt 5,45 (“that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous”) has an explicitly universal perspective. Matt 6,34 follows up Matt 6,33 (“seek first the Kingdom of Heaven”, ζητεῖτε πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν). To let fear/worry be an attitude and lifestyle is atheism. God takes care of what perishes or vanishes. Therefore, worries concerning both today and αὔριον are in vain. Faith in God prevails over the worries. 8.5.8 Interpretation of the First Reason: The Logic of Tomorrow (Matt 6,34b) Through the lens of the parallels, we have also interpreted Matt 6,34a/b. A close reading of the reason in v. 34b and its philosophical and theological impact must be added.

154 Trans. Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1976 (1933–1935). 155 Passim, e.g. Gen 15,1; 21,7; 26,34; Deut 1,21; 8,2; 31,16.18; Isa 7,4; 8,12; 35,4; 43,5; Jer 1,8.17; 10,2.5.

530

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

1) Linguistic remarks: the riddle of ἑαυτῆς. Μεριµνάω + genitive occurs only here.156 Genitive after verbs of affection is normal,157 but the construction genitive reflexive pronoun ἑαυτῆς is still dubious, and is already corrected in the textual tradition because of the strange feature in Matt 6,34b. The translations of ἑαυτῆς differ enormously.158 Translations vary partly due to uncertainty in the complicated textual tradition: a. ἑαυτῆς – ‫א‬, B2, W. Not a broad, but still a solid textual tradition, has ʻfor itself’ as the most natural meaning. b. τὰ ἑαυτῆς – K, N, 0233, f1.13 – ‘about its own affairs’, an adjustment, obviously influenced by the Pauline usage in the parallel text, 1 Cor 7,32–34, about concern for the Lord’s affairs versus the world’s.159 c. τὸ ἑαυτῆς – θ, 565, refers more naturally than τὰ ἑαυτῆς to the singular αὔριον or κακία. d. αὐτῆς – read B* L, co maj. Influenced by αὐτῷ in the parallel in 1 Pet 5,7? e. ἑαυτήν – 700 (pc), etc. f. ἑαυτῇ – dative more natural. The Vulgate and the Latin text in itrar have sibi. (g). τὰ αὐτῆς = τὰ αὐτά (‘its own things’) has a very weak textual basis, but is an analogy to the thematic parallel in Jas 4,14 (τὸ τῆς αὔριον).160

Most scholars prefer τὰ/τὸ ἑαυτῆς or ἑαυτῆ(ν) as the best text, but the interpretation still has to reflect on a possible omission after ἑαυτῆς (is κακία or δικαιοσύνη presupposed?). 2) Αὔριον µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς (v. 34b) as philosophical statement. The elliptic expression “tomorrow will worry/be anxious for its own” needs an addition. Can the uncertainty argument or the possibility scenario be implied? The change from ‘you’ in v. 34a to αὔριον/‘tomorrow’ as subject in v. 34b is strange. It focuses not on man, but rather on what possibly will happen tomorrow/in the future. It is not so much about acting as it is about thinking. Epictetus underlined this cognitive aspect: “It is not what has happened that

156

Matt 6,25 has the dative (µεριµνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ), and 6,28 a construction with περί (περὶ ἐνδύµατος τί µεριµνᾶτε). Cf. Luke 12,26 (περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν) and Phil 2,20 (τὰ περὶ ὑµῶν µεριµνήσει). The absolute usage in the New Testament is also the most common construction, occurring in Matt 6,27 (= Luke 12,25); 6,31; 10,9; Luke 10,41; 12,11; Phil 4,6. 157 BDR, 176.2 – in verbs of affection, as in the parallel in Tit 3,8 that has the more widely-used Greek term φροντίζω (+ καλῶν ἔργων). BDR, 176.3 says “zweifelhaft”/ dubious. 158 It can be ‘about itself’ (NET, NIV, Darby), ʻfor itself’ (ASV, WEB), ʻfor the things of itself’ (KJV), ʻto itselfʼ (Wycliffe) or ‘of its own’ (NRSV). German translations have ‘für das Seine’ or ‘für sich selber’, and French mostly ‘de lui-mêmeʼ. 159 1 Cor 7,32.34: µεριµνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κυρίου (πῶς ἀρέσῃ τῷ κυρίῳ) versus 7,33 (µεριµνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κόσµου). 160 BDR, 266.5/176.3 still sees this as the best option.

8.5 Interpretation of µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον (Matt 6,34a)

531

distresses this man (for it does not distress another), but his judgment about it (τὸ δόγµα τὸ περὶ τοῦτο).”161 The worries of tomorrow/αὔριον snatch from our life to-day.162 Every day, but more so the future/αὔριον has its own logic and brings new worries and new possibilities. It is not a promise that life will be better tomorrow than today, nor a faint dream that calamities will disappear today or tomorrow. 3) How can ‘tomorrow’ possibly take care of itself? The meaning is apparently that αὔριον has the same challenges as today. Today is the past tomorrow and when tomorrow evening comes, αὔριον is also past. The interpretation has still to reflect on the possible omission after ἑαυτῆς. Is κακία really presupposed or is it trouble/toil/calamities – or could even the opposite, δικαιοσύνη, be presupposed? It can hardly mean that worry today should be prevented, but tomorrow we may do so. It is useless to let worries be deferred until tomorrow. The ambiguity (polysemy) of µέριµνα leads to different interpretations. Solicitude can be productive, creative, ingenious. Greek texts more often use ἀκρίβεια (‘diligence’) or σπουδή (‘quickness or ‘earnestness’) for this kind of praiseworthy and businesslike work. Solicitude can mean the anxious, immoderate, covetous, unbecoming struggle which leads to nothing. Matt 6,34 admonishes against this latter kind of solicitude. Matt 6,34 argues that αὔριον is intractable. The future is a source of worry for most people, both unfortunate and fortunate people. Everyone fears that evil things might happen, that sorrow and grief will hit us, and the most secure fact is that we will die. However, tomorrow can be a source for hope. In times of suffering and distress, hope for something better will always arise. There is a thin wall between courage and resignation, and this is our challenge. Matt 6,34 reflects the double feeling of worry and hope. What is needed is courage, not resignation. The emphasis is on hope. We cannot do much with tomorrow. Luke 21,34 states that the worries of today will continue tomorrow (µερίµναις βιωτικαῖς), and the exhortation is therefore: be alert (προσέχετε). What we can change today is more important. To worry about things you do not know, is not wisdom. It is unwise to do so, because the worries of tomorrow can spoil ‘today’. Tomorrow cannot change the worries of today, it can only increase them. ‘Today’ should rather change tomorrow/the future, and worries prevent every possibility of changing. Therefore, worries about the future are as foolish as worries about the past. 161

Epictetus, Ench. 16. Cf. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew (above, n. 113), 92: not about the opposite of virtue but rather about toil and affliction. 162 Weder, Rede der Reden (1985), 215: “die Sorge entreißt mich dem Heute, wenn ich stets dem Morgen in Sorge zugewandt bin.” The theme is not that worries might accelerate the ageing process, but that time we have now escapes us.

532

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

4) Αὔριον µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς (v. 34b) as theological statement. The theological statement is: God has created both today and tomorrow. Therefore, neither today nor tomorrow is a time for worrying. God knows our needs both for today and tomorrow. God cares about the daily matters: food and clothing. Only atheists worry about these things. A consequence is to see the day as if it is our last and to live as if a great future will come. It means to see every day as καιρός not as χρόνος. Every day can be full of God-given moments. Today and tomorrow have basically the same conditions. The reasons might be uncertainty, unnecessary considerations, enjoying life or trust in God.

8.6 Interpretation of the Second Reason v. 34c (ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς) Many exegetes isolate this sentence and see it as a proverb from popular wisdom. It is, however, difficult to find exact parallels before Jesus/Matthew. We have seen that the parallels of Seneca, Plutarch and Epictetus do not say exactly the same, and the closest parallel to Matt 6,34c, b.Sanh. 100b, is much later. It is this sentence that gave rise to the optimism versus pessimism debate that we dealt with in the history of research, and the question that tends to dominate in the exegesis of this text. We have seen that a majority of scholars today tend to find pessimism in Matt 6,34 (T.W. Manson, J. Gnilka, U. Luz, et al.). But before 1920 the optimistic understanding dominated, and after 1980 its supporters have had again a strong voice. H.D. Betz thinks we have ‘extreme realism’ rather than pessimism in the text,163 and distances us to a degree from the two alternatives established by Luz: either optimism speaking “of the possibility of living fully in present”, or the more probable pessimistic interpretation: “all planning is futile”.164 But this is a false alternative. We see that scholars in fact combine the two positions.

163 164

H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 486. Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 346.

8.6 Interpretation of the Second Reason v. 34c

533

Bultmann did so in his Jesus book; from his Stoic reading of the text Bultmann emphasised that optimism and trust in God’s providence dominate in Matt 6,25–32.165 On the other hand, optimism goes – according to Bultmann – hand in hand with sayings from ‘resignierten Menschen’ and their worldview. He lists Matt 6,34b together with Matt 6,27; Mark 4,25; 8,36f.166

After the triumphant tone in Matt 6,33 there is seemingly a pessimistic dissonance in 6,34. As Schniewind and many scholars have shown, the combination of the two sayings is not arbitrary. Behind a pessimistic or optimistic attitude, we have found a variety of arguments. Pessimism can be based on man’s vicious nature, or on experiences in life and history, or on an understanding of ‘eschatology’ as crisis, etc. Or pessimism can mean resignation because we do not know what the future will bring, etc. ‘Optimism’ can in the same way be based on a variety of philosophical, psychological and theological arguments. 8.6.1 Linguistic Remarks on ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς (v. 34c) Matt 6,34c has two unusual constructions: the emphatic ἀρκετόν in the beginning and the subject ἡ κακία with the undefined αὐτῆς as the last word. 1) The meaning of ἡµέρα. The word in itself has a clear meaning: It means in Matthew mostly simply 24 hours, but sometimes has the notion of ‘timing’. It means timing in the sense of decisive moments in history.167 Luke uses ἡµέρα more often and more distinctly than Matthew. The dative τῇ ἡµέρᾳ as a dative of supplement is seldom used in the New Testament,168 but is easy for translators and exegetes to handle because of the distinct meaning of ἡµέρα. It can also be a dativus limitationis, without much change of meaning. Dial. Sav. 53a (NHC III,5) quotes this text in combination with other Jesus-sayings: “Mary said: ‘Thus with respect to “the wickedness of each day” and “the labourer is worthy of his food” and “the disciple resembles his teacher”.’ She uttered this as a woman who had understood this completely.”

Ἡµέρα is used in order to focus on the realistic challenge of today. Today is an important day, it is a combat-day against evil. 165 Bultmann, Jesus (1926/1964), 110–118 (“Vorsehungsglaube und Theodizee”); idem, GST, 324/HST, 328. His theological interpretation of the text is clearer in his sermons from 1916, in idem, Das verkündigte Wort: Predigten – Andachten – Ansprachen. 1906–1941, ed. Erich Grässer, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984 and idem, Marburger Predigten, Tübingen: Mohr 1956 = 21968. 166 Bultmann, Jesus (1926/1964), 116. 167 Matthew: 43 times (in the SM here and 7,22), Mark 28 and Luke 85 (the Septuagintlanguage, ἐν ταῖς ἡµέραις ταύταις/ἐν ταῖς ἡµέραις ἐκείναις, in 2,1; 4,2; 10,12 and 1,39; 6,12; 19,42; 24,18). Σήµερον in Matt 6,11.30 (plus five times), Mark 14,30 and Luke uses it programmatically in 2,11; 4,21; 19,5.9; 23,43 (plus eight times). 168 BDR, 187.4, cf. the use of dative in Matt 10,25. The dative often follows verbs like ἀρέσκειν.

534

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

2) The meaning of ἀρκετός. The sentence lacks a verb, and ἐστιν is no doubt the most likely addition.169 The neuter singular ἀρκετόν is, as an impersonal expression, a rare construction. It is used because the subject is an abstract,170 and the verbal adjective carries an active sense. The neuter gives it a general meaning: ‘Today’ means every day. At the beginning of the sentence, ἀρκετός has an emphatic function: ‘sufficient is …’ or ‘enough is …’. What we get, is sufficient – or perhaps too much.

The translations differ therefore markedly, particularly because of the double meaning of ἀρκετόν (‘sufficient’ or ‘enough’),171 and κακία has an even broader variety of meanings (evil, trouble, malice).172 The choice of the translation shows that those who prefer ‘sufficient’ as a translation of ἀρκετόν tend to prefer ‘evil’ as the translation of κακία. Similarly, those who translate ἀρκετόν with ‘enough’ tend to prefer ‘trouble’ as the translation of κακία. 3) The meaning of κακία: evil or trouble? Κακία is used only here in the SM, and the question is why does the SM not use πονηρός, which is otherwise used as much as nine times in the SM?173 Κακία normally means something more than ‘trouble’, and rather ‘evil’, ‘wickedness’, ‘misfortune’, but the understanding of κακία as ‘evil’ is disputed. The translations vary: ‘evil’ is often rejected as a translation, and ‘trouble’, ‘plague’, ‘malice/misfortune’, ‘wickedness’, etc. are preferred.174 The transition from the meaning of ‘evil’ to ‘trouble’/‘calamity’ is often undramatic. Pseudo-Phocylides has both aspects, and this popular text among Jews and Christians formulates a general reflection without reference to the Jewish Scriptures: “Do not let evils dismay you nor therefore exult in success. Many times, incredible calamity has come suddenly to the confident, and release from evil to the vexed. Accommodate yourself to the circumstances, do not blow against the wind.”175 4) The meaning of (ἡ κακία) αὐτῆς. Ἡ κακία αὐτῆς as an expression is wellknown from the Septuagint – and is mostly translated ‘its wickedness’.176 The

169

The same construction in Matt 10,25 (ἀρκετὸν τῷ µαθητῇ) and 1 Pet 4,3 (ἀρκετὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος), and the New Testament has only these three occurrences. Cf. Matt 25,9 (µὴ ἀρκέσῃ). 170 BDR, 131.2; 127.2. 171 The translation ‘sufficient’ in NET, NIV, WEB, Darby and ‘enough’ in New ASB. 172 ‘Evil’ (ASV, KJV, WEB), ‘trouble’ (NET, NIV, NRSV, New ASB) or ‘malice’ (Wycliffe). 173 Ὁ/τὸ πονηρός/ν is used in Matt 5,11.37.39.45; 6,13.23; 7,11.17f (Luke 6,22.35.45). Paul uses the words in the same context (Rom 1,29; 1 Cor 5,8). 174 Ps 91,6 has sharper formulations: ἀπὸ συµπτώµατος καὶ δαιµονίου (LXX Ps 90,6). 175 Ps.-Phocylides 118–121. 176 The Septuagint has κακία αὐτῆς in Jer 6,7; Jon 1,2. Also: κακίας αὐτοῦ (Jer 8,6; Prov 14,32; 2 Sam 3,39; 1 Kgs 13,33; Sir 14,6.7; Eccl 5,12; 7,15; Wis 16,14; 1 Macc 7,42;

8.6 Interpretation of the Second Reason v. 34c

535

genitive can denote the origin, or is it a partitive genitive = not all, but some? Why should we add to ‘today’ further trouble, evil? The genitive pronoun αὐτῆς has, contrary to ἑαυτῆς, a better textual foundation, and like ἑαυτῆς it gives occasion to different translations: ‘thereof’ (ASV, KJV), ‘its own’ (NET, NIV), ‘his own’ (Wycliffe), or ‘on its own’ (New ASB). The genitive, ‘its evil/trouble’, gives hardly a total but rather a partial description. The incongruence between (δικαιοσύνη) αὐτοῦ in 6,33 and (κακία) αὐτῆς in 6,34, is illuminating. A correspondence would demand δικαιοσύνη αὐτῆς or κακία αὐτοῦ. The latter option is impossible here, but it is important to see that δικαιοσύνη αὐτῆς is not used. Κακία has a power in itself, which δικαιοσύνη does not have. Αὐτοῦ in the expression δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ refers to God (respectively God’s Kingdom, βασιλεία θεοῦ).

8.6.2 Not Superficial Optimism, not Pessimism and Resignation in v. 34 The tension between trust in God and the reality of evil can be found in many Hellenistic texts. Seneca reflects on the terrors of death. Life and death are the basis for his reflections: “No evil is great which is the last evil of all (Latin: nullum malum est magnum, quod extremum est).”177 Seneca – and Horace – never combine closely the two phrases ‘carpe diem’ and ‘memento mori’ = “Remember that you are mortal, so seize the day”. Pseudo-Plutarch says in his letter of consolation to Apollonius: “Observe too the painfulness of life, and the exhaustion caused by many cares (ταῖς λύπαις)”,178 and Epictetus also here comes closer to Matt 6,25–34. In his reflection on what is the matter that should concern a philosopher, he argues: danger, death, prison, pain, exile, should not cause him trembling – for one basic reason: ἀρκεῖ ἐµοὶ τὰ ἐµὰ κακά.179 Superficial optimism occurs in Isa 56,12 (“Let us drink our fill of beer! And tomorrow will be like today, or even far better”) and Ps 34,12: “Whoever of you loves life and desires to see many good days” (= LXX 33,13: τίς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ὁ θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπῶν ἡµέρας ἰδεῖν ἀγαθάς) is a common attitude. The Psalm continues, however, with an admonition against evil power (παῦσον τὴν γλῶσσάν σου ἀπὸ κακοῦ). Hellenistic texts often have a more optimistic view: “Do not think too much about the day tomorrow; then you will meet what comes more open and

4 Macc 2,12); κακία αὐτῶν (Hos 7,2.3; 9,15; Jer 1,16; 15,7) and (διὰ) τὰς κακίας αὐτῶν (Jer 28,24; Lam 1,22; Wis 2,21; 12,10). 177 Seneca, Ep. 4,3. He adds: “Death arrives” (mors ad te venit). 178 Ps.-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 11 (Mor. 107A–B). 179 Epictetus, Diss. II,19,18f.

536

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

joyful.” Cicero deals with the theme in one of his treatises about the happy life.180 Matt 6,34 presupposes an optimistic view: God has also created the day tomorrow – and the Kingdom will come – so look forward to it. J. Schniewind saw correctly that the pessimistic and fatalistic tone in the saying, drastically changes the perspective through Matt 6,33.181 We can establish philosophical and psychological arguments for thinking in terms of a brighter future. The theological argument in Matt 6,33 has a broad and consistent basis in Jesus’ teaching. The present must be given meaning. To fill the present with meaning is not only to bid farewell to the threats in the past. It is also to disconnect from the future in order to make the present meaningful; today gives the opportunity to defeat evil, to prioritise more cleverly, to do good and not wait for the good to come. 8.6.3 Beyond Optimism and Pessimism: Matt 6,34 as Realism and Openness Since Jerome182 and John Chrysostom exegetes have reduced κακία to affliction, trouble and calamities (ταλαιπωρία καὶ πόνος καὶ σύµφορα).183 As ‘reductionism’ this is both linguistically and theologically disputable. If the point is to say something about realism in life, Jerome and Chrysostom are pointing in the right direction. If we say κακία means ‘trouble’ etc., we must object: Why are more appropriate terms not used, like θλῖψις (or στενοχωρία, συνοχή, etc.)? The notion of κακία is based on Gen 3,17ff. Evil is a power everyone has to resist (cf. Matt 6,13: ῥῦσαι ἡµᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ). Evil will also happen in the future, and we cannot conquer it. Today we can attack evil. We can worry about today, and primarily about the evil of today.

‘Evil’ is primarily wickedness (Latin: malitia), and it has more the tone of Eph 5,15f: “Be very careful … making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil (ἐξαγοραζόµενοι τὸν καιρόν, ὅτι αἱ ἡµέραι πονηραί

180

Cicero, Tusc. V; X–XII on happiness, esp. X,29 on evil versus happiness and X,33 the attitude: “I live from day to day”. Cf. Epictetus, Diss. I,9,19: “As soon as you fed your fill to-day, you sit lamenting about the morrow …” 181 Schniewind, Matthäus (61953), 95f. 182 Jerome, Commentary on Matthew (above, n. 113), 92: ‘evil’ is “not the opposite of virtue, but toil, and affliction and anguish of the world”. 183 John Chrysostom was reluctant to translate the term as ‘evil’, meaning the evil of Satan. He attributed to κακία rather the meaning of trouble or difficulty. Chrysostom, Hom. XXII,5, cf. Klostermann, Matthäus (1927), 64, supported by Betz, Sermon (1995), 486, n. 488, and Nolland, Matthew (2005), 198.

8.7 Matt 6,34 in Its Literary Context

537

εἰσιν).”184 It is a realistic assessment: there is no assurance that life will be unproblematic. For the understanding of this sentence it is important to see that evil is the subject of the sentence. It is a realistic premise, and evil occurs in a certain measure; its evil is sufficient for today (τῇ ἡµέρᾳ).185 Evil is a destructive power, and should not dominate life. Evil is a daily task, and this ‘evil’ should be faced. To add to the evil of today by worrying about the future, makes no sense. The text says: one should not be worried – in spite of evil. Evil is a force and it exists as the counterforce to God. The phrases (ζητεῖτε) τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ, versus ἡ κακία αὐτῆς indicate that God and evil are opposites. In the name of God, we can handle what is evil and concentrate on doing the will of God. The righteousness from God prevails over the evil coming from man. To sum up: The history of research has shown that an optimistic and a pessimistic understanding have been lively debated. Which interpretation is the best, or is none of them really sufficient? In this philosophy of life realistic assessment is the necessary starting-point. Afflictions and evil forces are part of life. They have, however, no future. The context of Matt 6,34 in 6,33 and 7,1 gives reason for defiant hope.

8.7 Matt 6,34 in Its Literary Context Parallels occur in various contexts. The literary context of Matt 6,34 must be analysed in more detail. The immediate context is the most important for the understanding of the saying. 8.7.1 Matt 6,34 and the Context with 6,19ff and the Lord’s Prayer (6,11.13) A context is normally the nearest context. It is of course possible to establish more distant contexts and Matt 6,19–24 must also be considered as a possible context. Matt 6,24 can be perceived as the key to Matt 6,25–34,186 and 6,19– 21 is about concern for treasures on earth. Matt 6,25–32 says: concern about 184 Βλέπετε οὖν ἀκριβῶς (“Be very careful”), and he continues: “then, how you live – not as unwise but as wise” (πῶς περιπατεῖτε µὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι ἀλλ᾿ ὡς σοφοί). 185 Bornhäuser, Bergpredigt (21927), 159, rejected the translation ‘plague’. It always denotes “menschliche Bosheit”. He understood Matt 6,34 in the following way: “ihr sollt euch nicht in saurer Arbeit um euer Brot mühen müssen”. 186 Heinrici, Bergpredigt II (1905), 73–80; Harald Riesenfeld, “Vom Schätzesammeln und Sorgen – ein Thema urchristlicher Paränese”, in Willem Cornelis van Unnik (ed.), Neotestamentica et Patristica. FS O. Cullmann (NovTSup 6), Leiden: Brill 1962, 47–58, esp. 48–50.

538

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

food and clothing should be unnecessary in light of God’s concern for even the grass on the fields and the birds in the air. Both texts can be read as texts against luxury.187 The context in Luke 12,15–21 has this theme, and Luke 12,21 is a similar key word as Matt 6,24; it is about “storing up things for yourself and not being rich towards God”. Two crucial texts, the Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer, can be a distant context for Matt 6,25–34. Two verses in the Lord’s Prayer are particularly reflected in Matt 6,25–34: first, the prayer “give us today our daily bread” (Matt 6,11). The riddle is the rare word ἐπιούσιος, to which Matthew adds σήµερον (‘today’) and Luke τὸ καθ᾿ ἡµέραν (‘day by day’). Both sayings are based on the conviction that trust in God also has relevance for shortage of food. However, ἐπιούσιος is a riddle and one riddle cannot easily solve another riddle. If a strong link should be intended, Luke’s text would fit better with Matt 6,34.188

Second, the last prayer (µὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡµᾶς εἰς πειρασµόν, both in Matthew and Luke), in Matthew has the addition ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡµᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ (Matt 6,13). This reminds us of Matt 6,34c (ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς), but the change from πονηρός to κακία indicates that, while the link is strong, Matt 6,34 is still hardly an interpretation of Matt 6,13. 8.7.2 Matt 6,34 and the Tranquility of Mind in Matt 6,25–33 Matt 6,34 (µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε) has the same structure as 6,25 (µὴ µεριµνᾶτε) and 6,31 (µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε). The third admonition broadens the perspective in Matt 6,25–33. The new aspect is time, and this time-reference (the today versus tomorrow aspect) echoes 6,30 (εἰ δὲ τὸν χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ σήµερον ὄντα καὶ αὔριον εἰς κλίβανον βαλλόµενον …). Therefore Matt 6,34 brings the argument to an end, but it can also be seen as an addition. It is an extra warning. The three examples argue similarly and are progressively shorter, with 6,34 as the final succinct statement. It is unlikely that the excellent author Matthew randomly adds a popular circulating saying. Matt 6,34 is rather the peak of the argumentation in 6,25–34. Matt 6,25–33 is obviously important for the understanding of Matt 6,34 but is Matt 6,34 important for the understanding of Matt 6,25–33?

187

Cf. Ps 62,10; Job 27,16f. Kitab az-zuhd, 146 (Khalidi, The Muslim Jesus [above, p. 27, n. 86], p. 73): “Do not seek what sustenance tomorrow may bring, but let each day’s sustenance suffice and tomorrow will bring its own concerns. Pray God to bring you sustenance day by day” (= Matt 6,10). 188

539

8.7 Matt 6,34 in Its Literary Context

The differences between 6,25–33 and 6,34 must be observed: Matt 6,25–33 actual situation concrete thing (body and food and clothes) reason: God cares knows what it means react

Matt 6,34 possible situation abstract matters (tomorrow, future) reason: tomorrow cares does not know what is coming act

More important, however, is the similar argumentation. It is based on the conviction of God, the creator and life-giver. The purpose is to exhort to serenity, tranquility, mindfulness, peace. Matt 6,25–34 does not offer a new law. It provides a prohibition (do not worry!) and demonstrates the difference between anxiety (to be apprehensive, to fear, to be concerned, etc.), and care (to attend to, to care for, to be concerned – for something or somebody).189 This is an important theme in Stoic literature in general and in Hellenistic books on tranquility of mind by Seneca, Epictetus and Plutarch, et al. in particular. H.D. Betz has correctly argued in favour of this philosophical setting for Matt 6,25–34.190 Dio Chrysostom makes nearly the same points as Matt 6,24 and 6,25ff in his text “On Servants”. He refers to Diogenes’ dialogue with his disciples: “Consider the beasts yonder and the birds, how much freer from trouble they live than men, and how much more happily also, how much healthier and stronger they are … although they have neither hands nor human intelligence. And yet, to counterbalance these and their other limitations, they have one great blessing – they own no property.”191 This conclusion comes after a warning against worrying: “Are you going to secure first, not that other thing, which will enable you to derive profit from everything … but in preference to wisdom are you going to seek riches or lands …? You will become a slave under them … and will spend all your life worrying over them without getting any benefit whatsoever from them.”

Seneca refers to Democritus’ On Cheerfulness and uses the Latin word tranquillitas as a translation of (περὶ) εὐθυµία(ς). His dialogue with his friend Serenus in De tranquillitate animi (from the 50s CE) had a clear purpose: to cure Serenus of anxiety, worry and disgust with life.

189

Cf. Seneca’s expression in Ep. 3,1: omnes curas, omnes cogitationes. H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 459ff; idem, “Cosmology and Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount”, in idem, Essays (1985), 89–124; and particularly in his introduction to Plutarch’s De tranquillitate animi (Mor. 464E–477F), in idem (ed.), Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 4), Leiden: Brill 1978, 198–207. 191 Dio Chrysostom, Or. 10,16 and 10,15. Neuer Wettstein I/I.2, (1) 651, adds here also Philonic texts (Somn. I,97; Praem. 101–105). 190

540

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

Epictetus asked once: “Does a good man fear that food will fail him?”192 His answer in Ench. 12 is clear: “If you want to make progress, dismiss consideration of this type: ‘If I neglect my affairs, I will have nothing to live on’ … For it is better to starve to death after a life without grief and fear, than to live in wealth in a state of mental disturbance.”193 Inner tranquility has to be reached. Epictetus blamed his disciples for similar reasons as Matt 6,25ff (“you never desire stability, serenity, peace of mind”) using similar terms (ἀταραξία, ἀπάθεια).194 Matt 6,25–34 gives the same type of answer. The three headlines (6,25.31.34), 6,33 plus the four parables show positively the pattern of thought and the Christian form of tranquility. New arguments are spelled out: worrying in order to make oneself secure can never lead to happiness. We have to change the mindset that everything has to rely on us. It is about God and his Kingdom. 8.7.3 Matt 6,34 after the Climax in Matt 6,33: About the Future of the Kingdom Οὖν in 6,34 indicates certain connections between Matt 6,33 and 6,34, even when it points primarily to the following saying. Even if Matt 6,34 ‘originally’ was an isolated logion, they are linked together in the SM. So, what is the relation between them? Linguistically there are few links, and many exegetes think they represent two different patterns of thoughts: it is theology versus philosophy, eschatology versus daily life, Jesus-saying versus popular wisdom, optimism versus pessimism, etc. The two texts are indeed different: Matt 6,33 ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑµῖν.

Matt 6,34 µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον. ἡ γὰρ αὔριον µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς· ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς.

192 Epictetus, Diss. III,26,33, blames the students for being blind if they do not see that even the blind, lame, etc. get food; how much more a good man? Diss. III,26,28: “God is concerned about these things (ὁ θεὸς ἀµελεῖ).” He adds thoughtfully in 26,30: “God does not give me much, no abundance, nor does he want me to live luxuriously.” In Diss. I,16 Epictetus has a similar argument (on providence, πρόνοια). 193 Also in Diss. I,9,6ff about the consequence of being children of God, he asks: “Does it take away grief and fear?” 194 Epictetus, Diss. III,26,13. He starts 11ff with reflections about worrying about different things, e.g. that slaves run away. “Did you really, while studying philosophy, acquire the habit of looking to other persons? … Very well then, lament and groan, and eat in fear of not having food tomorrow. Live in this spirit and never cease to live so, you, who in name only have approached philosophy, and, as far as in you lay, have discredited its principles by showing them to be useless and good for nothing to those who receive them …”

8.7 Matt 6,34 in Its Literary Context

541

The Kingdom perspective is not elaborated in Matt 6,34, but the tomorrow (ἡ αὔριον) is not only about the next day. The saying in 6,34 has no eschatological tone,195 and no eschatological reason is given. However, the αὔριον opens up to the future, and this link might be very important for the interpretation. Matt 6,34 does not have the aspect of justice from 6,33, only the opposite, the momentum of evil (ἡ κακία). This opposition of justice versus evil can, however, be important for the interpretation. J. Schniewind sees 6,33 as the turning-point that transforms the pessimistic saying into a saying about trust in God. The ‘optimism’ in 6,33 puts the proverbial saying in 6,34 in a new light.196 Luz argues from the opposite perspective: Matt 6,34 “shows how in early Christianity the hope for the kingdom of God did not completely determine life; eschatological hope and pessimistic realism could coexist”.197 The two sayings belong to the same theological-philosophical argument: evil and righteousness coexist. The Kingdom of God does not eradicate evil, or trouble or affliction and calamities. The word about not worrying in Matt 10,19 is spoken in the context of suffering and persecution. Jesus’ message does not in the first place provide health, wealth and prosperity. The Kingdom of God is not temporal, it is eternal and eternity gives daily life a new perspective. The model is rather the humiliated Jesus (Matt 8,20). First (πρῶτον) and in addition (πρός). Πρῶτον is not about time, but about quality and priority: the Kingdom of God is a heavenly reality. Our concern for the Kingdom of God must always come first (πρῶτον).198 The basic needs in life of food/clothing are in this perspective secondary. To the first things something can be added, and the aspect of προστίθηµι (6,33; Luke 12,31) is exactly that.199 Πρός does not necessarily denote ‘supplementary’, but rather provisional gifts, preparing for something greater.200 We come close to the Pauline thesis: “the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking (βρῶσις καὶ πόσις), but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις ἀλλὰ 195 C.G. Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels II (1927), 542, overstates the ‘Naherwartung’ in Matt 6,34. 196 Schniewind, Matthäus (61953), 95f. 197 Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 346. 198 Πρῶτον, cf. Matt 5,24; 7,5. H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 482, n. 464, compares the use of πρῶτον in philosophical contexts. 199 Matt 6,27; Luke 12,25. The verb has a variety of meanings, due to the openness of ‘add’, ‘addition’. Luke in particular uses the term in a variety of meanings: Luke 3,20 (add evil); 17,5 (increase); 19,11; 20,11f (continue); Acts 2,41.47; 5,14; 11,24 (adding numbers); 12,3 (proceed); 13,36 (succeed). Elsewhere it is used only in Mark 4,24 (ἐν ᾧ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε µετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν καὶ προστεθήσεται ὑµῖν); Gal 3,19 (add transgressions); Heb 12,19 (further). 200 The more-than argument dominates in the text, both in the parables (perhaps except for 6,27) and in the frame. (Matt 6,32 compares τὰ ἔθνη and ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν.)

542

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

δικαιοσύνη καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ χαρὰ ἐν πνεύµατι ἁγίω, Rom 14,17). The conviction of God as patron explains both Matt 6,33 and 6,34. God takes care of every need, we don’t need to be anxious if we seek the Kingdom of God. Courage and not worrying should come ‘in addition’, because the Kingdom of God brings righteousness and transcends fear and worry and gives hope. To belong to the Kingdom minimises other concerns. The theme in Matt 6,34 is about worrying and tranquility of mind, and not about carpe diem in the sense of enjoying life. Tranquility is added to doing justice in 6,33. Matt 6,34 underlines that tranquility is possible in spite of the fact of evil. One can, contrary to many interpreters, argue that Matt 6,34 is formed in order to match the saying in Matt 6,33. Evil exists but is surpassed by righteousness, because the Kingdom prevails and overcomes evil. It is a heavenly invasion, as the meteorological term in Luke, µετεωρίζοµαι, indicates.201 Those who seek the Kingdom do not need to worry for the coming day(s).202 Matt 6,34 ends the section 6,19–34. Tranquility in life reaches those who are storing up treasures in heaven (6,19f), for where your treasure is, there your heart will be (6,21). Tranquility in life reaches those who serve God and not Mammon (6,24). 8.7.4 Matt 6,34 and the Context with 7,1(–12) Every reader is puzzled by the transition between 6,34 and 7,1: has worrying about tomorrow anything to do with judging? Matt 6,19–34 deals with the God-man relationship. Matt 7,1–12 (7,1f.3–5.6.12) speaks about interpersonal relationships. Matt 6,34 and 7,1 obviously have different perspectives, and a bridge between them is simply lacking. Matthew and Luke place the saying µὴ κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ µὴ κριθῆτε in two different contexts, but both have the saying in a theological context. Luke makes theological statements both before (6,36: γίνεσθε οἰκτίρµονες καθὼς ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν οἰκτίρµων ἐστίν) and after (6,37c–38: ἀπολύετε, καὶ ἀπολυθήσεσθε· δίδοτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑµῖν) this statement. The parable in Luke 6,42–43 does not have the same order as Matt 7,3–5. Luke places it between the student-master saying and the parable about trees and fruit. Matt 7,3–5 illustrates the saying in Matt 7,1f.

Both Matt 6,34 and 7,1 are meshalim, and Matthew reorganised the two meshalim consciously and gave them a similar form:

201 The metaphorical verb denotes something high up coming down to the earth like a meteor. 202 Konradt, Evangelium nach Matthäus (2015), 116, links Matt 6,33 and 6,34. H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 486, does the same.

543

8.8 Summary Matt 6,34 µὴ οὖν µεριµνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον, ἡ γὰρ αὔριον µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς· ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς.

Matt 7,1 µὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα µὴ κριθῆτε. ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίµατι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε µετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν.

Besides the form, there are certain features that bring the two sayings closer together: – Both texts have the future-dimension. – 6,34 mentions the role of evil explicitly and 7,1 presupposes its role. 7,1 does not want to support an exaggerated form of tolerance but wants to rather reflect on the role of ‘evil’. 6,34 says that evil is a great challenge, and 7,1 exhorts men to defeat evil. – 6,34 acquires a deeper meaning through 7,1, the judgment-dimension. – The future form µεριµνήσει has the meaning of active concern, thoughtfulness, the opposite of judging and condemnation. The section in Matt 7,1–5(12) introduces new themes and new perspectives. The new topic in Matt 7,1f can function in different contexts as we see in Luke 6,36–38. Both Matthew and Luke intend to connect Matt 7,1f with the context through style and content. Judging demonstrates the power of evil, and judging/evil has to be conquered every day. Matt 6,34 also has links to Matt 7,9–11. The confidence that God will provide what the children of God need, is strong. Even evil persons (ὑµεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες) give to their children what they need, how much more will God provide good (πόσῳ µᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὑµῶν …). To sum up: If the saying Matt 6,34 is a popular or philosophical maxim, it represents a somewhat strange addition to the theological argumentation in Matt 6,25–33. We have seen that the two philosophical sayings are in accordance with the theological argumentation in Matt 6,25–33. The immediate context of Matt 6,34 in 6,33 and 7,1 has an eschatological character. Matt 6,34 cannot be given an eschatological interpretation but this wisdom-saying, the philosophy of life, corresponds perfectly with the kind of eschatology in 6,33 and 7,1f.

8.8 Summary The exegesis of Matt 6,34 has to face many challenges. The elliptic character, polysemic terms and open grammatical structures make the saying a riddle. Pointers for a solution are given, the rhetoric, the context and the parallels make a consistent interpretation possible. Concerning form, the verse is two meshalim (‫ )משלים‬with two different reasons for the admonition against worrying. The ‘maxims’ (‘wisdomsentences’, ‘prudence-saying’, German: ‘Klugheitsregel’) sound like a philo-

544

§ 8 The Philosophical Theology of Matt 6,34

sophical maxim and want to guide people to think wisely, to have a better philosophy of life. The philosophical arguments in Matt 6,34 offer two patterns of thought: do not fear (µὴ µεριµνήσητε)

have concern for important matters (µεριµνήσει)

focus on ἡ αὔριον realism: µεριµνήσει ἑαυτῆς purpose: comfort goal: tranquility of mind

focus on ἡ ἡµέρᾳ realism: ἀρκετὸν ἡ κακία αὐτῆς purpose: combat evil goal: possibility-thinking

Matt 6,34 is a unique saying. Some parallels may sound similar, but the intention is different. Sayings about the struggle for tranquillitas animi and sayings about today as a decisive day come closest. An interpretation of ‘carpe diem’ based on determinism, fatalism or hedonism, etc. is far from Matt 6,34. Not only because eschatology and theology provide the basis for the saying. There is positive exhortation behind the admonition against useless anxieties about the future, and more positively: give room for joy, be confident, have hope, be calm. Happiness, ethical conduct and tranquility of mind must be achieved. In Matt 6,34 Jesus admonishes and does not exhort. In this case it would be an exhortation to laziness, indolence and fanatic behaviour. The challenges in life must be faced: uncertainty, deterministic factors, evil, etc. The strategies for confronting the challenges are not hedonism, but realism (uncertainty unavoidable, evil will occur), tranquility of mind and trust in God. Μεριµνᾶν has a double meaning: anxiety (apprehensiveness, fear, concern) and care (attention to, care for, concern about). The two phenomena are intertwined in practical life. It is stupid to fear, to admire rich people, to long for what is impossible to reach. To seek knowledge and the Kingdom of God must be the first thing. Then you can seek other things, but it leads to endless worrying if we replace God with other gods (or money, sex, work/vacations, honour, etc.). In life there are always uncertainties, the feeling of ‘not yet’, dreams and longing for something else. Jesus exhorts people in Matt 6,33 to seek the right things: the Kingdom of God and his righteousness. Matt 6,34 is not ordinary and popular wisdom. It is a profound theological and philosophical statement. The contemporary Hellenistic and – somewhat later Jewish – parallels have another agenda. Only on the periphery do they teach ‘carpe diem’. Jesus’ eschatological teaching was peculiar, and Jesus was at the same time special as a wisdom-teacher. Matt 6,34 is a wisdom-sentence based on the eschatological theology in Matt 6,33. The isolated, philosophical saying in 6,34 is deep and powerful. Together with the saying in Matt 6,33 it is dynamite.

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research: Pebbles in a Road that Can Topple a Big Load The purpose of this concluding paragraph is to take a fresh look at some fundamental issues in parable-research. Matt 5,23f might appear as an odd example. An analysis of the parable of the sower or other key-parables might have been better. Matt 5,23f is seemingly a peculiar case or a ‘peripheral’ parable. However, can Matt 5,23f perhaps illustrate some dilemmas in parable-research better than many other parables?

9.1 Matt 5,23 and Myths about Research History In the vast literature on the SM, the parables have in general been neglected in scholarship.1 The very first narrative parable in the SM, Matt 5,23f, is extremely neglected. 9.1.1 Matt 5,23f in Recent Research We have very few scholarly contributions to Matt 5,23f,2 and commentaries on Matthew mostly present merely a brief analysis of the parable. The handbooks and broader studies on the parables simply overlook this text. There is no interpretation of it in the two-volume ground-breaking work on Jesus’ parables by Adolf Jülicher (1886/1899),3 nor in the comprehensive studies by Ruben Zimmermann or Klyne Snodgrass a hundred years later (2007/2008).4 Matt 1 Documented in Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 3–26, esp. 5–8. In the handbooks on the parables, Matt 7,9–11 and particularly 7,24–27 are analysed. Scholars have also recently analysed Matt 5,25f, due to its complicated socio-historical material, esp. Jörg Frey, “The Character and Background of Matt 5,25–26”, in H.-J. Becker/Ruzer (eds.), The Sermon on the Mount in its Jewish Setting (2005), 5–39. 2 Quite extensive Jeremias, “‘Laß allda deine Gabe’ (Mt 5,23f.)” (1937). Briefly in H. Klein, Bewährung im Glauben (1996), 142–146, and Stuhlmacher, “Leben unter der Vergebung” (2003), esp. 161f. For an extensive interpretation, Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 162–180. This exegesis will not be repeated here. 3 Jülicher, Gleichnisreden I–II (21910/1976). 4 Snodgrass, Stories with Intent (2008); Zimmermann (ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (2007); idem (ed.), Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu (2008).

546

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

5,23f is not dealt with in the narrative,5 or in the socio-historical approach.6 Even Jewish scholars (David Flusser, et al.)7 and scholars who emphasise the Jewish character of the parables,8 are puzzled by Matt 5,23f. Only Paul Fiebig, who found ‘Hebrew style’ in Matt 5,23f and many Jewish-rabbinic parallel texts showed some interest to the parable.9 Joachim Jeremias followed up Fiebig and analysed many details in the text in 1937, but in his monograph on the parables of Jesus he deals only peripherally with Matt 5,23f.10 The neglect is hardly coincidental. The outdated allegorical-dogmatic interpretation, which Jülicher successfully criticised, had problems with the text. The parable about (Jewish) offerings could not be used as an allegory for Jesus’ sacrificial death. This neglect in earlier exegesis made it easier for Jülicher to neglect it, which is however somewhat strange. Jülicher’s didactic one-point interpretation could easily be applied to Matt 5,23f, because ‘forgiveness’ is obviously the point. Or did Jülicher have other reasons for overlooking the very first parable in Matthew? Perhaps he realised that Matt 5,23f is extremely problematic for his theories. It contradicts many of them. This one-point approach made it easy to interpret Matt 5,23f in the framework of commentaries. It is simply treated as a story (German: ‘Erzählung’) that illustrates Matt 5,22 or better illustrates the opposite attitude, one of forgiveness and reconciliation. Its character as parable has so far never been discussed. If the parable had been included in the comprehensive studies by e.g. Zimmermann and Snodgrass (2007/2008), their criticisms of the weak points in Jülicher’s method would have been clear. 5 ‘Narrative approach’ is more than just observing the artistry of the parables, which Jülicher and Bultmann also did. Inspired by Ernst Fuchs and others, Eberhard Jüngel, Hans Weder, et al., developed an existentialist understanding, focusing on the metaphors and the ‘language-event’. Dan O. Via, Robert Funk, Peter Rhea Jones, John Dominic Crossan, et al., saw the parables as artistic products with certain narrative agendas. 6 The ‘socio-historical approach’ can be grounded in Marxism, or be an analysis of socio-historical realities in a conflict perspective (Luise Schrottroff) or in the background of the Mediterranean mind-set and culture (Kenneth Bailey), or be a form of socioanthropological approach (e.g. Bruce J. Malina). 7 Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse (1981). 8 Peter Dschulnigg, Rabbinische Gleichnisse und das Neue Testament: Die Gleichnisse der PesK im Vergleich mit den Gleichnissen Jesu und dem Neuen Testament (Judaica et Christiana 12), Bern: Peter Lang 1988; B.H. Young, Jesus and the Jewish Parables (1989); idem, The Parables (1998). In The Parables (1998), 124f, Young sees the text in light of m.Yoma 9,9 and concludes: forgiveness and reconciliation should precede prayer and worship. Cf. Bill. I, 282–288. 9 Even P. Fiebig overlooked the text in his Gleichnisreden Jesu (1912). However, in his book Erzählungsstil (1925), 3f, and in “Sinn der Bergpredigt” (1929/30), 499–501, he starts with this text. 10 In Gleichnisse Jesu (1947/81970), 39, Jeremias saw it as a very late parable on reconciliation, and in “‘Laß allda deine Gabe’” (1937/1966), 107, as a treatise on what a sacrifice is all about. Crucial for Jeremias was that Matt 5,23ff has no eschatological message.

9.1 Matt 5,23 and Myths about Research History

547

9.1.2 Matt 5,23f and Methodology in Parable Research The neglect of Matt 5,23f in Jülicher’s work was rooted in his basic principles, based on four (or better six?) guidelines: (a) Classification: (i) He operates with three categories: similitude (‘Gleichnis’) ‒ parable – example-story. (ii) Simile and metaphor are the basic elements, extended in similitudes and parables. (b) Imagery and point: (i) Imagery and “point” (‘Sache’) must be clearly separated. The imagery is neutral and has no intended language. (ii) There is only one ‘tertium comparationis’. If more than one can be found, the parable comes nearer to ‘allegory’. The details in the imagery have basically no significance. (c) Function of parables: The similitudes and parables want to argue, prove, persuade. The point is an idea (‘truth’). (d) Imagery and frame: The imagery and the frame must be clearly separated. The frame has secondary character. Sometimes the frame hits the point, but more often the frames are misleading. The four (six) principles are mutually dependent on each other, and for Jülicher none of them is negotiable. Some scholars still want to defend ‒ either entirely or largely – Jülicher’s approach after more than 100 years.11 However, parable-research has challenged many and perhaps all of them. From the very beginning, the criticism was more than audible,12 but critical perspectives have been more common since the 1980s. Inspired by the new wave of literary criticism, US scholars took a leading position and criticised parts of Jülicher’s principles.13 In Germany P. Fiebig’s criticism of Jülicher was ignored, largely because of the strong influence from Bultmann, who defended Jülicher’s position. The criticism of Jülicher’s methodology was launched by students of Ernst Fuchs, followed by exegetes who were interested in social-history (L. Schottroff/G. Theißen),14 and extensive criticism came with Ruben Zimmermann and others.15 11 Ulrich Mell, “Die neutestamentliche Gleichnisforschung 100 Jahre nach Adolf Jülicher. I/II”, TRu 76/1 (2011), 37–81; 78/4 (2013), 431–461, and idem (ed.), Die Gleichnisreden Jesu 1899–1999: Beiträge zum Dialog mit Adolf Jülicher (BZNW 103), Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1999. 12 The first wave of criticism by C.A. Bugge and P. Fiebig was extremely clear. The uneasiness with Jülicher was expressed in Scandinavia by I.K. Madsen, H. Riesenfeld, et al., in Germany by E. Lohmeyer, et al., in the UK by T.W. Manson, C.H. Dodd, et al. 13 D.O. Via, R. Funk, J.D. Crossan, M.A. Tolbert, B.B. Scott, J.W. Sider, W.R. Herzog II, C.W. Hedrick. 14 Harnisch (and Weder) was inspired by Jüngel and Fuchs. Schottroff and Theißen came from a socio-historical approach. Contributions by Gerhard Sellin and Christoph Kähler will also be mentioned. 15 Ruben Zimmermann, in a number of publications since 2007, has taken the position as the leading scholar in parable-research. The group of young scholars around him in

548

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

The question is now: Do we see scattered criticism and minor corrections of Jülicher, or rather something like a new consensus in parable-research?16 We will use Matt 5,23ff to test out to what extent a new consensus is within reach. 9.1.3 Some Myths about the History of Research The history of ‘parable-research since Jülicher’ has often been told, but it is recently in the process of being rewritten. One should investigate a number of myths about parable-research. In this paragraph one of the most influential myths will be criticized, the myth about a ‘before and after Jülicher’. This is correct when it comes to interpretation of the parables in light of Christian dogma: allegorical interpretation has no place in scholarly works. However, in general it is misleading to talk about ‘before and after Jülicher’. It is indeed remarkable that Jülicher’s famous book on parables (the first part originally published in 1886) became a milestone. The first reception of the book did not see it as a turning-point in parable-research. Jülicher himself had hardly expected that it would become the model for parable-research for 100 years. He wrote the first volume (on the principles) as a 29-year-old clergyman at an institution for social work (Waisenhaus) in Berlin. The book procured him only the title of “Lic. theol.”. One could compare Jülicher’s book with C.F.G. Heinrici’s excellent article on parables in 1899 in RE3,17 the same year Jülicher completed his second volume. Due to his wider contact with the rhetorical tradition, Heinrici had serious objections to Jülicher’s definitions and theories. Bernhard and Johannes Weiß were also critical of a too dogmatic position when it came to the details in the imagery, The immediate and profound criticism by Bugge and Fiebig has already been mentioned.18 The second myth is that before and after Jülicher means that with Jülicher the formerly popular allegorizing exegesis came to an end. Jülicher worked out clear definitions and clear principles. This was his meritorious, but also fateful achievement in the study of parables. His leading principle was the protest against every kind of allegory and allegorizing. There are therefore few after Jülicher who have turned parables into riddles through which doctrinal systems could be inserted. However, Jülicher nearly eradicated the Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (2007) were not picked because of merits within parable-research. They provided a fresh look at most synoptic parables. 16 Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 250, 273–276, and on paradigms, 462–472; idem, “Zum Beispiel der Beispielerzählungen” (1986), and esp. Zimmermann, “How to understand the parables of Jesus” (2009). 17 Heinrici, “Gleichnisse”, RE3 6 (1899), 688–703. 18 Christian A. Bugge, Die Haupt-Parabeln Jesu, Gießen: Ricker 1903 (repr., Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter 2017); Fiebig, Gleichnisreden Jesu (1912).

9.1 Matt 5,23 and Myths about Research History

549

metaphors, and his approach could not prevent the new forms of allegory. In modern exegesis allegorizing continues through a ‘mirror-reading’ of the text: some exegetes see, through mirror-reading, some parables as reflections of early Christian debates. A third myth is that Jülicher was dependent on ancient rhetoric. This myth originates from his criticism by Christian August Bugge, Paul Fiebig, et al. Their criticism is at this point not valid, and they have contributed to making an alternative between Hellenistic and Jewish storytelling, between rhetorical figures/tropes and Jewish meshalim. They emphasised, however, correctly, the importance of rabbinic parallels and the parallels to Jewish meshalim. Recent scholars have emphasised them even more. A fourth myth is that Bultmann followed Jülicher strictly in his parableresearch. However, Jülicher’s student Bultmann developed his theories and principles in new ways.19 Bultmann’s main interest was the growth of tradition and he evaluated many similitudes and parables differently. Jeremias/ Dodd in fact continued Bultmann’s research even more, making the formcritical approach and the eschatological teaching into main keys. Their emphasis on the life-setting of Jesus (even in the so-called ‘No Quest’-period of Jesus-research) corresponded more with Jülicher’s views than with Bultmann’s. A fifth myth indicates that the socio-historical and literary approaches in the 1970s represented a new approach. This gives Jülicher too little credit. In fact, we do find many outstanding sociological and literary observations in Jülicher’s work – and also in other contributions before 1970. However, the tools for analysing the narrative structure20 and the social setting are limited, and the exegesis was more than ripe for improvements.21 A sixth myth is that one can combine the core of Jülicher’s principles with most of the new approaches in parable-research. In fact, most of the modern approaches attack some of Jülicher’s core convictions: The turn to the metaphor through Jüngel, Weder, Harnisch, et al., touches on the very nerve of Jülicher’s concept. The emphasis – particularly in US scholarship ‒ on the poetic, literary and fictional character of the parables does the same. Many – perhaps most ‒ scholars would still defend some or most of Jülicher’s principles, often because of a fear of returning to arbitrary allegorizing. 19 For Jülicher’s and Bultmann’s different views, see esp. Zimmermann (ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (2007), 5–8, 17–23, and idem, “Parabeln – sonst nichts!” (2008), and Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 273; idem, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 11f. 20 Cf. Sider, Interpreting the Parables (1995), 29–75: Internal features: diction, rhetorical structure, irony, plot, character, setting, point of view, tone. 21 Jülicher’s insights came from the literature. Jeremias and Bailey brought fresh cultural insights from Palestine/the Middle East. Schottroff, Theißen, Malina (and ‘his group’) were inspired by modern theories to go into the social history behind the parables.

550

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

However, criticism has recently been sharper as we see in two recent comprehensive studies on the parables, with similar size and ambition as Jülicher’s pioneering work: Klyne Snodgrass and particularly Ruben Zimmermann22 are critical of many of Jülicher’s principles.23 This paragraph will ask: Can Matt 5,23f contribute to this new paradigm? Or should the parable preferably be neglected as Snodgrass and Zimmermann tend to? If Matt 5,23 really is a parable, should the possible ‘new paradigm’ be refined?

9.2 The Classification of Parables and the Genre of Matt 5,23f Many exegetes simply avoid the genre-problem and call Matt 5,23f a ‘saying’24, ‘verses’ (Luz), etc.,25 an ‘illustrative example’, etc. (e.g. H.D. Betz; Davies/Allison), which can hardly be labelled as ‘genres’. A distinct saying like Matt 5,23f must be a certain genre, and are there alternatives to ‘parable’? Scholars see Matt 5,23f and 5,25f as close parallels, and Matt 5,25f is called either a similitude or parable. Why should Matt 5,23f not belong to the same genre? What are the alternatives? This is not about classification of one text. It is about the whole system of classification, and its methodological consequences. 9.2.1 The Classification: Two, Three, Four Categories or Just One? According to most scholars since Jülicher and Bultmann, we have three categories of parables: similitude, parable (fable) and example-story. Their 22 Snodgrass, Stories with Intent (2008); also idem, “Prophets, Parables, and Theologians”, BBR 18 (2008), 46–77; idem, “Reading to Hear: A Hermeneutics of Hearing”, HBT 24 (2002), 1–32. Zimmermann (ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (2007); idem (ed.), Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu (2008); idem, “Urchristliche Parabeln im Horizont der antiken Rhetorik: Der Beitrag von Aristoteles und Quintilian zur Formbestimmung der Gleichnisse”, in Linus Hauser/Ferdinand Rupert Prostmeier/Christa Georg-Zöller (eds.), Jesus als Bote des Heils: Heilsverkündigung und Heilserfahrung in frühchristlicher Zeit. FS D. Dormeyer (SBB 60), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2008, 201–225 (= English in Zimmermann [ed.], Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu [2008], 238–258); idem, “EthicoÄsthetik”, in Horn/Zimmermann (eds.), Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ I (2009), 235–265. 23 Zimmermann expressed recently that a new consensus or paradigm is definitely within reach. Cf. his “How to understand the parables of Jesus” (2009) and idem, Puzzling the Parables of Jesus (2015). 24 B.B. Scott, Hear Then the Parable (1989), 140, calls Matt 5,23f simply “a saying” and sees it as a parallel to the ‘apophthegma’ in Mark 12,41ff. 25 Luz, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 240.

9.2 The Classification of Parables and the Genre of Matt 5,23f

551

categories are based on the type of likeness (based on similes, on metaphors, or unique stories). These categories are still in use, even though a majority of scholars modify them. Jülicher operates with only two categories (in addition to ‘example-story’): similitude (‘Gleichnis’) and parable (‘Fabel’). He called Matt 5,23f a similitude. He based his distinction on the difference between similes and metaphor, and it is therefore significant;26 not every simile is a metaphor, but all metaphors draw a sort of comparison. The extension of a simile, according to Jülicher, is a similitude.27 Jülicher then takes a second step: allegory similarly extends the metaphor.28 These almost scholastic distinctions lead to a devaluation of the metaphor. This implication is problematic, and we have to ask: Is the distinction between simile (‘Vergleichung’) and metaphor leading in a wrong direction? Jülicher’s scheme is clear, but it has been modified from the very beginning. Bultmann modified it on three fundamental points: a) The distinction between simile and metaphor. According to Jülicher, ‘similitude’ is a comparison between a similar or different area of life,29 whereas Bultmann defined ‘similitude’ as an extended ‘figure’ (simile, ‘Bildwort’),30 as a level prior to the ‘parable’.31 The parable elaborates the similes and metaphors into a narrative that is not a typical situation, but a particular event.32 Therefore Bultmann labelled 12 of Jülicher’s similitudes as ‘similes’ (= ‘Bildworte’).33 b) Accordingly, they categorised more than half of the similitudes and parables differently: Jülicher identified 22 parables, whereas Bultmann operated with 15 parables.34 26

Jülicher, Gleichnisreden I (21910/1976), 52. Ibid., 58: Das “Gleichnis ist die auf ein Satzganzes erweiterte Vergleichung”. 28 Ibid.: “so ist die Allegorie die auf ein Satzganzes erweiterte Metapher”, and p. 52: “ihre Vorstufe [sc. zur Allegorie] … ist die Metapher”. 29 Ibid., 80: “Ich definiere das Gleichnis als diejenige Redefigur, in welcher die Wirkung eines Satzes (Gedankens) gesichert werden soll durch Nebenstellung eines ähnlichen, einem andern Gebiet angehörigen, seiner Wirkung gewissen Satzes”. For Jülicher only two categories were sufficient, and every parable of Jesus could fit into one of the two categories, except for the four so-called example-stories (‘Beispielerzählungen’, Luke 10,29ff; 12,16ff; 16,19ff; 18,9ff). 30 Bultmann, GST, 184: “sich … nur durch die Ausführlichkeit unterscheiden” (HST, 170: “distinguished … only by the detail in which the picture is painted”). 31 Bultmann, GST, 184 (HST, 170), also GST, 193 (the example) and in general GST, 181f (HST, 167f). 32 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”). 33 According to Bultmann we have in the SM ‘similes’ (‘Bildworte’) in 5,14; 6,24; 7,9f and ‘metaphors’ in 5,13.14.16; 7,3–5.6.13f.16.20. 34 Baasland, Theologie und Methode (1992), 273; idem, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 10–13, and Zimmermann (ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (2007), 5–8, 17–23; 27

552

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

c) The difference has to do with definitions, but much more so with their scholarly interests: Jülicher’s main interest was to clarify the categories in order to exclude every form of allegorizing. Bultmann’s main interest was to analyse the growth of the tradition.

Similitude was the dominating category for Jülicher, because it illustrates most clearly his principles (clear opposite to allegory, his one-point interpretation and the clear-cut separation between image and point, ‘Bild- und Sachhälfte’). Bultmann’s main concern was the development of the tradition.35 The differences between the two approaches are mostly overlooked in later scholarship, which creates yet more confusions about the categories. Many modifications, e.g. N.A. Dahl,36 G. Sellin,37 J. Roloff made ‘comparison’ the fundamental term.38 G. Theißen offers a better modification. He minimises the difference between similitude and parable,39 and makes metaphorical or non-metaphorical language and the notion of extension his main criteria. Jülicher’s third category, ‘example-story’, had been used before,40 but through his work this genre acquired much greater influence. The category was important for Jülicher in order to underline the contrast between ‘imagery’ and the opposite of parabolic speech. Jülicher’s one-point approach implies that ‘example-story’ is a particular category due to the fact that imagery and “point” (‘Sache’) should be separated. The criteria for ‘examplestory (‘Beispielerzählung’) according to Jülicher are:41 idem (ed.), Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu (2008), 385ff, have documented the difference between Jülicher and Bultmann. They agree on example-stories, but have a different understanding of ‘similitude’ and ‘parable’. Bultmann called seven 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). Jülicher had 28 similitudes (‘Gleichnisse’) whereas Bultmann had 17. Jülicher had only nine (one-third) in common with Bultmann (Matt 11,16–19; 13,33; Mark 13,28f.34–37; Luke 12,42–48.54–56.57–59; 14,28–30; 17,7–10). 35 Bultmann described the growth of the tradition from the smaller units ʻfiguresʼ, (hyperbole, paradox, comparison, metaphor) to the ʻsimilitudeʼ (‘Gleichnis’), parable and example-stories. The smallest units are ‘figures’/ʻsimilesʼ (‘Bildworte’). The subdivision is: ‘comparison’ (explicitly so), ‘metaphor’ (without any particle indicating a comparison) and the original ‘figures’/ʻsimilesʼ (‘Bildworte’), which have more similarity with the Jewish meshalim, GST, 181 (HST, 167f). 36 N.A. Dahl, “Gleichnis und Parabel in der Bibel”, RGG2 2 (1928), 1617–1619. 37 Roloff, Neues Testament (1977), 90–107, here 92–94, thought there is a “funktionale Differenz zwischen Vergleich und Metapher” (92). This comes close to Jülicher’s way of thinking. 38 Theißen/Merz, Der historische Jesus (32001), 296f. 39 Following Gerhard Sellin, “Allegorie und Gleichnis”, ZTK 75 (1978), 281–335 (repr. in Wolfgang Harnisch [ed.], Gleichnisse Jesu: Positionen der Auslegung von Adolf Jülicher bis zur Formgeschichte, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1982, 367– 429). 40 Cf. Heinrici, “Gleichnisse”, RE3 6 (1899), 688–703. 41 Jülicher, Gleichnisreden I (21910/1976), 112–114. Cf. Bultmann, GST, 192f.

9.2 The Classification of Parables and the Genre of Matt 5,23f

– – – – – –

553

fictitious narrative on an individual case narrative with a religious-ethical content the narrative is self-evident, no metaphors are used the persons involved are clearly negative or positive models generalisation42 an example-story of which the implication must be “Act accordingly!”

The same features can be found in other parables as well, but the famous parables in Luke (10,30–37; 12,15–21; 16,19–31; 18,9–14) seemingly have certain characteristics in common.43 However, perhaps the category of ‘example-storyʼ is misleading? Recent criticism of the genre has therefore been harsh (J.D. Crossan, R. Funk, D.O. Via, E. Baasland, W. Harnisch, R. Zimmermann, J.T. Tucker,44 et al.) and for different reasons: Jülicher’s category is dependent on ideological premises, formal criteria are lacking, there are not sufficient common characteristics, they occur only in Luke’s ‘Sondergut’, etc. Two other objections are even more important: In ancient rhetoric ‘exemplum’ means historical ‘examples’, referring to famous historical events.45 These are almost completely lacking in the synoptic tradition. The reference to Solomon in Matt 6,30 is only tangential. On the other hand, there are a number of daily life ‘examples’ in the synoptic tradition. These are not at all what the rhetorical handbooks call ‘exempla’, but simply ordinary behaviour used as imagery. Even Matt 5,23f has many of the characteristics of an ‘example-story’. 9.2.2 Do We Have Alternatives to ‘Parable’? 1) An example-story or just an ‘illustrative example’? Scholars seem to avoid the term ‘example-story’ for Matt 5,23f, but recently the text is often called ‘parable-like example’ (Lohmeyer; cf. Davies/Allison),46 or ‘illustrative example’ (C. Blomberg; D.A. Hagner47). Some call both Matt 5,23f and 5,25f ‘illustrative examples’ (e.g. H.D. Betz;48 Davies/Allison). That means: ‘illus42 Luke 12,21: οὕτως ὁ θησαυρίζων ἑαυτῷ καὶ µὴ εἰς θεὸν πλουτῶν. 10,37: εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· πορεύου καὶ σὺ ποίει ὁµοίως. 16,31: εἰ Μωϋσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν οὐκ ἀκούουσιν, οὐδ᾿ ἐάν τις ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ πεισθήσονται. 18,14: λέγω ὑµῖν, κατέβη οὗτος δεδικαιωµένος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ παρ᾿ ἐκεῖνον. 43 Luke 14,7–11.12–14 are also labelled as ‘Beispielerzählungen’. Cf. Baasland, “Zum Beispiel der Beispielerzählungen” (1986), 217f. 44 Jeffrey T. Tucker, Example Stories: Perspectives on Four Parables in the Gospel of Luke (JSNTSup 162), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1998, with the conclusion, p. 418: “the category ‘example story’ is vacuous and should be abandoned”. 45 Baasland, “Zum Beispiel der Beispielerzählungen” (1986), 197–200. 46 Lohmeyer, Matthäus (21976), 122: “gleichnishaftes Beispiel”; Davies/Allison, Matthew (1997), 516: “illustration/application”. 47 Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (1993), 117. 48 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 222.

554

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

trative example’ is in fact an ‘example-story’. If one sees ‘illustrative example’ as a genre, Jülicher’s criteria of ‘example-stories’ are abandoned, and ‘illustrative example’ must be connected with a totally different kind of text. There are even in the SM a number of relatively extensive ‘examples’ like Matt 5,23f.25f (7,3–5.9–11.22f), and there are also some more brief examples (5,14f.29f.34f.39ff.46f; 6,2–4.5–6.16–18; 7,6; cf. Luke 6,29f.32–34.41f).49 One could easily add also Matt 25,31(34)–46, a text that is often, but not always, seen as a parable, and is in fact a close parallel to the parable in Matt 7,22f.50 Many of these ‘examples’ are similar to the ‘effort-parables’ (τίς ἐξ ὑµῶν-parables): they want to show that one should not abstain from any effort in order to reach a goal. A positive or negative behaviour is portrayed, sometimes realistically and sometimes hyperbolically or almost as caricatures. If ‘illustrative example’ is seen as a genre, one can thus make further differentiations between metaphorical, historical or imaginative examples.51

The similarity between Matt 5,23f and 5,25f is clear. There is no bridge to Matt 5,25 (ἴσθι εὐνοῶν) and it has no proper introduction like the parallel in Luke 12,57ff (τί δὲ καὶ ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτῶν … ὡς γὰρ ὑπάγεις).52 The difference is their ending: Matt 5,23f ends with exhortation whereas Matt 5,25f admonishes. This ending leads many exegetes to the conclusion that they give moral advice. The ‘parable-like example(s)’ in Matt 5,23f (and 5,25f) could easily fit into Jülicher’s category ‘example-story’. All criteria for ‘example-story’ fit with Matt 5,23f, even the final exhortation, ‘Act accordingly!’. Matt 5,23f would then be an advice to perform sacrifices, because the clue is obviously about resuming the offering (τότε ἐλθὼν πρόσφερε τὸ δῶρόν σου).53 Seen as an example-story the meaning would be: Prepare yourself to make the (Jew49

The so-called ‘example-stories’ (Luke 10,30–37; 12,15–21; 14,7–11; 16,19–31; 18,9– 14) have in part a different narrative structure, but belong to this group. 50 Since Paschasius Radbertus (ca. 785–860), the text has been understood as a parable, but many recent commentaries on Matthew deny it (Schweizer; Davies/Allison; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium I [1986], 367, referring to the future-form). Jülicher excluded the text, Bultmann labelled it as a ‘prophetic/apocalyptic saying’ (GST, 130f – a basically Jewish text, ibid., 132), and even Ruben Zimmermann’s comprehensive book, Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (2007), sees only Matt 25,32f as parable. On the other hand: Snodgrass, Stories with Intent (2008), 543–563, Jindrich Manek, … und brachte Frucht: Die Gleichnisse Jesu, Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag 1977, 74–80, John R. Donahue, The Gospel in Parable: Metaphor, Narrative, and Theology in the Synoptic Gospels, Philadelphia: Fortress 1988, 119–125, and Jeremias, Gleichnisse Jesu (21952), 102ff, see it as a parable, in fact close to the ‘example-stories’. Together with Luke 10,25ff; 14,12ff they deal with true discipleship. 51 Cicero, De or. III,205 (similitudo et exemplum); Inv. I,31,51; Quintilian, Inst. V,11–16. 52 Marius Reiser, Die Gerichtspredigt Jesu: Eine Untersuchung zur eschatologischen Verkündigung Jesu und ihrem frühjüdischen Hintergrund (NTA NF 23), Münster: Aschendorff 1990, 278 (“gleichnishafter Mahnspruch”). 53 The parable starts with exactly the same words, except for the particle τότε, a phrase Matthew often uses when something important needs to be said. Not least ἀπὸ τότε – 4,17; 16,21, but also in narratives 3,13; 4,1; 16,24 etc. or in theological statements like 3,15; 4,10f etc. In the SM the phrase occurs only here and in 7,5.23.

9.2 The Classification of Parables and the Genre of Matt 5,23f

555

ish) offerings. As an example-story this conclusion is unavoidable. G. Friedlander saw the teaching as “quite in accord with Pharisaic teaching”.54 The problem is therefore not the form, rather the content of Matt 5,23f: it speaks about performing sacrifices, and this is the main reason for the lack of interest in Matt 5,23f and for not labelling it as ‘example-story’. Sacrifices in the Temple also became a painful topic for the Jews – after 70 CE. If Matt 5,23f is seen as ‘Church order’, the date is after 70 CE and presupposes a metaphorical understanding of ‘altar’, etc. If it refers to the Temple-cult the date is more likely some time before 70 CE.55 2) Matt 5,23f as ‘Law-sentence’, exhortation or as ‘Church order’. The ending of Matt 5,23f with an exhortation and of Matt 5,25f with an admonition leads many exegetes to the conclusion that these texts give moral advice. It may surprise us, but many scholars see the text as a legal text. This is mainly based on the first word in the parable, ἐάν, used in some ‘Law-sentences’, often with the theme of forgiveness (Matt 6,14f; 18,35; Luke 17,3f, cf. Matt 18,15–17.19). Based on a reconstruction of a Hebrew text, P. Fiebig offered a more precise description of the legal form of the saying. He found a characteristic casuistic law-style with conditional particle (ἐάν) + οὖν + present subjunctive + imperative. Its closest parallel in the SM is Matt 6,2.5.16. In Matt 5,23 the ἐάν-sentence continues with imperatives (ἄφες, ὕπαγε, διαλλάγηθι). Bultmann was critical of Fiebig’s observations. Bultmann saw Matt 5,23f as “exhortation to reconciliation”. According to him, Matt 5,23f was originally a parable of the Parousia, which Matthew/the Palestinian Church turned into a ‘Piety-rule’ and ‘Church-instruction/order’.56 Many scholars read Matt 5,23f as ‘Church-instruction’ that argues: acts of reconciliation come before sacrifices.57 J. Gnilka called Matt 5,23f a ‘Lawsentence’, but did not find general cult-criticism, rather a criticism of performance of the cult.58 D. Zeller argued strongly against the genre ‘law-style’, because he found parallels in wisdom literature for this type of ‘Mahnspruch’.59 A. Schlatter thought it is a prophetic saying presupposing an early dating of Matt 5,23f; the instruction is caused by questions from Jesus’ disciples after his teaching in Matt 5,22 with the message: Insult of the brother has to be reconciled and acts of reconciliation must precede sacrifice. 54

Friedlander, Jewish Sources (1911), 46. Nepper-Christensen, Matthäusevangelium (1958), 73. Cf. also Lüdemann, Jesus nach 2000 Jahren (2000), 139. 56 Bultmann, GST, 160 (“aus einem Parusiegleichnis zu einer Frömmigkeitsregel gemacht”) = HST, 149. 57 Heinrici, Bergpredigt II (1905), 31; Soiron, Bergpredigt (1941), ad loc.; Klaus Berger, “Zu den sogenannten Sätzen heiligen Rechts”, NTS 1 (1970/71), 10–40; Strecker, Bergpredigt (21985), 70. 58 Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium I (1986), 155f. 59 Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche (1977), 62–64. 55

556

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

There are, however, a number of problems with this genre. The interpretation leads in a false direction. The other so-called piety rules in Matt 6,2–18 are not formulated as ἐάν-sentences. If this was a legal saying, the consequence would be that Christians are instructed to participate in the Temple cult in Jerusalem in a proper way. Is it really a ‘Church-instruction’ (to the Palestinian community) or generally an exhortation (‘Mahnspruch’) to perform sacrifices? Genres like ‘Church-order’, ‘Mahnspruch’, ‘illustrative example’ are problematic as is the category ‘example-story’: Matt 5,23f would be an exhortation to participate – in the right way – in sacrifices. It is a different story if the text is understood as a parable. As parable it can hardly be a law-sentence, Church-instruction or exhortation. 3) Similitude or parable. The alternative is then to read Matt 5,23f as a similitude or as a parable. That it is really a parable, corresponds with the linguistic fact that the ἐάν-sentences mostly occur in parables. This is the case in the SM (5,13.46.47; 6,22f) and in metaphorical language in the synoptic tradition. The text offers imagery, it makes analogies, and is not a straightforward moral exhortation. Johan C. Thom has correctly drawn attention to the hyperbolical character of the text. “It is not intended as an example from real life that has to be followed literally”.60 (a) Similitude? The very close parallel, Matt 5,25f = Q/Luke 12,57f, is definitely a similitude or parable. According to Jülicher’s definitions Matt 5,25f should be called a ‘similitude’ (‘Gleichnis’)61 or ‘Krise-Gleichnis’ (‘parable of crisis’/ʻchallenge of the hour’).62 Jeremias, who in fact treated the text as an example-story,63 called Matt 5,23f ‘Bildwort’ (ʻsimileʼ),64 in spite of its being a narrative and not a ‘Bildwort’ like Matt 5,13. The extended ‘figure’ (German: ‘Bildwort’) could be ‘court’ as simile for judgment. But is the court or the prison the simile, and is God really like an adversary and a miserly money-grubber? Bultmann thought therefore that Matt 5,25f is a typical case of “similes that developed into a parable”.65 More recently most exegetes simply call it parable.66 60

Thom, “Justice in the Sermon on the Mount” (2009), 330. Jülicher, Gleichnisreden II (21910/1976), 240ff. Cf. Tim Schramm/Kathrin Löwenstein, “Der Prozessgänger (Q 12,57–59 par)”, in idem, Unmoralische Helden: Anstößige Gleichnisse Jesu, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1986, 59–62. 62 Jeremias, Gleichnisse Jesu (1947/21952), 39–41, 179f, dealt relatively extensively with this parable – as parable of crisis. He underplayed the difference between ‘Gleichnis’ and ‘Parabel’ and in the English translation the translator used just ‘parable’. Cf. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, London: W. Clowes 1935 (1961), 136–139, here 138. 63 Jeremias, “‘Laß allda deine Gabe’ (Mt 5,23f.)” (1937). 64 Jeremias, Gleichnisse Jesu (21952), 75. 65 Bultmann, GST, 185 (HST, 172: “typical example of a similitude made out of a figure”). 66 There are still relatively few commentaries that label it as parable, cf. J.P. Meier, Matthew (1980), 51. With more clarity, Michael Labahn, in Zimmermann (ed.), Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (2007), 178–184. 61

9.2 The Classification of Parables and the Genre of Matt 5,23f

557

(b) Parable – with metaphors. In English and many modern languages, the distinction of similitude versus parable is somewhat artificial. Jewish meshalim cover both categories, and the distinction is only superficially based on ancient rhetoric.67 Recent criticism (W. Harnisch, B. Gerhardsson, E. Baasland, R. Zimmermann, et al.) therefore makes the distinction between similitude (‘Gleichnis’) and parables superfluous. When it came to metaphors, Jülicher was more in touch with ancient rhetoric, particularly with Quintilian and Cicero.68 The term in Bultmann’s works is vague,69 which appeared increasingly as an Achilles heel in Jülicher’s paradigm. E. Jüngel, H. Weder, W. Harnisch and others pushed this issue hard, and one could increasingly benefit from the contributions on metaphors in literary criticism and modern philosophical approaches.70 According to Aristotle, he metaphor is the crown, and in addition to metaphor there are a number of rhetorical figures that differentiate better than between just the division of similitude and parable. A rhetorical approach is necessary because in Hellenistic rhetorical handbooks metaphorical language was a major issue, and they provided help as to how to use different tropes and figures adequately.71 67 Aristotle, Rhet. II,20 (1393a: “There are two kinds of examples, namely, one which consists in relating things that happened before, and another in inventing them oneself”), cf. extensively in Mogens S. Kjärgaard, Metaphor and Parable: A systematic analysis of the specific structure and cognitive function of the synoptic similes and parables qua metaphors, Leiden: Brill 1986, 198–238. 68 Jülicher rarely refers to Hellenistic literature, but his treatment of metaphor and exemplum (Quintilian, Inst. VIII,6,8f) is inspired by Aristotle (Rhet. III,2.10 [1405a; 1410b14f]) and Quintilian as we see in Gleichnisreden Jesu [21910/1976], 52, 58, 70, 80). 69 Bultmann, GST, 181ff, was not consistent or was perhaps purposely vague in his definition of ‘metaphor’. He presupposed 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). Matt 7,6 is something in between simile and metaphor, GST, 183 (HST, 169). 70 A comprehensive analysis of the debate at least from a theological point of view, is provided by Jacobus Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus: Parable, Aphorism, and Metaphor in the Sayings Material Common in the Synoptic Tradition and the Gospel of Thomas (BZNW 102), Berlin: De Gruyter 2001, 48–103. The dialogue has been fruitful since Paul Ricœur/Eberhard Jüngel (eds.), Metapher: Zur Hermeneutik religiöser Sprache (Evangelische Theologie. Sonderheft), München: Kaiser 1974, and exegetes have picked up the thesis not only of Paul Ricœur (The Rule of Metaphor: The Creation of Meaning in Language, London: Routledge 2003) and Max Black (“Metaphor”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55 [1954], 273–294), but more and more from George Lakoff (“The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor” [1993] and idem/Johnson, Metaphors we live by [1980]), cf. Liebenberg, ibid., and Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 13, 498, 503, etc. 71 Aristotle, Poet. 21 (1457b); Rhet. III,2,6–9 (1404b/1405a); or Quintilian, Inst. V,11,22: “Similitudo has much the same force as exemplum, especially when drawn from nearly equal things without any admixture of metaphors.”

558

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

The genre ‘parable’ for Matt 5,23f is in every respect more appropriate. Jülicher labelled Matt 5,23f as similitude, but it comes in fact closer to ‘allegory’, because the narrative has at least two, perhaps as many as five metaphors. 4) The application on Matt 5,23f. The key-terms gift (δῶρον) and altar (θυσιαστήριον) have their concrete meanings, but are at the same time metaphors. The verb ‘to offer’ (προσφέρειν) and ‘brother’ (ἀδελφός) may also have metaphorical value.72 The imagery is about sacrifices (in Jerusalem?),73 but metaphorical language is basically ideologically neutral.74 The imagery of offerings fits extremely well, because many of the elements in the process of offering have a similarity with the forgiveness-process. It is, however, still imagery, not about a real offering. The verb-phrase ‘to bring a gift’ is sacrificial language. Offering is a simile, and the degree of likeness when it comes to ‘altar’, ‘gift’, ‘brother’, etc. varies. Basically, the realistic elements are not important because it is not so much about offerings/gifts to God as it is about your gift and the relation to your ‘brother’. The ‘gift’ serves as a metaphor for the willingness to forgive. Most key words have metaphorical value: ‘altar’, ‘gift’, ‘perform offering’, ἀφίηµι, and ‘brother’. (a) ‘Altar’ is used metaphorically, denoting the neutral ground for two opponents, and at the same time a place with divine character. (b) The more general word for gift, δῶρον, should also be taken in a very universal sense,75 and we should not be too quick to suppose a certain context, or limit the word to denote a specific sacrifice. At a deep level the sacrifice illustrates the relation to God. That is why this imagery is applicable to the main theme in Jesus’ teaching: the relationship to God. This parable wants to show that the relationship to God cannot be separated from the relationship to one’s neighbour. One can hardly find any imagery that better illustrates the core of Jesus’ teaching: to love God and one’s neighbour. The Christians’ ambivalence to sacrifices as such and the theology connected to the death of Jesus, limited them from using this imagery.

72

This makes it easy for Did. 14 to apply it to the Eucharist (Did. 14,1), and then continue in 14,2: “And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled” – conflating Matt 5,23f and 5,25f. 73 In a speech of Jesus in Galilee the audience would definitely think in terms of Jerusalem. Readers in the Graeco-Roman world would have other images of sacrifice-cults. 74 Image and ideology must not be mixed. It is possible to tell a story about criminal behaviour in order to promote an ethical device. 75 This is the meaning in the parallel text Matt 23,18ff and generally in the New Testament.

9.2 The Classification of Parables and the Genre of Matt 5,23f

559

(c) The procedure is described as ‘offering your gift at the altar’ (προσφέρῃς τὸ δῶρόν σου ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον).76 Προσφέρειν seems to be a technical term that is regularly used together with θυσιαστήριον.77 The term θυσιαστήριον has, like δῶρον, a certain ambiguity. In Matt 23,19 Jesus blames the Pharisees, saying: “You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?” (τί γὰρ µεῖζον, τὸ δῶρον ἢ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ ἁγιάζον τὸ δῶρον;) Temple and altar transform gold and gifts into something more than just gold and gifts. (d) Even the term ἀφίηµι is ambivalent. In Matt 5,23f it signifies that one has to postpone the offering, but it also has another connotation. It is the very first word of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, ἄφες ἄρτι is what Jesus says to John the Baptist (3,15) and here he says ἄφες ἐκεῖ. This connotation makes the expression into something more than simply ‘Let it be’. Elsewhere in Matthew and the New Testament ἀφεῖναι means mostly ‘forgive’ and this meaning links it to the unusual word διαλλάσσοµαι.78 (e) ‘Brother’ has also metaphorical value. It does not simply mean a physical brother. ‘Brother’ remains anonymous (cf. Matt 5,23.24 and 5,47; 7,3.4.5, or in two parables, Matt 18,35; 25,40). We cannot restrict the meaning of ‘brother’ to the disciples and an ‘inner community’ group. The Septuagint uses ἀδελφός for the people of God, the “house of Israel”,79 and Matthew continues this type of language and applies it to the Christian community.80 Ἀδελφός in Matt 7,3f; 18,15 seems to denote ‘neighbour’,81 but also a member of the house of Israel or a disciple. Matthew extends the notion in Matt 23,8 (“for you have only one Master and you are all brothers”). In accordance with the ‘love your enemy’principle, ‘brother’ must be an open category. To conclude: The division between similitude versus parable was crucial for Jülicher. This distinction has proved too unnecessary and dogmatic and it leads in a false direction. It is also misleading to make a comparison to a major aspect instead of seeing metaphorical language in a broader perspective, using metaphor and other rhetorical terms as keys. Matt 5,23f is a parable with four metaphors; at least two of them are crucial. 76 Lev 1,2 has the term ‫ – י ַ ְק ִריב‬in fact ‘darbringen’ (= offer), Jeremias, “‘Laß allda deine Gabe’ (Mt 5,23f.)” ([1937/]1966), 103f. The verb occurs only here in the New Testament (later in Did. 14,2). We find a form of the verb in the closely parallel text of Luke 12,58 (ἀπηλλάχθαι, not used in Matt 5,26). 77 Josephus, Ant. VIII,118; XX,49 in spite of the more specific wording in Lev 1,2. 78 E.g. Matt 6,14f; 9,2.5f; 18,21.32.35. 79 Frankemölle, Jahwebund (1974), 178ff. 80 In texts like Matt 10,21; 18,15.21; 28,10 ‘brother’ seems to be ‘the new people of God’. 81 On ἀδελφός, Hans von Soden, TWNT 1 (1933), 144–146. The metaphorical usage of the term, perhaps influenced by Deuteronomistic language, and the concrete sociological applications in the first century must be taken into account. Johannes Beutler, EWNT 1 (1980), 69f.

560

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

9.2.3 Towards a Better Classification Matt 5,23f is a parable, and not at all a legal case, or ‘church order’. It is formed like the so-called example-stories, telling a story about offerings, which functions as a parable about forgiveness. That means: parable ‒ or alternatively narrative mashal (B. Gerhardsson)82 ‒ is the genre of Matt 5,23f. This simple solution ‘parable’ requires subcategories, however.83 Snodgrass’ suggestion of the following: aphoristic sayings, similitudes, interrogative and narrative (double indirect, juridical, single) parables, and ‘How much more’-parables, is too complicated and none of them can be applied to this parable. Subcategories according to theological themes84 or schemes like ‘eschatological versus paradigmatic parables’,85 are basically part of theological and homiletical reflections. Subcategories should rather be established according to content86 or narrative structure,87 or according to plot and patterns of action.88 One should also observe the distinctions between shorter and more extensive narratives, between narratives with metaphors or without metaphors, and between condensed and extended examples. In all cases there is a degree of likeness, dependent on the number of specific features, etc. The so-called example-stories have more likeness, but like other parables they have odd elements in the stories. Similitudes and narrative parables can have a high degree of likeness, but some of them have less similarity.

82

Gerhardsson, esp. in “The Narrative Meshalim” (1989) and “Illuminating the Kingdom” (1991) (for both articles see below, p. 569, n. 133). Narrative meshalim are so open that both parable and similitude can be included. 83 Zimmermann argues that we should only operate with parables (“Parabeln – sonst nichts!” [2008]). For many – but not all – reasons this is a good suggestion. 84 ‘Kingdom of God’-, ‘God’-, ‘judgment’-parables (cf. Robert H. Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, Philadelphia: Westminster 1981), “Knechtsgleichnisse” (A. Weiser), ‘grace’-parables (R.F. Capon), ‘conflict’-parables (Aurel von Jüchen, Die Kampfgleichnisse Jesu, München: Kaiser 1981), etc., or comprehensively in Snodgrass, Stories with Intent (2008); David Wenham, The Parables of Jesus: Pictures of Revolution, London: Hodder & Stoughton 1989; William R. Herzog II, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press 1994; cf. Jeremias, Gleichnisse Jesu (1947), in part II (on the message of the parables). Theological subdivisions do not yield much, cf. Arthur Temple Cadoux, The Parables of Jesus: Their Art and Use, New York: Macmillan 1931. 85 Ernst Lohmeyer, “Vom Sinn der Gleichnisse Jesu”, ZST 15 (1938), 319–346. 86 B.B. Scott, Hear Then the Parable (1989) (Family/Village/City – Master and Servants – Home and Farm). 87 Via, Parables (1967), divided the parables into tragic (pp. 110–144) and comic (pp. 145–178) parables. 88 Baasland, “Zum Beispiel der Beispielerzählungen” (1986), 202–217.

9.3 Is an Imagery Neutral?

561

9.3 Is an Imagery Neutral? According to Jülicher the ‘image’ has to be neutral. Jülicher’s approach demands seamless and consistent similitudes. ‘Image’ and ‘point’ must be separated. An imagery is neutral, waiting for the response from the listener or interpreter. 9.3.1 How Important are the Social-Historical and Aesthetic Dimensions? The one-point approach demands a transparent imagery. Even literary and socio-historical elements can easily threaten the clarity. The aesthetic features and the social-historical dimension of the similitudes and parables Jülicher observed, are not essential. They could at most contribute to the interpretation. Bultmann used them more as tools in the reconstruction of the history of tradition. 1) Literary interpretation. A literary interpretation must firstly clarify the A-B-C-B-A structure in Matt 5,23f: A. ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς τὸ δῶρόν σου ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον B. κἀκεῖ µνησθῇς ὅτι ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔχει τι κατὰ σοῦ, C. ἄφες ἐκεῖ τὸ δῶρόν σου ἔµπροσθεν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου B. καὶ ὕπαγε πρῶτον διαλλάγηθι τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου, A. καὶ τότε ἐλθὼν πρόσφερε τὸ δῶρόν σου. The gift is the key word in the A/C-sentences, whereas the brother is the key word in the B-sentences. The artistry is striking, both in its structure as well as its elevated Greek language.89 The repetition of certain key-phrases and the combination of a climax and a chiastic structure is extremely skilful. After the introductory ἐὰν οὖν, the expression προσφέρειν τὸ δῶρόν σου forms a beautiful inclusio. The beginning and the end say the same and this is the irony of the story: Now – and not as unforgiving/implacable/irreconcilable – can the offering finally start! A narrative analysis is not only important on a macro-level. As in most parables we have ‘flat’ characters. We do not get to know them. No dialogues are referred to, and the reaction of the brother is not mentioned. The sacrifice is in focus without mentioning any priest. The story and the characters are seen from the point of view from ‘outside’. Unnecessary elements are eliminated. It is exclusively about the ‘you’ and the ‘brother’. The narrator is not omniscient, and the real tension in the story is left open (will a reconciliation take place or not?). The narrative as such is neither comic nor tragic (according to Via’s categories). The audience and reader give the story a happy ending if he/she acts similarly. 89

Heinrici, Bergpredigt II (1905), 31: “die glatteste griechische Periode der Rede”.

562

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

The text has a number of rhetorical features. The ending has, as Calvin correctly stated, the character of a synecdoche.90 The epistrophe makes abundantly use of metaclisis, a figure of speech that repeats a noun or pronoun in different cases (ἀδελφός and σου).91 This figure strongly imposes a perspective on a text, and this parable achieves it very successfully. The personal address is very significant. The rhetorical features are not external ornaments. They lead to a proper understanding of the parable. In a narrative analysis every single narrative element is important. In this text one should also observe the characters: The priest is not mentioned, so it is exclusively about ‘you’ and the ‘brother’. Both are ‒ as in most parables – ‘flat’ characters, and the conflict with the ‘brother’ is therefore not illuminated. The plot in this parable comes close to the effort- and τίς ἐξ ὑµῶνparables.92 The result is open. It has neither a comic, nor a tragic outcome.93 2) Social-historical approach. One must firstly ‒ as Jülicher, and more so Jeremias did ‒ observe the socio-historical realities in the texts. Jeremias’ major contribution was the information about socio-historical issues, many of them from his own memories. Bailey has recently enriched the insights from this perspective.94 Schottroff and Theißen have also contributed, as well as the authors in Zimmermann’s Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (2007). What about the socio-historical context of the imagery in Matt 5,23f? Does it presuppose that sacrifice and offerings are an important part of life for ordinary people, for Jesus, for Jewish Christians?95 Or is it rather that a critical attitude towards offerings is presupposed?96 The social criticism of temple-cult, and religious practices (προσφέρειν, δῶρον, θυσιαστήριον) can be the point in the text.

90 Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (above, p. 45, n. 181), ad loc.: “By a synecdoche he takes a single class to express the outward exercises of divine worship, which in many men are rather the parentheses, than the true expressions, of godliness”. 91 Petersen, Zur Eigenart des Matthäus (2001), 194, calls the figure polyptoton, but this is, as the word says, only a repetition of the beginning of sentences. 92 Cf. Baasland, “Zum Beispiel der Beispielerzählungen” (1986), 202ff, here esp. 207. 93 Cf. Via, Parables (1967), 110–176 (‘tragic’, 110–144, and ‘comic’ parables, 145– 176). 94 Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant, and idem, Through Peasant Eyes: A LiteraryCultural Approach to the Parables in Luke, combined ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1983, and idem, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, Downers Grove: InterVarsity 2008. 95 Next to the cult in Samaria at Mount Gerizim, and the offerings in the Hellenistic temples in cities like Tiberias, Sepphoris, Caesarea Maritima, Caesarea Philippi, etc. 96 Malina/Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (1974/ 3 2003), 178ff.

9.3 Is an Imagery Neutral?

563

In a Jewish setting the cult in Jerusalem was the main reference.97 According to H.D. Betz, this text gives us important information about the Temple worship around 50 CE by Jerusalem Christians. It would be strange imagery after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.98 Of course, sacrifices and offerings did also take place in Jerusalem after 70 CE, but as pagan cults,99 and Matt 5,23f does not refer to pagan practices. More recently the sociological dimension is often seen through the lenses of social-anthropological studies. In this case a shame-and-honour perspective seems to be relevant, because we are considering a broken relationship (ἔχει τι κατὰ σοῦ, διαλλάγηθι). The acting person is honourable in performing an offering, but is simultaneously challenging his brother in some way.100 The shame–honour perspective is obviously present, but not in the forefront.101 To conclude: The social-historical and aesthetic dimensions not only contribute to, but are essential for, the interpretation of the parable. The structure of the text, the rhetorical and literary style and the socio-historical framework lead to a better understanding of the parable. 9.3.2 The Specific Imagery in Matt 5,23f The imagery of Matt 5,23f puts a modern interpreter into the strange world of offerings and also into a vague conflict. Only the fact that the brotherly relation is broken and that the relationship has to be restored, is important.102 Whether it is a legal case or not is not decisive, and it is is not decisive whether there are good reasons for the action or not. 1) Religious setting. The portrayed offering is extremely vague: What kind of offering is presupposed (grain, lamb offering, etc.)? Would the Day of Atonement be an appropriate occasion? Was it an offering that is specifically 97 Neuer Wettstein I/I.2, (1) 394–402, refers to many Philo-texts. Far more non-Jewish texts could be mentioned than Hesiod, Op. 334–340, and Valerius Maximus, Fact. III,3 (on patience). H. Klein, Bewährung im Glauben (1996), 145, sees a law-obedient Jew as author. For most scholars it is a (too?) open question as to whether Jesus participated in the offerings or not. 98 H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 223. Cf. Bultmann, GST, 158. Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche (1977), 64, thought the parable is a later tradition (‘Gemeindebildung’). 99 In Jerusalem pagan cults took place after 70 CE, and the Temple-cult itself had perhaps never totally disappeared, cf. Kenneth W. Clark, “Worship in the Jerusalem Temple after A.D. 70”, NTS 6 (1959/60), 269–280. 100 Neyrey, Honor and Shame (1998), 193. 101 Cf. Philo, Decal. 87: the man of virtue is in fact the judge and puts his accusers to shame, so he “rejoices and makes peace” (καταλλάττεται); Abr. 14: unholy and blameworthy is the feeling of enmity (ἐχθρός); Somn. II,98 contrasts ‘virtue’ and non-brotherly character (µισαδελφός) and warns against “traits of feelings that exist in every man’s soul”. 102 John Chrysostom says in Hom. 16,12: “and for some such reason He said not, ‘Reconcile thyself to thy brother’, but, ‘Be thou reconciled’”.

564

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

called ‘Korban’ (κορβᾶν, ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον, Mark 7,11; Matt 15,5)? What is the place of the offering; is it necessarily Jerusalem? What procedure is presupposed for the offering? Why are priests omitted? The vague character of the parable makes the interpretation of it an arena for specialists in Aramaic and Jewish cult-practices, but even the specialist will struggle with this text and has to guess what the nearest parallels are: in the Tanach (e.g. Lev 2,1ff; 3,6ff; 5103 or 14,10), in ‘Early Jewish’ (e.g. Sir 34,23.29; Philo, Spec. leg. I,270; Josephus, Ant. VIII,118; XX,49) or rabbinic texts (particularly m.Yom. 8,9; m.Pes. 3,7;104 m.BQ 9,12; t.Pes. 3,1; t.BQ 10,18; Midrash Rabbah on Lev 2,9105).106 2) Realistic or exaggerated. This lack of information has challenged exegetes to fill the gap. Many scholars since Billerbeck107 and Jeremias 108 have assumed that the parable reflects the correct procedure for offering and have thus tried to reconstruct the exact practice of offering before 70 CE. Jeremias offered an accurate description of the offering and the procedure. He presumed many things: that an animal is sacrificed, that the notion of ‘leaving’ is important, that a priest was involved, that the offering was postponed, etc. He also used two texts from the Tosefta to show that the point is not interruption, but postponing the offering. The case is one of compensation and the priest is allowed to postpone the offering until the money is paid back.109 One thing is the correctness of the reconstruction, but is it really 103

The text in most English translations is quoted as Lev 6,1ff. A more general case is mentioned earlier (Lev 5,14–16): “When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the Lord’s holy things, he is to bring to the Lord as a penalty a ram from the flock … He must make restitution for what he has failed to do in regard to the holy things, … give it all to the priest, who will make atonement for him with the ram as a guilt offering, and he will be forgiven.” The instruction is elaborated in Midrash Rabbah (ed. J. Israelstam/Judah J. Slotki, Leviticus [Midrash Rabbah 4], London: Soncino 3 1983, 60–72). 104 Bill. I, 283; Fiebig, Erzählungsstil (1925), 3; idem, “Sinn der Bergpredigt” (1929/30), 499. m.Pes. 3,1: “whatsoever is made from any kind of grain must be removed at Passover” and m.BQ 9,12: “otherwise he must bring another guilt-offering …” are more ambivalent. 105 The edition of J. Israelstam of Leviticus (p. 28) mentions both the High priest and the priests. 106 For an extensive treatment, Bill. I, 282–288; Jeremias, “‘Laß allda deine Gabe’ (Mt 5,23f.)” (1937/1966); Stuhlmacher, “Leben unter der Vergebung” (2003), 162; H. Klein, Bewährung im Glauben (1996), 144; Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric (2015), 162–181. 107 Bill. I, 282–284; Paul Billerbeck, “Ein Tempelgottesdienst in Jesu Tagen”, ZNW 55 (1964), 1–17; Zahn, Matthäus (41922), 229 (“in Form eines Beispiels aus dem Leben des nach dem Gesetz lebenden Israeliten”). 108 Jeremias, “‘Laß allda deine Gabe’ (Mt 5,23f.)” (1937/1966). 109 Ibid. (1966), 104f. According to priestly rule he should not start the procedure before it is paid back, and if not, the animal will be scorched. Another Tosefta-text, t.BQ 10,18 has the same point.

9.3 Is an Imagery Neutral?

565

necessary to know what kind of sacrifice (offering or gift, δῶρον) the narrator has in mind or what kind of procedure is presupposed?110 Matt 5,23ff is not a priestly rule with halachic instruction. It is an exhortation formed as a parable. The reconstruction of a realistic procedure is therefore unnecessary and speculative.111 Most parables including Matt 5,23f have seams, empty spots (German: ‘Leerstellen’), or unrealistic, artificial, engineered elements, or atypical features.112 Perhaps the lack of realism is the very point? The imageries give sometimes a ‘thick’ description, overstatements and even caricatures. Jesus frequently used overstatement and told stories that could never have happened, which might also be the case here: Why should the person involved reflect on a right offering so late, shortly before he approaches the altar? Why is the offering taken out of its sacrificial context? Another strange feature reflects the storyteller’s theological interests: it was possible to leave an offering, but it was very rare. If the person came from Galilee, it would take weeks before he could return.113 3) Parables as construction of meaning. My assumption is that the parable is constructed in order to make its meaning clear. Gerd Theißen correctly draws attention to three aspects that are not sufficiently considered: – conventional metaphors have their own meaning, – the odd features in the parable, and – the parables are told in order to provoke a reaction from the audience.114 It is necessary to see the imagery as poetic fiction,115 and these three aspects make this clear. One has to look for surprising features and intended language. Sometimes the references from the Tanach provide hints to the listener and interpreter. In 110

Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche (1977), 68. According to Zeller “führen die bei Jeremias herangezogenen Talmudzitate etwas an der eigentlichen Aussage vorbei”. Jeremias himself perhaps had some doubts. He did not elaborate on the parable in his Gleichnisse Jesu (71965) (only details pp. 39f, 95, 108); it is an exhortation to reconcile, not a rejection of the cult, ibid., 40, n. 1. 111 Old Testament and Jewish scholars admit a lack of knowledge about the actual cult in the centuries around the time of Jesus. 112 Norman A. Huffman, “Atypical features in the Parables of Jesus”, JBL 97 (1974), 207–220. A more comprehensive analysis had already been provided by Iver Kristian Madsen, “Zur Erklärung der Parabeln”, in Harnisch (ed.), Gleichnisse Jesu (above, n. 39), 102–115. Cf. Heinrici, “Gleichnisse”, RE3 6 (1899), 698, and Fiebig, Altjüdische Gleichnisse (1904), 87ff. 113 Luz has this reflection, Matthew 1–7 (22007), 240. 114 Theißen, in his Ergänzungsheft (to Bultmann’s GST10, 1995), 73f. 115 Charles W. Hedrick, Many Things in Parables: Jesus and his modern Critics, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press 2004, 36–54, 77–88, and 566.

566

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

Matt 5,23f the background in the Tanach remains vague. The degree of likeness between the procedure in the offering and forgiveness is, however, very high. The key is that the fundamental issue, God and others, is not included. The perspective of others is emphasised in many Jewish texts. They show that sacrifice and ethics, the dimension of God and the anthropological dimension, can never be separated. To conclude: This separation of imagery and ‘point’ is in fact ideological. It overlooks the variation in Jesus’ parables, that the degree of likeness and the type of likeness vary. In some parables the bridge between imagery and message/application is hardly visible, in some cases there are many links between imagery and ‘point’, application. Matt 5,23f makes abundant use of intended metaphorical language, of surprising features, of allusions to the Tanach, and in this case the degree of likeness is considerable. In such cases there is obviously more than one tertium comparationis.

9.4 Only one ‘Point’ (‘Sache’)? The imagery and the ‘point’ cannot be sharply separated, and there is not only one tertium comparationis, and therefore ‘an abstract truth’ can be the point, which is “a rule, an idea, an experience that is valid on the spiritual as on the secular level”.116 Bultmann preferred to call it judgment (German: ‘Urteil’).117 Jülicher and Bultmann agreed on this point; they both recognised the imagery as ‘neutral’. Bultmann criticized Fiebig, who from the analogy of rabbinic parables turns the imagery into an allegory. According to Bultmann, the allegory disguises an issue (is “geheimnisvolle oder phantastisch spielende Verkleidung eines Sachverhalts”).118 Scholars have tried to overcome Jülicher’s (and Bultmann’s) limitations in different ways. C.H. Dodd and J. Jeremias saw Jesus’ situation, his life-setting, as the key. Not an abstract truth, but his revolutionary eschatological message is the point. Matt 5,23 could fit perfectly into Jesus’ situation, and according to Jeremias it is “an illustration of the necessity of reconciliation”.119 However, he thought this was a secondary setting. In the setting of Jesus’ life it was 116 Jülicher, Gleichnisreden I (21910/1976), 74 (English translation from Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2000, 13). Cf. Jülicher, ibid., 317: ‘must draw from the parable only one thought’. 117 Bultmann, GST, 214f. 118 Ibid., 214. From his basic conviction Bultmann would have criticized even more the modern approach of seeing the parables as fiction, cf. Charles W. Hedrick, Parables as Poetic Fiction: The creative Voice of Jesus, Peabody: Hendrickson 1994. 119 Jeremias, Parables (1972/2003), 96. He underlined its “secondary setting” – much due to the parallel in Matt 5,25f, cf. p. 43.

9.4 Only one ‘Point’ (‘Sache’)?

567

rather an exhortation to take the sacrifice seriously.120 Jeremias was here led astray by his own approach to the parables: his reconstruction of the realism in the parable led him to this conclusion. He simply overlooked its metaphorical value. On the other hand, his assumption that this was a ‘secondary setting’ prevented him from seeing the obvious conclusion that this parable of forgiveness fits perfectly into the setting of Jesus’ life. L. Schrottroff argued strongly against a ‘dualistic’ approach. In her “new, non-dualistic parable theory” the socio-historical facts in the imagery were important for the interpretation. W.R. Herzog II similarly saw the story as such as the message, and specifically as a subversive speech. The imagery itself criticizes the oppression of powerful people.121 To avoid the abstract ‘truth’ as tertium comparationis many scholars opened the space to the narrative from a theological perspective, seeing the parable as a narrative with an existential dimension (D.O. Via), as ‘Sprachereignis’ (E. Fuchs, E. Jüngel) or as metaphor (P. Ricœur, W. Harnisch, H. Weder, et al.). Weder in general emphasised the metaphorical value, but not in the case of Matt 5,23. He calls the parable simply ‘a text’ and understands it as ethical exhortation. He gives in fact a metaphorical interpretation, however: Matt 5,23f is about the basics in life – that unforgiving relations exist. It is about reduction (German: ‘Schmälerung’) of quality of life.122 This interpretation comes close to D.O. Via, who thought that parables are stories that dramatise how Jesus understood – both inauthentic and authentic – existence. Some scholars make the pragmatic dimension the dominating perspective. The pragmatic dimension in many ways transcends Jülicher’s ‘Sache’ and Bultmann’s ‘Urteil’. E. Arens, E. Rau and C. Kähler123 emphasised more the listener and the impact on the audience in the communication process. H. Frankemölle also underlines the process of communication, without apply-

120 Ibid., 43, n. 74: “The saying has no intention of depreciating the value of the cultus (reconciliation is more important than sacrifice), on the contrary, its purpose is to take it seriously (reconciliation is an essential condition for the acceptance of the sacrifice).” 121 Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech (see above, n. 84). 122 Hans Weder, in his Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen und Interpretationen (FRLANT 120), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1980, did not mention the parable in Matt 5,23f, but only in his Rede der Reden (1985), 108f. 123 Edmund Arens, Kommunikative Handlungen: Die paradigmatische Bedeutung der Gleichnisse Jesu für eine Handlungstheorie, Düsseldorf: Patmos 1982; Eckhard Rau, Reden in Vollmacht: Hintergrund, Form und Anliegen der Gleichnisse Jesu (FRLANT 149), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1990, 25; Christoph Kähler, Jesu Gleichnisse als Poesie und Therapie: Versuch eines integrativen Zugangs zum kommunikativen Aspekt von Gleichnissen Jesu (WUNT 78), Mohr Siebeck 1995, and idem, “Gleichnis/Parabel: Neues Testament”, RGG4 3 (2000), 1000–1003.

568

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

ing this in his exegesis of Matt 5,23f.124 C.H. Hedrick speaks in general about empowering the ‘reader’. He could have been more specific by using tools from reader-response criticism.125 The construction of the parables provides the key to their interpretation. It is embedded in the parable itself. The listener/interpreter identifies her/himself with the ‘you’ in the parable. The intended language makes it obvious that Matt 5,23f illustrates what forgiveness is about. We observe the openness in the parable (what ‘brother’ means, what the reaction or lack of reaction from the brother is, whether forgiveness and reconciliation are the same, etc.). It is appropriate to use the categories of Lakoff/Johnson: The metaphors ‘offering’ and ‘altar’ as ‘source-domain’ are applied in a way that focuses on a reconciliation process. The ‘target-domain’ is not the right performance of offering, but the act of forgiveness.126

9.5 The Function of the Parables: Proofs or Illustrations Jülicher’s one-point approach made it possible to interpret Jesus’ teaching within the framework of Liberal Theology.127 Jülicher accordingly interpreted the parable’s ethical and theological ‘truth’ with a pedagogical purpose.128 According to him the history of misunderstanding started with Mark’s theory of misunderstanding (Mark 4,10–12).129 One has to choose: either Jesus or the evangelist(s), and contrary to the evangelist Jesus’ speech is clear. Jesus wants to argue and persuade, and parables are therefore ‘proofs’ (‘Beweismittel’).130

124 Frankemölle, “Kommunikatives Handeln in Gleichnissen Jesu: Historisch-kritische und pragmatische Exegese,” NTS 28 (1982), 61–90. 125 Hedrick, Many Things in Parables (above, n. 115), 89ff. 126 Lakoff/Johnson, Metaphors (1980), 57, 66ff. Cf. Lakoff/Turner, More than Cool Reason (1989). 127 Jülicher acknowledged most of the similitudes and fables/parables as authentic, Gleichnisreden I (21910/1976), 1–24. He concluded (ibid., 24): “die evangelischen Gleichnisreden gehen auf Jesus selber zurück”. He developed his understanding of Jesus’ teaching particularly in Die Religion Jesu und die Anfänge des Christentums bis zum Nicaenum, Leipzig: Teubner 21909. 128 Jülicher, Gleichnisreden I (21910/1976), 182: “pädagogische[r] Zweck”. “Nicht nur für das Verständnis Jesu sind diese seine Parabeln äusserst wichtig und wertvoll; … ihre Originalität, ihre Mannichfaltigkeit, ihre Schlichtheit, ihre Natürlichkeit, ihre treffende Formulierung sind entzückend.” 129 Ibid., Section III, pp. 118–148 (“Der Zweck der Gleichnisreden Jesu”), here 122– 146 (132: “die fatale Theorie”). 130 Ibid., 146–148 and 202, 205.

9.5 The Function of the Parables: Proofs or Illustrations

569

Bultmann understood the function similarly (as ‘Urteilsübertragung’).131 Jeremias132/Dodd saw the parables rather as challenges and as proclamations. For all of them the distance to reality is very important. B. Gerhardsson in various articles has more recently given a more comprehensive treatment of these questions. He lists twelve possible functions, and he argues that in most cases the parables want to illustrate the teaching.133 Matt 5,23f fits perfectly into these considerations. Matt 5,23–26 provides two dramatic illustrations.134 The story is only partly realistic, but both the ‘realistic’ and the somewhat artificial features illustrate right behaviour. 1) The imagery and the frame: clearly or occasionally separated? The application of the parables is sometimes in the frame and sometimes in the parable itself. In Matt 5,26 it is formed explicitly as a ἀµὴν λέγω σοιsentence, whereas Matt 5,24 only has three imperatives (ἄφες – ὕπαγε – πρόσφερε). However, the bridge between 5,21f (ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν-sentence) and 5,23–26 is clearly introduced through ἐὰν οὖν. It is clearly an illustration of the right attitude, as opposed to anger (Matt 5,22). This frame seems to be the tool for the interpretation of the parable. Most commentators simply allow the parable to be part of the first antithesis. Even scholars who see the frames of the parables as arbitrary think that the present context is important for its interpretation.135 Since Jülicher scholarship has isolated the frame and the parable, and it was done for different reasons: Jülicher did so in order to remove the allegorical or other false interpretations from the similitude/pure parable. Bultmann differentiated frame and similitude/parable in order to trace the history of tradition much better. Scholars who are influenced by formcriticism will apriori separate the parable from the frame. The same differentiation was important for Jeremias, who in this way could differentiate 131

Bultmann, GST, 214. Jeremias, Gleichnisse Jesu (21952), 162: “alle Gleichnisse Jesu zwingen den Hörer, zu seiner Person und seiner Sendung Stellung zu nehmen”. 133 Birger Gerhardsson, “If we do not cut the Parables out of their frames”, NTS 37 (1991), 321–335; also idem, “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, here 282f; idem, “The Narrative Meshalim in the Old Testament Books and in the Synoptic Gospels”, in Maurya P. Horgan/Paul J. Kobelski (eds.), To Touch the Text. FS J.A. Fitzmyer, New York: Crossroad 1989, 289–304. 134 Blomberg, Matthew (1992), 107; also Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (1993), 117 (“illustrative”). 135 Strecker, Bergpredigt (21985), 70, sees it as a separate tradition (“vermutlich ursprünglich selbständig tradiert”), but what is ‘originally’, ‘independent’ and ‘transmitted’? One should be more precise. Jeremias, Gleichnisse Jesu (1947/21952), 38, saw a change of audience: from a general audience to a saying to the disciples (“erst nachträglich zu Jüngergleichnissen geworden”). 132

570

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

between Jesus’ original situation and the later Church. This approach is important even for J.D. Crossan – in order to come closer to Jesus as an aphoristic wisdom-teacher. There are some good reasons for this separation: even the evangelists put some parables in a different context. Matt 5,25f, the parable after Matt 5,23f, is often seen as proof. Luke 12,57–59 has the parable in a totally different context: in the eschatological speech, 12,35–59. Luke in fact puts many parables into this context.136 Luke 15 puts 15,3–7 in the context of two other parables, whereas Matt 18,12–14 has this parable in a different context. Another reason is the tendency of Matthew and Luke to give generalising conclusions. This yields a certain interpretation.137 Some of the frames give the interpretation a new direction or add more than one point. It is, however, more surprising that most parables occur in exactly the same context, like most of the parables in Mark (4,3ff; 4,30–32 and the parable-chapters Matt 13/Luke 8; in the Marcan narrative Mark 12,1–12, the eschatological speech Mark 13/Matt 24/Luke 21, plus Luke 12), but also from Q (Matt 7,16ff = Luke 6,43ff; Matt 7,24ff = Luke 6,46–49) or at least in a similar context (Matt 7,9–11/Luke 11,5ff; Matt 11,16–19 and Luke 7,31–35; Matt 25,14–30 = Luke 19,12ff). Applications and generalising conclusions seem to be preserved as part of the parables. An application is in some cases simply lacking (Mark 4,3ff par.; Matt 7,24ff par.; 13,24ff.33 par. 13,44.45f; Luke 11,5ff; 13,6ff; 14,16ff; 15,11ff) and sometimes the interpretation is included in the parable itself: explicitly (with ἀµὴν λέγω),138 or with οὕτως,139 with imperative,140 or with a minore ad maius-sentences.141 L. Schottroff has correctly seen the frames as “an integral part of the parables”, because “the parable – narrative and application – presumes the active participation of the hearers and their understanding response in works and deeds”.142 B. Gerhardsson found eleven types of frames and particularly the eight different endings/applications lead to a proper understanding of the parables.143 136 Luke 12,42–46 versus Mark 13,33f; Luke 12,39f versus Matt 24,43–51. Matthew has the double parable Luke 13,20f (Q?) in his parable-chapter (Matt 13,33). 137 Mark 13,37; Matt 20,16; 21,44 (Luke 20,18); 22,14; 25,29 (Luke 19,26); Luke 11,10; 12,21; 12,48; 13,30; 16,10.13; 18,14. 138 Matt 5,26 par.; 18,13; 24,47 par.; Luke 12,37; 14,24. 139 Mark 13,29; Matt 13,49; 18,14.35; 20,16; Luke 12,21; 14,35; 15,7.10; 17,10. 140 Mark 13,29.35; Matt 5,24; 25,13; Luke 10,37; 12,40 par.; 16,9; 17,10. 141 Matt 7,9ff par.; Luke 18,6f. 142 L. Schottroff, The Parables of Jesus (2006), 104. She continues: “It is a misunderstanding to conclude … that parables are discourse that obscures” (ibid., 105). 143 Gerhardsson, “If we do not cut” (1991), and idem, “The Narrative Meshalim” (1989), 296–298 (for both articles see above, n. 133).

9.5 The Function of the Parables: Proofs or Illustrations

571

What about Matt 5,23ff? The frame is obviously important. Like many commentators H.D. Betz gives Matt 5,21–26 a common headline. He calls this and the following parable “Two illustrative cases, a religious and a legal conflict”.144 ‘Religious conflict’ is an overstatement, but it is an illustrative example. We see in this case that the frame – that scholars normally recognise as secondary – provides the tertium comparationis. It is not just a coincidence that the parable fits into the frame. It is more likely that the parable itself illustrated the necessity of forgiveness and that the context was sufficient. Matt 5,23f has therefore no explicit application. The separation of parable and frame has been an important tool for an ideological approach, separating the historical Jesus from the interpretation in the Early Church, or for finding the original meaning, or for reconstructing the growth of the tradition. To exclude the possibility that a parable can be addressed in more than one way, is a dogmatic attitude. Narratives are in fact often applied differently. R. Zimmermann sees rather the concept of “the parable-teller remembered” unfold in this tradition.145 2) The influence of the evangelists. Jülicher and Bultmann clearly saw the role of the evangelists, but did not make this into a main principle. In scholarship since the 1950s – through redaction-criticism – this became a major tool.146 The parables in both Luke and Matthew are analysed thoroughly from this perspective.147 The evangelists have a great impact on the selection of parables, on some features in the imagery and on the frames, etc. Birger Gerhardsson was well aware of the characteristics of the evangelists.148 In the eleven types of frames in the fifty-five narrative meshalim, he saw some as ‘redactional’ work.149 In spite of a certain number of ‘redactional’ frames, he did not allow the historical ‘quest’ to be dominating. It is a better approach to start with the question: ‘What happens if we do not cut the 144

H.D. Betz, Sermon (1995), 51, 222ff. Zimmermann, “How to understand the parables of Jesus” (2009), 162ff, referring to the concept of J.D.G. Dunn in Jesus Remembered (2003). 146 Michael D. Goulder, “Characteristics of the Parables in the Several Gospels”, JTS 19 (1968), 51–69, and more in his Midrash and Lection in Matthew (1974) and Luke – a New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1989. John Drury, The Parables in the Gospels: History and Allegory, London: SPCK 1985; Donahue, The Gospel in Parable (see above, n. 50). 147 Studies of Luke’s parables (e.g. G. Schneider, G. Sellin, K.E. Bailey, T.L. Noel, C.L. Blomberg, B. Heininger, G.W. Forbes, T.K. Seim) and of Matthew (e.g. J.D. Kingsbury, J. Lambrecht, C. Münch, I.H. Jones, W. Carter/J.P. Heil, J. Roloff, P.Y. Oppong-Kumi, R. Zimmermann). Matthew has collected 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 τίς ἐξ ὑµῶν-parables both in the SM and in Matt 18, cf. Heinrich Greeven, “Wer unter Euch …?”, WD 3 (1952), 86–101. 148 Gerhardsson, “Illuminating the Kingdom” (above, n. 133), 284–288. 149 Gerhardsson, “If we do not cut” (above, n. 133), 105, n. 4. 145

572

§ 9 A Possible New Consensus in Parable-Research

parables out of their frames?’150 To understand and unfold the dynamic between frame and parable is always an important task in parable-research. Matt 5,23f shows that the frame perfectly fits the parable, and vice-versa: the parable perfectly fits the frame. 3) Theological impact: Matt 5,23f as a parable of forgiveness in Matthew’s framework. The illustrative example underlines – metaphorically ‒ the theme of forgiveness. The theme of forgiveness occurs particularly in Matthew’s characteristic ‘additions’ (5,23f; 6,14f) to texts from his ‘Sondergut’,151 and this might be the reason for adding it to the first antithesis. This parable has crucial terms for forgiveness, ἀφεῖναι (Matt 6,12.14; 9,2.5f; 18,27.32.35) and the hapax legomenon, διαλλάσσοµαι, plus the term δῶρον, ‘gift’. The last term is somewhat different from the meaning in Eph 2,8 (gift as grace). It is used here and in Matt 2,11; 8,4; 15,5; 23,18f in the context of sacrificial gifts that the Law of Moses required. In most of its occurrences in Matthew ἀφεῖναι means simply ‘leave’, ‘allow’, ‘let’, etc. We see here the continuity with some Jewish texts.152 In a Jewish context Matt 5,23f could be heard as prophetic cult-criticism, which is not the theme here. In Matt 5,23 forgiveness is the opposite of murder, anger, an unfriendly attitude (Matt 5,21f.38ff). The ‘logic of superabundance’ or of generosity and forgiveness is the real issue in many antitheses. It wants to show that the opposite of revenge is graciousness, forgiveness and the way to reconciliation.153 The notion of equal retribution is transcended, and what is excessive, the surplus of good deeds, is the theme. Forgiveness exceeds the do ut desprinciple, and generosity is precisely to exceed the expectations of others.

150 Birger Gerhardsson, “The Seven Parables in Matthew XIII”, NTS 19 (1972/73), 16– 37 = idem, The Shema in the New Testament (1996), 53–74 (= “De sju liknelserna i Matteus 13”, SEÅ 34 [1969], 77–106). Gerhardsson used his Presidential address at SNTS 1990 (published in NTS 37 [1991], 321–335) to challenge the scholarly view. 151 Matt 1,21; the Q-texts Matt 5,38–48; 6,12; 7,1–5 and 18,23–35, cf. Marius J. Nel, “The motive of forgiveness in the Gospel according to Matthew”, In die Skriflig 49/1 (2015), 1–9; idem, “The Forgiveness of Debt in Matthew 6:12, 14–15”, Neot. 47 (2013), 87–106. Matt 6,12 is about asking for forgiveness, 6,14f about mutual forgiveness, 18,23ff about receiving and granting forgiveness, and then Did. 14,1f about forgiveness and Holy Communion. Matt 5,23f does not have the terms ὀφείληµα, ὀφειλέτης. Stuhlmacher, “Leben unter der Vergebung” (2003), 162, uses Matt 6,12 to show that prayers precede forgiving. Therefore the present tense ἀφίοµεν in Luke 11,4 is replaced by the aorist ἀφήκαµεν (translating an Aramaic perfect). 152 The word means rather ‘sin’, as in Jewish prayers and texts, e.g. Sir 28,4 (“If someone has no mercy towards another like himself, can he then seek pardon for his own sin?”), not like Deut 15,2 (a creditor could sell a debtor/his family into slavery). 153 The famous dictum of Epicurus might serve as illustration: “To retaliate good with evil is satanic. To retaliate good with good and evil with evil is human. To retaliate evil with good is divine” (according to Lactantius, De ira 13,19).

9.5 The Function of the Parables: Proofs or Illustrations

573

The parable does not say all this. It remains a parable, which means that it remains an analogy. If the parable (illustrative example) were a real moral exhortation, every detail had to be applied: offering, ‘brother’, distances/ efforts, etc. – and equally in Matt 5,25f (court, adversary, pay-back, every penny). As parables with distinct metaphors they point, however, in a certain direction: the priority of forgiveness before offerings, the unconditional willingness to forgive, forgiveness and reconciliation as two stages, etc. 4) Concluding remarks. Matt 5,23ff is a brief, but illuminating parable in the Synoptic tradition. Its exegesis illustrates many dilemmas in recent parable-research. Exegetes are so bewildered and puzzled that it clearly reveals the weaknesses of some approaches. The neglect of Matt 5,23f in more recent parable-research is partly accidental and partly it reveals weaknesses. The criticism of Jülicher was launched one hundred years ago. Jülicher’s principles gained influence through influence from dominating exegetes (Bultmann, Jeremias, Dodd, et al.), who criticised different aspects and different principles of Jülicher’s work. A broader criticism came after 1970, but until recently it was not perceived as a common effort. R. Zimmermann especially has put parable-research onto the right track. But his ‘new paradigm’ needs to be refined. The simple category ‘parable’ requires some subcategories and a more precise classification. The impact of narrative signals, sociological references, the usage of metaphors in the imagery, must be clearer. Zimmermann correctly promotes a more open attitude towards the multiple functions of the parables,154 and like Gerhardsson and Schottroff one should think that a certain frame does not restrict the openness of meanings. A new paradigm cannot allow a lingering dogmatic separation of parable and frame. Nearly all of Jülicher’s principles fail when it comes to this parable. Matt 5,23f shows that a rethinking of the text as parable and rethinking of parables as such is necessary. The parable in Matt 5,23f is just an example, but an annoying one for many interpreters of the parables. Matt 5,23f is like pebbles in a road that topple a big load – or to use another image: only little strokes can fell a big oak.

154

Cf. Mary A. Tolbert, Perspectives on the Parables: An Approach to Multiple Interpretations, Philadelphia: Fortress 1979.

Brief Concluding Remarks The title of the book presents the thesis of this book: the SM is a radical philosophy of life. The SM entails theology, offers a distinct ethical thinking, but basically the SM provides a philosophy of life. The notion of ‘philosophy’ is unconventional in this context, whereas the notion of ‘radical’ is very traditional. However, it is here not so much about radical demands or radical attitudes. It is about radical thinking, about reflection on what life is all about. ‘Philosophy’ and not ‘theology’ – or ‘religion’ – is therefore a better term.

Basic Challenges In the extensive history of research, I presented some of the basic problems in research on the SM. It differs from previous histories of research by not focusing on types of interpretations or concentrating on ‘the problem’/‘the meaning’ of the SM. This essentialist approach isolates and makes the problem of practicality the dominating issue. Through the distinction between influence versus interpretation we somehow surprisingly discovered that influence is relatively independent from interpretation. The influence is caused by the text itself and rather seldom on sophisticated scholarly interpretations. Scholarly interpretations have generally a rather modest influence, but sometimes it corrects and deepens the meaning that made the SM influential. The enormous influence of the SM: why? The most influential speech ever can easily be an object for criticism, and as classical text easily be mitigated and neutralized. This has not happened. Even harsh critics of Christianity show high appreciation for the SM. Critics of Jesus’ teaching – like Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell – are among the very few, who remain critical to the SM also. Atheists like Richard Dawkins see the SM as an exception. Philosophers, thinkers from different religions agree with most lay Christians: the SM is the core of Christian ethical thinking. Many theologians see it the same way, and only politicians from countries with strong Christian influence, think the SM is not practicable as political document. It might be a

576

Brief Concluding Remarks

surprise for outsiders that the most substantial skepticism against the SM can be found among exegetes. We have seen a range of positions in the history of influence. The SM is seen as: – essence of Christianity – core of Jesus’ teaching – radical edition of Jesus’ teaching – Matthew’s teaching – teaching of an ascetical group The history of research revealed the variety of positions. The first position is more common outside the churches than among theologians. Theologians tend to argue in favor of the second or third position. Exegetes can do the same, but many argue primarily for the fourth position and some even for the last one. Ways to prevent influence from the SM. What happened after Augustine and John Chrysostom had attributed the SM a prominent position in the new ‘Constantinian’ era? Augustine formulated a virtue ethics and Chrysostom highlighted the SM as a Christian politeia. Hellenistic philosophers understood clearly what the SM was all about. However, immediately after Christian rulers neglected or were forced to neglect the radical message. No ruler or theological adviser recognized the SM as ‘speculum regis’. The closest was the book Life of Constantine (Βίος Μεγάλου Κωνσταντίνου) by Eusebius of Caesarea, written before 340 CE. He perceived Constantine as the new Moses as contrast to the ‘Pharao’, Diocletian, and concentrated on his life, not his ethical behaviour. We do not have Christian equivalents to Philodemus (The good king according to Homer) or Cicero (De officiis) or the books by Xenophon (on Cyrus), Isocrates (To Nicocles and To Exagoras).1 The rise of the ascetic movement by Anthony the Great (251–356) and the foundation of monasteries provided models for the complete fulfillment of the ethics of the SM and left behind the outsiders, who lived according to modified demands. Luther opposed this kind of double ethics, with the effect that he introduced a new double ethics (for individuals versus the state), and with more devastating effect: the Decalogue and not the SM became the first part of the Catechism. Calvin and the Reformed churches followed the same path. The exception is the Anabaptist movement, which highlighted the radical demands. For John Wesley and the Methodists and for the pietistic movement the SM was essential in their preaching more than in their teaching. 1 Jan Manuel Schulte, Speculum Regis: Studien zur Fürstenspiegel-Literatur in der griechisch-römischen Antike (Antike Kultur und Geschichte 3), Münster: Lit 2001, offers a broad overview.

Basic Challenges

577

After the Enlightenment and in the era of Liberal theology efforts were made to attributed the SM a central place in society and teaching and preaching. They succeeded in strengthening its place in preaching, partly in education, but not in society. The SM was occasionally part of the curriculum in Christian schools, mostly in the gymnasium as part of an advanced teaching. The two world wars with Christians using the SM on both sides in the First World War and against the evil power of the Nazis etc., the SM lost its role as general ethics. Efforts to reinforce its significance were strong after the Second World War, but plurality in societies and in the global world reduced the plausibility-structure2 of the Church and partly of the SM also. For many observers it was therefore rather a surprise that the SM got a predominant role in the non-violence movement in the 1960s (M.L. King) and in the peace-movement in the 1980s. These movements with their one-sided argumentation were not able to offer a broader ethical and philosophical argumentation and enhance the role of the SM in the global plausibilitystructure. What do we mean with ‘the SM’? Sometimes the SM seems like a colossus on feet of clay. It is perceived as a crucial witness or as an arbitrary statement for an out-group, as one of the oldest Christian memories and as one of the youngest. This is very much a historical question, but also a matter of definition. We see at least positions in the exegetical literature: – the SM as a speech Jesus delivered in his earliest ministry – the SM as cipher for the ethical teaching of Jesus, specifically his radical ethics – ‘Sermo in Monte’ = Matt 5–7, different from the Sermon on the Plain, Luke 6,20–49 – a reconstructed speech, presumably the common sayings in Matt 5–7; Luke 6,20–49 – the first sermon Matthew presents delivered to his community about 80 CE All options are possible, and some of them can be defended simultaneously. Scholars should make clear their usage. The limitations of the SM. The SM has indeed limitations, and we have analysed the historical, linguistical, ethical, theological and philosophical limitations (§ 1.3.10.3). The typical way to characterize these limitations is to use the reductional ‘only’ or ‘not’: the SM was only for a peculiar group in first-century Galilee and not for us, only for individuals and not for a state, etc. The SM is only exaggerations and not norms. The ethics is only for 2

Labelled by Peter L. Berger in The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, New York: Doubleday 1967, 44, 192, etc.

578

Brief Concluding Remarks

ascetics, monks, etc., and not for ordinary people (cf. 3.8.3 – summary and consequences). Some of these ‘onlys’ and ‘nots’ might be correct, but I have argued that nearly all are misleading and some are false. The intrinsic and extended meanings. It is important to distinguish intrinsic meaning and extended meaning. The intrinsic meaning analyses the SM as text or in relation to its pre-text. The extended meaning confronts the SM with actual problems and challenges, and will therefore never be the same as its historical meaning. They should be congruent and recognizable in spite of the difference between now and then. The extended meaning is its political meaning in a new situation, its ethical meaning in a current ethical discourse, its theological meaning in the present theological debates and its philosophical meaning in a broader philosophical framework. To reflect on the limitation of the SM is one thing. To see its potential in a new setting is the fascinating task of an interpreter. For Christian politicians dealing with evil forces it is a harder challenge than for individuals. The ethics of attitude challenges radically everybody who listens to the SM. Not the problem, but ten distinct problems. The question of the meaning (German: Sinn) of the SM is not false, but too general and it focuses on one aspect (radicalism) and on the Antitheses in particular. The question of radicalism is only one and not the crucial question in the exegesis of the SM. There is indeed more than one problem, and in this book ten problems have been highlighted: Historical problems = reconstruction Source-critical questions The quest for the historical Jesus Matthew and his community The Jewish (vs. Hellenistic) framework Orality and literacy

Historical problems + interpretation Question of composition Question of audience Question of radicalism Ethical argumentation Theological (religious)/philosophical issues

The historical and the ‘theological’/actual interpretations cannot be separated. Some are nearly exclusively historical, some are mainly historical or ‘theological’. The ‘problem’ or the ‘meaning’ of the SM is more than the solution of one question (of radicalism). Only when all ten questions are irradiated and applied in the exegetical analysis, the problem/meaning of the SM is illuminated.

The Historical Quest We can and we must reconstruct the historical fact as much and as clearly as possible. Reconstructions of a pre-text are doomed to fail, because it is like archeology without data/visible layers. However, in this respect also the SM

The Historical Quest

579

is a unique text.3 Through the comparison with Q/the SP certain layers are visible, and the four layers (IS – Q – Mark – MattS/LukeS) have here been analysed in many ways. The task is not so much to reconstruct sources behind the Gospels. The task is to accentuate and underscore characteristics in these layers. The four layers have here been analysed from different angles: style, composition, audience, radicalism, Jewishness, ethics, theology. Historiography versus methods. The historical quest is traditionally solved through certain methods. It is not a weakness of this approach that methods have changed according to certain trends: literary criticism, form-criticism, redaction-criticism, rhetorical criticism, etc. The weakness has been the onesided usage, some of its disputable premises, and that they leave too many aspects open. Instead of focusing on methods, one should seek to overview the entire picture through a broad historiographical approach. With few exceptions historiography is paid little attention to in New Testament scholarship (see § 2). Historiography helps us evaluate the system of methods, the crucial matter in source-criticism, the distinction between ‘source’ and ‘relic’ (§ 2.1), between orality and literacy (§ 2.5) and the basic history-theoretical questions (§ 2.7–8). In historiography scholars too often and too easily make use of the notion of new paradigm, assuming that the old scholarship needs to be replaced by a new paradigm. This opinion is sometimes eligible, and it is applied both in § 2 and § 9. However, an integrational approach is generally better than a confrontational one. Whatever position, scholars have the obligation to put the methods, approaches, premises, models, categories, history-theoretical reflections into a historiographical pattern. This was the task in § 2 and in every paragraph the historiographical consideration is part of the argument. Orality versus literacy. The old-fashioned source-criticism (1820–1920) aimed at the reconstruction of literal sources. Oral sources and the phenomenon of orality were disparaged. Form-criticism, at least the approach of Martin Dibelius, gave orality more room, but retained the premise that literary sources were more valuable. This premise was challenged by the Swedish school (Riesenfeld; Gerhardsson) which based their argument on the analogy of the transmission of rabbinic traditions. This argument is disputable, but the reevaluation of orality is their legacy, and recently the revival of the ‘socialmemory theory’ by M. Halbwachs, attributed orality a new status and role. Chris Keith has analysed the orality of the SM and he and others working with social memory tend to replace both source-theories and the criteria of authenticity. In § 2.6 and 2.7–8 I argued for a more balanced view. 3

204.

Baasland, “Auf der Spur einer ‘Grundsatzrede’ vor der Bergpredigt” (2019), esp. 202,

580

Brief Concluding Remarks

Composition: do we have alternatives to a rhetorical approach? Old paradigm and new paradigm can easily collide when it comes to composition. A historical-genetical approach versus text- (and reader-)oriented text-model is a well-known conflict. There is, in fact, a contradiction between an approach that wants to explain the growth of the text genetically from the oldest layers to the youngest. The final text is the result of a process and not the product of an inventor or author. In this respect a confrontation is necessary. An author(and theology-)model does not give the answer, rather an analytical reexamination of the solutions that illuminate the text. A text- (and reader-) oriented model does not exclude possible reconstructions of the traditionhistory behind the final text. These reconstructions will remain hypothetical, but in the case of the SM good reasons for reconstructions can be given. At the end the question is: Is the SM from the outset a deliberative speech with a number of rhetorical features? I have argued comprehensively for this position in § 3. Orality plays a role both in the SP and in the SM, but Matthew has made the deliberative character more visible and has an extremely clear outline. Audience: disciple-ethics or universal addressee? For a speaker/author the ‘audience’ is decisive; and most scholars think the SM is disciple-ethics. This book argued in favour of a general audience (§ 4). Next to historical and literary arguments, the tools of reader-response criticism have been used to (re)discover the implied speaker and audience. Can a radical text like the SM have a general, wide audience? The paragraph on radicalism (§ 5) followed up this question and the same did – indirectly – the paragraph on parables also. The final paragraph demonstrated that a new consensus is developing in recent research. The parables of the SM in a broader context. The insight that rhetoric and exaggeration are the form of this speech for a general audience leads to a fundamental reflection on interpretation of parables (§ 9). The old paradigm in parable-research established by Adolf Jülicher, is in the process of being replaced by a new paradigm. Matt 5,23f, the first parable in the SM was an annoying one for the old paradigm. The parable could not fit into Jülicher’s scheme, and he just overlooked Matt 5,23f. It was like pebbles in the road to understanding. To list its short-comings is like little strokes that fell a big oak. The new paradigm must of course be demonstrated on other parables than Matt 5,23f also.

The Philosophical Quest

581

The Philosophical Quest Historiography offers much help when it comes to evaluation of sources and to connect historical acts, and not to interpretation. Historiography refers here to hermeneutics, literary criticism, philosophy, etc. Historical quest leads to interpretation, and interpretation presupposes historical research. Interpretation should focus on the intention and meaning and put this meaning in a broader framework. Radicalism. Previous research has focused on the meaning, and answered often by formulations like ‘only‘ (for monks, disciples, individuals, etc.) or ‘not … but’- formulations (not universal laws, but …). These formulations sometimes hit the point and sometimes they miss crucial points. The task of interpretation is broader (see § 5.8.3). Radicalism is a well-known label in the research of the SM. The speech consists of radical demands and has radical followers as audience. Radicalism can, however, be understood differently; it is about thinking radically what good life is, and act accordingly. This radical thinking about ‘existence’ is based on the interpretation of texts and on study of analogies: sages, prophets and pilgrims show what radical thinking and radical living is all about. The unique forms of exaggeration in the SM have parallels both in the Tanach and classical sources (§ 5.7), but the rhetorical form expresses perfectly the philosophical radicalism of the SM. The SM more than theology and ethics. It is natural to interpret the message of the SM theologically and ethically, by using the tools for ethical and theological interpretation. Scholars see of course the limitation of focusing on the SM alone, and interpret the theology and ethics as part of Jesus’ or Matthew’s theology and ethics. The SM is mainly understood as ethics more than theology, and is often understood as a cluster of ethical devices. Many scholars see the limitations of a theological approach, and for nearly a hundred years scholars have characterized the SM as eschatological teaching, and dealt with the relation between eschatology and ethics. The eschatological approach is a stopgap solution, however. The solution before 1920 was to see the SM as ‘religion’/expression of religious convictions. This can be a too narrow perspective also. We have therefore used George A. Lindbeck’s categories (§ 6.1.1), and rejected a theological ‘cognitive-propositional’ approach as well as the liberal/religion-historical/existentialistic ‘experiential-expressive’ approach. A ‘cultural-linguistic’ approach sees the theology and ethics in the SM as part of a system developed ‘within Judaism’. It is a unique piece of theology/ethics ‘within Judaism’, and the task is to compare the ‘self-presentation’ of Christian-Jewish identity in the SM. The

582

Brief Concluding Remarks

Shema and covenantal thinking are its basis, but the unique speech implies a shaking of the foundations. The SM is so deeply rooted in Judaism that it comes as a surprise how strongly Hellenistic thinking is comparable with its argumentation. The reason for that is its philosophical character. Philosophical argumentation. It is an exaggeration to label the SM as philosophy.4 There are still many philosophical features in the SM. Hans D. Betz and Gerd Theißen have here turned the interpretation of the SM in the right direction. Nearly every sentence in the SM has philosophical implications, but some texts have obviously philosophical character: the Beatitudes reflect the philosophical theme of happiness/good life, 5,17(–20) on the king and his Laws, 5,22.39–42 on aggression, 5,33–37 on ‘truth’, 5,44–47 on ‘friends and foes’, 6,22f on seeing and recognition, 6,25–34 on tranquility, 7,6–11 on ‘giving’, benefactors. In this book Matt 6,34, which is mostly labelled as secondary ‘wisdom-saying’, has been used as another example of the profound philosophical thinking in the SM. The ethics, even in the Golden Rule, has philosophical elements also, but its ethics has primary parallels in Jewish wisdom-ethics. The parallels in James (§ 7) show that this kind of ethics was elaborated already in the early Church. The SM as rhetorical, protreptic speech addressed to a universal audience offers a profound philosophical teaching, with a radical existentialistic reflection of what real life is all about. It is developed within Judaism, based on ‘implicit Christology’, and entails radical philosophical thinking. This radical thinking in its rhetorical form provides a universal message.

4 The traces of philosophical character in Jesus’ teaching has recently been pursued and often overstated by some scholars (e.g. Peter Kreeft, Paul K. Moser, Georg Haraskin). The most profound and balanced view is given by Luke T. Johnson in Contested Issues in Christian Origins and the New Testament (NovTSup 146), Leiden: Brill 2013, 71–110. This effort is not at all new. From an existence-philosophical starting-point Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Ricœur took the same approach..

Bibliography General literature Alexander, Patrick H., et al. (eds.): The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson 1999.

Language tools Aland, Kurt: Vollständige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament: Unter Zugrundelegung aller modernen kritischen Textausgaben und des Textus receptus (Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 4.I–III), Berlin: De Gruyter 1983ff. Bauer, Walter (Kurt und Barbara Aland): Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, Berlin: De Gruyter 61988; ET: Walter Bauer/William F. Arndt/F. Wilbur Gingrich/Frederick W. Danker (eds.): A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Chicago: Chicago University Press 1979. Black, Matthew: An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford: Clarendon 1967; German translation: Die Muttersprache Jesu; das aramäische der Evangelien und der Apostelgeschichte, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1982. Blass, Friedrich/Albert Debrunner/Friedrich Rehkopf: Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 182001; ET: A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago: Chicago University Press 1961. Crum, Walter E.: A Coptic Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon 1990 (11939). Dalman, Gustaf: Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch: Nach den Idiomen des palästinischen Talmud, des Onkelostargum und Prophetentargum und der jerusalemischen Targume, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1960. –: Aramäisch-neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch. Mit Lexikon der Abbreviaturen von G.H. Händler, Göttingen: Pfeiffer 31938. Fanning, Buist M.: Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, Oxford: Clarendon 1990. Gesenius, Wilhelm/Frants Buhl: Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, Berlin: De Gruyter 171962. Hatch, Edwin/Henry A. Redpath: A Concordance to the Septuagint and other Greek Versions of the Old Testament, 3 vols., Oxford: Clarendon 1897–1906; new editions: Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt 1954, and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1983. Liddell, Henry G./Robert Scott: A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon 1961 (1940). Lisowsky, Gerhard (/Leonhard. Rost/Hans Peter Rüger) (eds.): Konkordanz zum hebräischen Alten Testament: Nach dem von Paul Kahle in der Biblia Hebraica edidit Rudolf

584

Bibliography

Kittel besorgten Masoretischen Text (Concordantiae Veteris Testamenti Hebraicae et Aramaicae), Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 31993. Morgenthaler, Robert: Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes, Zürich: Gotthelf Verlag 1968. Moulton, James Hope/George Milligan: The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the papyri and other non-literary sources, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1957. Moulton, James Hope(/Nigel Turner): A grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. I: Prolegomena, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 31967; vol. II: Accidence and word-formation: With an appendix on semitisms in the New Testament, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1976; vol. III: Syntax, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1963; vol. IV: Style, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1976. Neirynck, Frans (/Frans van Segbroeck): New Testament Vocabulary: A companion volume to the concordance (BETL 65), Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters 1984. Porter, Stanley E.: Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (Studies in Biblical Greek), Frankfurt am Main etc.: Peter Lang 32003. Preisigke, Friedrich/Emil Kießling: Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden mit Einschluß der griechischen Inschriften, Aufschriften, Ostraka, Mumienschilder usw. aus Ägypten, 4 vols., Berlin: De Gruyter 1925–1933.

Sources Tanach and New Testament Aland, Barbara/Kurt Aland/Johannes Karavidopoulos/Carlo M. Martini/Bruce M. Metzger (eds.): Novum Testamentum Graece, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 271993/2006. Aland, Kurt: Synopsis quattuor evangeliorum: Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 152001. Crossan, John D.: Sayings Parallels: A Workbook for the Jesus Tradition, Philadelphia: Fortress 1986. Funk, Robert W. (ed.): New Gospel Parallels, vol. 1: The Synoptic Gospels, vol. 2: John and the Other Gospels (FF 5–6), Sonoma: Polebridge 21990, 1985. Funk, Robert W. (and Roy W. Hoover): The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, New York: Macmillan 1993. Greeven, Heinrich: Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien: Mit Beigabe der johanneischen Parallelstellen = Synopsis of the first three Gospels, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1981. Jongkind, Dirk/Peter Williams: The Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge: Crossway 2017. Kloppenborg, John S.: Parallels: Synopsis, critical notes & concordance, Sonoma: Polebridge 1987. Neirynck, Frans: Q-Parallels: Q-Synopsis and IQP/CritEd Parallels (SNTA 20), Leuven: Leuven University Press 2001 (= Q-Synopsis [SNTA 13], 11988). Neirynck, Frans/Frans van Segbroeck: New Testament Vocabulary: A companion volume to the concordance (BETL 65), Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters 1984. Rahlfs, Alfred (ed.): Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (Editio minor), 2 vols., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 1935 (1979). Robinson, James M./Paul Hoffmann/John S. Kloppenborg: The Critical Edition of Q: A Synopsis, Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas (Hermeneia Commentary Supplements), Leuven: Peeters/Minneapolis: Fortress 2000. Rüger, Hans Peter (ed.): Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartiensis, editio quarta emendata opera, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 41990.

Bibliography

585

Ziegler, Joseph, et al. (eds.): Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1931–. Jewish Sources The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, ed. Robert Henry Charles, 2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon 1913. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, 2 vols., London: Darton, Longman & Todd 1983–1985. Josephus. In nine [ten] volumes, ed. Henry St. John Thackeray/Ralph Marcus/Allen Wikgren/Louis H. Feldman (LCL), Cambridge, Mass./London: Heinemann 1926–1965. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, ed. Werner Georg Kümmel et al., 5 vols., Gütersloh: Mohn 1973–2003. Philonis Opera quae supersunt, ed. Leopold Cohn et al., 7 vols., new edition, Berlin: De Gruyter 1962–1963. Philo in ten volumes (and two supplementary volumes), ed. Francis H. Colson/George H. Whitaker (LCL), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press/Heinemann 1952. The Philo index: A complete Greek word index to the writings of Philo of Alexandria, ed. Peder Borgen/Käre Fuglseth/Roalod Skarsten, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2000. Die Texte aus Qumran: Hebräisch und deutsch. Mit masoretischer Punktation, ed. Eduard Lohse, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 41986. Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer, ed. Johann Maier, 3 vols. (UTB 1862/ 1863/1916), München: Reinhardt 1995. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English translations (The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project), ed. James H. Charlesworth, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1994–. Hellenistic Sources Aristotle: Aristotelis ars rhetorica/recogn. brevique adnotatione critica instruxit W. David Ross (Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis/Oxford classical texts), Oxford: Clarendon 1959. –: The Nicomachean Ethics, ed. Harris Rackham (LCL), London: Heinemann/Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1994; Aristotelis Ethica Nicomachea/recogn. brevique adnotatione critica instruxit Ingram Bywater, Oxford: Clarendon 2007. –: The Eudemian ethics, ed. Harris Rackham (LCL 285), London: Heinemann/Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1938/1992. Cicero, Marcus Tullius: De inventione, De optimo genere oratorum, Topica, ed. Harry M. Hubbell (LCL 386), London: Heinemann 41993. –: De officiis, ed. Walter Miller (LCL 030), London: Heinemann 1946; M. Tulli Ciceronis de officiis libri tres, ed. Hubert A. Holden, Amsterdam: Hakkert 1966. –: De oratore: In two volumes, ed. Edward W. Sutton (LCL 348), London: Heinemann 3 1959. –: Tusculan disputations, ed. John E. King (LCL 141), London: Heinemann 61989; Tusculan disputations, ed. Alan E. Douglas (Classical texts), Warminster: Aris & Phillips). –: De oratore, 2 vols., ed. Edward W. Sutton (LCL 348) and Harris Rackham (LCL 349), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1948. –: Pro Caelio, De Provinciis Consularibus, Pro Balbo, ed. Robert Gardner (LCL 447), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 2005.

586

Bibliography

Dio Chrysostom: Orationes in five volumes, ed. James W. Cohoon (LCL 257.339.358.376. 385), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1971 (1949–1951). Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 2 vols., ed. Robert D. Hicks (LCL 184– 185), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1958–1959. Epictetus, Dissertationes: The Discourses as reported by Arrian, The Manual, and Fragments, 2 vols., ed. William A. Oldfather (LCL 131.218), London: Heinemann 1952– 1956 (1985, vol. II includes Fragments. Enchiridion). –: The Enchiridion of Epictetus and its three Christian adaptations: Translation and critical Editions (Philosophia antiqua 82), ed. Gerard Boter, Leiden: Brill 1999. Hesiod: Works and days (Opera et dies/ἕργα καὶ ἡµέραι), ed. Glenn W. Most (LCL 57), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 2006; Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et Dies, Scutum, Fragmenta Selecta, ed. Friedrich Solmsen et al., Oxford: Oxford University Press 1990. Horace: Q. Horati Flacci Opera, ed. David R. Shackleton Bailey, Stuttgart: Teubner 1985. –: Q. Horatius Flaccus, Satiren und Briefe, Zürich: Artemis 1962. –: Odes and Epodes (LCL 33), Cambridge, Mass./London: Heinemann 2004. –: De arte poetica liber: Horst Rüdiger, Die Dichtkunst: Lateinisch und deutsch, Zürich: Artemis 1961. Iamblichus: Jamblich, Pythagoras: Legende – Lehre – Lebensgestaltung, ed. Michael von Albrecht et al. (Sapere IV), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2002. Isocrates: Discourses & Letters, ed. James W. Cohoon, 3 vols. (LCL 209.229.373), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 2000–2006. Ovid: Ovid: In six volumes, ed. Frank J. Miller (LCL 42.43), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1946–1951. Pliny the Elder: Natural history: In ten volumes, ed. Harris Rackham (LCL 330.352.353, etc.), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1949–1962. Plutarch: Moralia: In sixteen volumes, ed. Frank C. Babbitt et al. (LCL), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1927ff. Quintilian: Institutio oratoria of Quintilian, ed. Harold E. Butler, 4 vols. (LCL), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1989; Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, Book 2, ed. Tobias Reinhardt/Michael Winterbottom, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006; Marcus Fabius Quintilian, Ausbildung des Redners: Zwölf Bücher, ed. Helmut Rahn, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1988. Seneca: Epistulae morales: Moral Essays, ed. John W. Basore, 3 vols. (LCL), London: Heinemann/Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1953. Rabbinic Sources Mishnah, Talmud, Tosefta: The Mishnah, ed. Herbert Danby, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1933/81964. The Mishnah: A New Translation, ed. Jacob Neusner, New Haven: Yale University Press 1988. Talmud Bavli: Der babylonische Talmud: Nach der ersten zensurfreien Ausgabe unter Berücksichtigung der neueren Ausgaben und handschriftlichen Materials, ed. Lazarus Goldschmidt, 12 vols., Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag 1930–1938. The Babylonian Talmud, ed. Isidore Epstein, 18 vols., London: Soncino 1961 (vols. I– XXXV, London: Soncino 1935–1952). The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation, ed. Jacob Neusner et al., 63 vols., Atlanta: Scholars Press 1984–.

Bibliography

587

Talmud Jerushalmi: Der Jerusalemer Talmud in deutscher Übersetzung, ed. Charles Horowitz/Peter Schäfer/Martin Hengel et al., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1975–. The Tosefta, ed. Jacob Neusner, 6 vols., New York: Ktav 1975–1986. Die Tosefta (Rabbinische Texte. Erste Reihe), ed. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf et al., Stuttgart : Kohlhammer 1953–. Targum: The Aramaic Bible (the Targums), ed. Martin McNamara, 19 vols., Wilmington: Glazier 1987–1994. Targum Onqelos: The Bible in Aramaic I, ed. Alexander Sperber, Leiden: Brill 1959 (1992). Targum Jonathan (Neviím): The Bible in Aramaic II–III, ed. Alexander Sperber, Leiden: Brill 1959. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Ben Uziel on the Pentateuch, ed. Ernest G. Clarke, Hoboken: Ktav 1984. Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, trans. Jacob Z. Lauterbach, 5 vols., Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1976/1933–1935; Yishmael Ben-Elisha (ed.), Mekhilta according to Rabbi Ishmael: An analytical translation, trans. Jacob Neusner, 2 vols., Atlanta: Scholars Press 1988. Sifre on Deuteronomy, ed. Louis Finkelstein, Breslau/Berlin: Jüdischer Kulturbund 1935– 1939/New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America 1969; Sifre on Deuteronomy: An Analytical Translation, ed. Jacob Neusner, 2 vols., Atlanta: Scholars Press 1987. Apocrypha, Christian Origins, Gospel of Thomas Elliott, James Keith: The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon 1993. Gregory, Andrew/Christopher M. Tuckett (eds.): Early Christian Apocrypha (Oxford Handbook), Oxford: Oxford University Press 2015. Markschies, Christoph/Jens Schröter (eds.): Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. I/1, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2012. Evangelium Thomae Copticum, in Kurt Aland (ed.), Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 151997, 517–546; trans. Jens Schröter/HansGebhard Bethge, “Das Evangelium nach Thomas”, in Hans-Martin Schenke (ed.), Nag Hammadi Deutsch, vol. 2/1: NHC I,1–V,1 (GCS NF 8), Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 2001, 151–181 (English translation also). Nordsieck, Reinhard: Das Thomasevangelium, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2 2004. Plisch, Uwe-Karsten: Das Thomasevangelium: Originaltext mit Kommentar, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2007. Sources and Studies of Parallel Texts (Rabbinic and Hellenistic, etc.) Jewish: Basser, Herbert W./Marsha B. Cohen: The Gospel of Matthew and Judaic Traditions: A Relevance based Commentary, Leiden: Brill 2015. (Strack, Hermann Leberecht/)Paul Billerbeck: Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. 1: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus: Erläutert aus Talmud und Midrasch, München: C.H. Beck 41966.

588

Bibliography

Fiebig, Paul: Jesu Bergpredigt: Rabbinische Texte zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt, ins Deutsche übersetzt, in ihren Ursprachen dargeboten und mit Erläuterungen und Lesarten versehen (FRLANT NF 20), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1924. Friedlander, Gerald: The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount, London/New York: Routledge 1911. Ginzel, Günther Bernd: Die Bergpredigt: Jüdisches und christliches Glaubensdokument; eine Synopse, Heidelberg: Schneider 1985. Lachs, Samuel Tobias: A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Hoboken: Ktav 1987. Lightfoot, John: Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae, 6 vols., Cambridge: Johannes Field 1658–1678; ET: A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, vol. II: Matthew and Mark, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House 1979. Montefiore, Claude G.: The Synoptic Gospels, vol. 2, New York: Ktav 1968 (1927, first edition 1909), 26–127. –: Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings, London: Macmillan 1930/New York: Ktav 1970. Smith, Morton: Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (JBL Monograph Series 6), Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature 1951. Wünsche, August: Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1878 (repr., Hildesheim: Olms 2005). Hellenistic Parallels: Wettstein, Johann J.: Novum Testamentum Græcum editionis receptæ, cum Lectionibus Variantibus Codicum MSS., Amsterdam 1751 (repr., Novum Testamentum Græcum editionis receptæ, cum Lectionibus Variantibus Codicum MSS., Editionum aliarum, Versionum et Patrum, necnon Commentario pleniore ex Scriptoribus veteribus, Hebræis, Græcis, et Latinis, historiam et vim verborum illustrante, in two volumes, Amsterdam: Dommerian 1752; repr., Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt 1962). Neuer Wettstein, vol. I/I.2: Texte zum Matthäusevangelium. Teilband 1: Matthäus 1–10, ed. Udo Schnelle, Berlin: De Gruyter 2013. Other Parallels: Erman, Adolf: Die Literatur der Ägypter, Leipzig: Hinrichs 1923. Pritchard, James B. (ed.): Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (= ANET), Princeton: Princeton University Press 31913. Socin, Albert: Arabische Sprichwörter und Redensarten (Tübinger Universitätsschriften), Tübingen: Heinrich Laupp 1878. Church Fathers and Reformation Justin Martyr, 1 Apol.: Leslie W. Barnard (ed.), The First and Second Apologies, New York: Paulist 1997. Justin Martyr, Dial.: Justin Martyr, Dialogue avec Tryphon: Édition critique, ed. Philippe Bobichon, 2 vols. (Paradosis 47/1–2), Fribourg: Academic Press 2003; Jacobus C.M. van Winden, An Early Christian Philosopher: Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho Chapters 1 to 9, trans. P.V. Spade (Philosophia Patrum 1), Leiden: Brill 1971. Origen, Contra Celsum: ed. Henry Chadwick, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1953; Contra Celsum: Libri VIII, ed. Miroslav Marcovich (VCSup 54), Leiden: Brill 2001.

Bibliography

589

Jerome, Commentaria in Evangelium S. Matthaei, PL 26, 33–50; ET: Commentary on Matthew, Washington: Catholic University of Ameria Press 2008, 73–98. Augustine: S. Augustini Epistulae (CSEL 57), Wien: Akademie der Wissenschaften 1911. Joannes Chrysostomos (John Chrysostom), Ὑπόµνηµα εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Μαθθαῖον τὸν εὐαγγελίστην, PG 57 (1862), 225–334; ET: The homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople: On the Gospel of St. Matthew, ed. John Henry Parker, Oxford: John Henry Parker 1851; Homilies on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, in NPFN1 10, 91–176. Luther: WA 10/III, 242–256 (on Matt 5,20; 27 July 1522); WA 12, 620–628 (on Matt 5; 12 July 1523); WA 32, 299–544 (“Wochenpredigten” 1530/1532). Melanchthon, Annotationes in Evangelium Matthaei: Philipp Melanchthon, Werke in Auswahl, ed. Peter F. Barton, vol. 4, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1963, 133–208. Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society 1845/Grand Rapids: Baker 1993, 257–371; German translation: Calvin, Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 8/1: Evangelienharmonie, Neukirchen: Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins 1906, 158–236.

Secondary Literature Aalen, Sverre: “Jahvistisk analogi”, TTKi 40 (1969), 1–18. Aarne, Antti: Leitfaden der vergleichenden Märchenforschung (Folklore Fellows Communications 13), Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemian Kustantama 1913. Adamson, James B.: The Epistle of James (NICNT), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1976. –: James: The Man and his Message, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1989. Albright, William F./Christopher S. Mann: Matthew (AB 26), New York: Doubleday 1971. Allen, Loyd: “The Sermon on the Mount in the History of the Church”, RevExp 89 (1992), 245–262. Allen, Willoughby C.: “The Aramaic Background of the Gospels”, in William Sanday (ed.), Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, Oxford: Clarendon 1911, 287–312. –: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC), Edinburgh: T&T Clark 31912. Allison, Dale C., Jr.: “The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount”, JBL 106 (1987), 423– 445. –: “Sermon on the Mount”, in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Allen C. Myers, Nashville: Abingdon 1987, 925f. –: The Jesus Tradition in Q, Harrisburg: Trinity 1997. –: The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination, New York: Crossroad 1999. –: “Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David N. Freedman et al., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2000, 1186–1188. –: “The Kingdom of God and the World to Come”, in idem, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History, Grand Rapids: Baker 2010, 164–204. –: James: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (ICC), London: T&T Clark 2013. –: “The Audience of James and the Sayings of Jesus” (2014), in Batten/Kloppenborg (eds.), James, 1 and 2 Peter, and Early Jesus Traditions (see below), 58–77. Alonso-Schökel, Luis: “James 5,2 [sic! = 5,6] and 4,6”, Bib 54 (1973), 73–76. Ameling, Walter: “Φάγωµεν καὶ πίωµεν: Griechische Parallelen zu zwei Stellen aus dem Neuen Testament”, ZPE 60 (1985), 35–43.

590

Bibliography

Argyle, A. William: The Gospel According to Matthew, London: Cambridge University Press 1963. Aukrust, Tor: “Bergpredigt: II. Ethisch”, TRE 5 (1980), 618–626. Aune, David E.: The New Testament in its Literary Environment, Philadelphia: Westminster 1987. –: “Oral Tradition and the Aphorisms of Jesus”, in Henry Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSNTSup 64), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1991, 211– 265. Austin, John L.: How to Do Things With Words, Cambridge, Mass.: Oxford University Press 1962. Avemarie, Friedrich: Tora und Leben: Untersuchung zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur (WUNT 55), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1996. –: “Die Werke des Gesetzes im Spiegel des Jakobusbriefes: A very Old Perspective on Paul”, ZTK 98 (2001), 282–309 = idem, Neues Testament und frührabbinisches Judentum (see below), 671–699. –: Neues Testament und frührabbinisches Judentum (WUNT 316), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2013. Avery-Peck, Alan J.: “The Galilean Charismatic and Rabbinic Piety”, in Amy-Jill Levine et al. (eds.), The Historical Jesus in Context, Princeton: Princeton University Press 2006, 149–165. Baasland, Ernst: “Der Jakobusbrief als neutestamentliche Weisheitsschrift”, ST 36 (1982), 119–139. –: “Zum Beispiel der Beispielerzählungen”, NovT 28 (1986), 193–219. –: “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes”, in ANRW II.25.5 (1988), 3646–3684. –: “Die περί-Formel und die Argumentation(ssituation) des Paulus”, ST 42 (1988), 69–87. –: “Jesu Verkündigung vom Reich Gottes: Semantische Analyse von βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ”, in Heinrich Foerster (ed.), Reich Gottes und Kirche (Veröffentlichungen der LutherAkademie Ratzeburg 12), Erlangen: Martin-Luther-Verlag 1988, 15–35 (= “Oppstandelsestroen i lys av Jesu forkynnelse om Guds rike”, in Israel – Kristus – Kirken. FS S. Aalen, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 1979, 119–139). –: Theologie und Methode: Eine Analyse der Frühschriften Rudolf Bultmanns, Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus 1992 (larger Norwegian ed. Oslo: MF 1980). –: Jakobsbrevet (Kommentar till Nya Testamentet 16), Uppsala: EFS 1992. –: “ἀνάγκη bei Paulus im Lichte eines stoischen Paradoxes”, in Hermann Lichtenberger (ed.), Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion. FS M. Hengel, vol. III, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1996, 357–385. –: “Fourth Quest? What Did Jesus Really Want?” (2011), in Holmén/Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus I (see below), 31–56 (1st ed., TTKi 79 [1998], 163–174). –: “The Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount: Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount in its historical and in Chinese context”, Theology & Life 36 (2013), 71–92. –: Parables and Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount (WUNT 351), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2015. –: “Consistent Jesus-Research? Bultmann’s Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1921) and his Jesus (1926) revisited”, ETL 91/3 (2015), 415–460. –: “Mission and Love of Enemy: Matthew 5:43ff and Luke 6:27–28 (2 Clem. 13.3; Diogn. 5) in Its Graeco-Roman Context”, in David E. Aune/Reidar Hvalvik (eds.), The Church

Bibliography

591

and Its Mission in the New Testament and Early Christianity (WUNT 404), Tübingen: Mohr 2018, 62–83. –: “Auf der Spur einer ‘Grundsatzrede’ vor der Bergpredigt”, ZNW 110 (2019), 202–237. –: “Matthew’s Elaborations of the ‘Inaugural Speech’: Was Matthew compiler or creative author?” (paper at the Leuven Colloquium: “The Gospel of Matthew: Composition – Theology – Reception (3–5 December, 2018)” (forthcoming). Bacon, Benjamin W.: The Sermon on the Mount: Its Literary Structure and Didactic Purpose, New York: Macmillan 1902. –: “The Order of the Lukan ‘Interpolations’: II. The Smaller Interpolation, Lk. 6:20–8:3”, JBL 38 (1917), 112–139. –: Studies in Matthew, London: Constable/New York: Holl 1930. Baird, Joseph A.: Audience Criticism and the Historical Jesus, Philadelphia: Westminster 1969. Barth, Gerhard: “Bergpredigt I: Neues Testament”, TRE 5 (1980), 603–618. Barth, Karl: Kirchliche Dogmatik, vol. II/2, Zürich: TVZ 1942, 766–782. Bartsch, Hans-Werner: “Feldrede und Bergpredigt: Redaktionsarbeit in Lk 6”, TZ 16 (1960), 5–18. Batten, Alicia J./John S. Kloppenborg (eds.): James, 1 and 2 Peter, and Early Jesus Traditions, London/New York: T&T Clark 2014. Bauckham, Richard: James (New Testament Readings), New York: Routledge 1999. –: “The Wisdom of James and the Wisdom of Jesus”, in Jacques Schlosser (ed.), The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition (BETL 176), Leuven: Peeters 2004, 73–92. –: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2006. Bauer, Bruno: Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, 2 vols., Leipzig: Wigand 1843 (repr., Hildesheim: Olms 1974). Bauer, David R./Mark A. Powell (eds.): Treasures New and Old. Contributions to Matthean Studies (SBLSymS 1), Atlanta: Scholars 1996. Bauman, Clarence: The Sermon on the Mount: The Modern Quest for its Meaning, Macon: Mercer 1985. Baumgarten, Otto: Bergpredigt und Kultur der Gegenwart (Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher für die deutsche christliche Gegenwart 6,10–12), Tübingen: Mohr 1921. Baumgartner, Walter: “Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach”, ZAW 34 (1914), 161–198. Beare, Francis W.: The Gospel according to Matthew: A Commentary, Oxford: Blackwell 1981. Becker, Eve-Marie: “Die markinischen Summarien: Ein literarischer und theologischer Schlüssel zu Markus 1–6”, NTS 56 (2010), 452–474. Becker, Hans-Jürgen/Serge Ruzer (eds): The Sermon on the Mount and its Jewish Setting (CahRB), Paris: Gabalda 2005. Becker, Jürgen: “Das Ethos Jesu und die Geltung des Gesetzes”, in Helmut Merklein (ed.), Neues Testament und Ethik. FS R. Schnackenburg, Freiburg i.Br. etc.: Herder 1989, 31– 52. Beijer, Erik: Kristologi och etik i Jesu Bergspredikan, Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsens Bokfoerlag 1960. Bendemann, R. von: “Bergpredigt”, Evangelisches Soziallexikon (2001), 173–179. Bergemann, Thomas: Q auf dem Prüfstand: Die Zuordnung des Mt/Lk-Stoffes zu Q am Beispiel der Bergpredigt (FRLANT 158), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1993. Berger, Klaus: Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments, Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer 1984.

592

Bibliography

–: “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament”, ANRW II.25.2 (1984), 1031–1452. –: Jesus, München: Pattloch 2004. –: Formen und Gattungen im Neuen Testament (UTB 2532), Tübingen/Basel: Francke 2005. –: Von der Schönheit der Ethik, Frankfurt am Main: Insel 2006. Berner, Ursula: Die Bergpredigt: Rezeption und Auslegung im 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 21983. –: “Bergpredigt: Auslegungsgeschichtlich”, RGG4 1 (1999), 1311–1314. Bernheim, Ernst: Lehrbuch der historischen Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie, Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot 31903 (11889). Betz, Hans Dieter: “The Sermon on the Mount: Its literary Genre and Function”, JR 59 (1979), 285–297 (= idem, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount [1985], 1–16). –: “Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain”, SBLSP 1985, 343–350; extended in idem, Synoptische Studien (1992), 219–229. –: Studien zur Bergpredigt, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1985; ET: Essays on the Sermon on the Mount, Philadelphia: Fortress 1985. –: “Matt 6,22–23 and Ancient Greek Theories of Vision”, in idem, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (1985), 71–87. –: “An Episode in the Last Judgment (Matt. 7,21–23)”, in idem, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (1985), 125–157. –: “The Sermon on the Mount and Q: Some Aspects of the Problem”, in Gospel Origins & Christian Beginnings. FS J.M. Robinson, Sonoma: Polebridge 1990, 19–34 (= idem, Synoptische Studien [1992], 249–269). –: “The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Interpretation”, in Birger A. Pearson et al. (eds.), The Future of Early Christianity. FS H. Koester, Minneapolis: Fortress 1991, 258–275 (= idem, Synoptische Studien [1992], 270–289). –: “The Sermon on the Mount: In Defence of a Hypothesis”, BR 36 (1991), 74–80. –: “Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, ABD 5 (1992), 1106–1112. –: Synoptische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsätze II, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1992. –: The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the mount, including the Sermon on the plain (Matthew 5:3–7:27 and Luke 6:20–49) (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress 1995. Betz, Otto: “Bergpredigt und Sinaitradition: Zur Gliederung und zum Hintergrund von Matthäus 5–7”, in idem, Jesus: Der Messias Israels; Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (WUNT 42), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1987, 333–384. Beyschlag, Karlmann: Die Bergpredigt und Franz von Assisi (BFCT 57), Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1955. –: “Zur Geschichte der Bergpredigt in der Alten Kirche”, ZTK 74 (1977), 291–322. Bindemann, Walther: “Weisheit versus Weisheit: Der Jakobusbrief als innerkirchlicher Diskurs”, ZNW 86 (1995), 189–217. Blomberg, Craig: Matthew (NAC 22), Nashville: Broadman 1992. Blumenthal, Christian: Basileia im Matthäusevangelium (WUNT 416), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2019. Blumhardt, Johann Christoph: Die Bergpredigt Jesu: Übersichtliche Auslegung, StuttgartHohenheim: Hänssler 1969. Böcher, Otto (ed.): Die Bergpredigt im Leben der Christenheit, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1981. Bock, Darrell L.: Luke, 2 vols. (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 1994–1996.

Bibliography

593

Boman, Torleif: Die Jesus-Überlieferung im Lichte der neueren Volkskunde, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1967. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Nachfolge (= idem, Werke, ed. Eberhard Bethge, vol. IV), München: Kaiser 32002 (Genf: Nachgedruckt auf Veranlassung der Kriegsgefangenenhilfe des Weltbundes der Christlichen Vereine Junger Männer, 1937; München: Kaiser 1937); ET: The Cost of Discipleship, New York: Macmillan 1949, 21963/London: SCM 2001. Bonnard, Pierre: L’Evangile selon Saint Matthieu (CNT 1), Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestle 1963. Borg, Marcus J.: Jesus: A New Vision; Spirit, culture, and the life of discipleship, San Francisco: Harper & Row 1987. –: Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, San Francisco: Harper & Row 2006. Borg, Marcus J./Nicholas T. Wright: The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, San Francisco: HarperOne 2007. Bornhäuser, Karl: Die Bergpredigt: Versuch einer zeitgenössischen Auslegung, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1923, 21927. Bornkamm, Günther: “Matthäus als Interpret der Herrenworte”, TLZ 79 (1954), 341–346. –: “Die Gegenwartsbedeutung der Bergpredigt”, Universitas 9 (1954), 1283–1296 (= idem, Studien [2009], 59–71). –: “Bergpredigt: I. Biblisch”, RGG3 1 (1957), 1047–1050. –: “Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt”, NTS 24 (1977/78), 419–432 (= idem, Studien [2009], 43–58). –: Studien zum Matthäus-Evangelium, ed. Werner Zager (WMANT 125), NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2009. Bousset, Wilhelm: “Bergpredigt”, RGG1 1 (1909), 1037–1041. Bovon, François: Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 2 vols. (EKKNT 3/1–2), Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1989–1996; ET of vol. 1: Luke I: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress 2002. Braun, Herbert: Jesus: Der Mann aus Nazareth und seine Zeit, Stuttgart: Kreuz Verlag 1969; ET: Jesus of Nazareth: The Man and his Time, Philadelphia: Fortress 1979. Breck, John: The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond, Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press 1994. Broadhead, Edwin K.: Demand and Grace: The Sermon on the Mount, Macon: Smyth & Helwys 1999. –: The Gospel of Matthew on the Landscape of Antiquity (WUNT 378), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2017. Broer, Ingo: Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt: Studien zu ihrer Überlieferung und Interpretation (BBB 61), Königstein/Bonn: Hanstein 1986. –: “Bergpredigt”, Wörterbuch des Christentums, ed. Volker Drehsen, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 1988, 138f. –: “Bergpredigt”, Neues Bibel-Lexikon, ed. Manfred Görg/Bernhard Lang, Zürich: Benziger 1991, vol. I, 272–274. Bultmann, Rudolf: “Was läßt die Spruchquelle über die Urgemeinde erkennen?”, Oldenburgisches Kirchenblatt 19 (1913), 35–37, 41–44; ET: “What the Saying source reveals about the Early Church”, in John S. Kloppenborg (ed.), The Shape of Q – Signal Essays on the Sayings Gospel, Minneapolis: Fortress 1994, 23–34.

594

Bibliography

–: Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT 27), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1921, 81970 (abbr. GST); ET: The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Oxford: Blackwell 1963 (abbr. HST). –: Jesus, Berlin: Wertheim 1926 (Tübingen: Mohr 21946; München: Siebenstern Taschenbuch-Verlag 1964). –: “Die Bedeutung des geschichtlichen Jesus für die Theologie des Paulus” (1929), in idem, Glauben und Verstehen, vol. I, Tübingen: Mohr 41961, 188–215. –: Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols., Tübingen: Mohr 1948–1953, 51965, 71977. –: Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition: Ergänzungsheft, ed. Gerd Theißen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 41958 (1979). Burchard, Christoph: “Versuch, das Thema der Bergpredigt zu finden”, in Georg Strecker (ed.), Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie. FS H. Conzelmann, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1975, 408–432 (= idem, Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testaments, ed. Dieter Sänger [WUNT 107], Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1998, 27–50); ET: “The Theme of the Sermon on the Mount”, in Luise Schottroff et al. (eds.), Essays on the Love Commandment, Philadelphia: Fortress 1978, 57–91. –: “Bergpredigt”, EKL3 1 (1986), 433–436; ET: “Sermon on the Mount”, The Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol. 4, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2005, 916–919. –: Der Jakobusbrief (HNT 15), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000. Burkhardt, Helmut: “Die Bergpredigt – eine allgemeine Handlungsanweisung?”, TBei 15 (1984), 137–140. Burney, Charles F.: The Poetry of Our Lord: An Examination of the Formal Elements of Hebrew Poetry in the Discourses of Jesus Christ, Oxford: Clarendon 1925 (new ed. 2008). Burridge, Richard A.: Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2007. Buth, Randall: “Singular and Plural Forms in the Sermon on the Mount”, BT 44/4 (1993), 446f. Butticaz, Simon/Enrico Norelli (eds.): Memory and Memories in Early Christianity (WUNT 398), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2018. Cadbury, Henry J.: The Style and Literary Method of Luke: The Diction of Luke and Acts, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1919. Cahill, Lisa S.: “The Ethical Implications of the Sermon on the Mount”, Int. 41 (1987), 144–156. Cargal, Timothy B.: Restoring the Diaspora: Discursive Structure and Purpose in the Epistle of James (SBLDS 144), Atlanta: Scholars Press 1993. Carlston, Charles E.: “Betz on the Mount: A Critique”, CBQ 50 (1988), 47–57. Carlston, Charles E./Craig A. Evans: From Synagogue to Ecclesia (WUNT 334), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2014. Carrington, Philip: Primitive Christian Catechism: A Study in the Epistles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1940. Carroll, John T.: Luke: A Commentary, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press 2012. Carson, Donald A.: The Sermon on the Mount: An Evangelical Exposition of Matthew 5–7, Grand Rapids: Baker 1978; in Biblical Classics Library, Carlisle: Paternoster 21994. –: Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 8), Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1984. Carter, Warren S.: What Are They Saying about Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount?, Mahwah: Paulist 1994. –: “Some Contemporary Scholarship on the Sermon on the Mount”, CurrBS 4 (1996), 183–215.

Bibliography

595

–: Households and Discipleship: A Study of Matthew 19–20 (JSNTSup 103), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1997. –: “The Sermon on the Mount“, in Craig A. Evans (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, New York/London: Routledge 2008, 560–567. Case, S. Jackson: “The Ethics of Jesus from Strauss to Barth”, JR 15 (1935), 389–399. Catchpole, David: The Quest for Q, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1993. Cerfaux, Lucien: En marge de la question synoptique, in Recueil Lucien Cerfaux, vol. III/2 (BETL 71), Leuven: Peeters 1954, 99–110. Charlesworth, James H./Petr Pokorný (eds.): Jesus Research: An International Perspective (Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus 1), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2009. Charlesworth, James H./Brian Rhea/Petr Pokorný (eds.): Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions (Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus 2), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2013. Chilton, Bruce D./Craig A. Evans (eds.): Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTTS 19), Leiden: Brill 1994, 1998. –: Authenticating the Words of Jesus (NTTS 28/1), Leiden: Brill 1999. Cladder, Hermann Johannes: “Die Anlage des Jakobusbriefes”, ZKT 28 (1904), 37–57. –: “Der formale Aufbau des Jakobusbriefes”, ZKT 28 (1904), 295–330. Cohen, Akiva: Matthew and the Mishnah (WUNT 2/418), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2016. Collins, Raymond F.: Christian Morality: Biblical Foundations, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press 1986, 223–237. Combrink, Hans Jacob Bernardus: Die Evangelie volgens Matteus, Wellington: Lux Verbi 2007. Conzelmann, Hans/Andreas Lindemann: Arbeitsbuch zum Neuen Testament (UTB 52), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1975, 61982, 142014. Crossan, John Dominic: In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus, New York: Harper & Row 1973. –: In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus, San Francisco: Harper & Row 1983. –: The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1991. –: Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, New York: Harper & Row 1995. –: The Essential Jesus, Edison: Castle Books 1998. Crossan, John Dominic/Jonathan L. Reed: Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts, San Francisco: Harper Collins 2001. Dahl, Nils Alstrup: Das Volk Gottes: Eine Untersuchung zum Kirchenbewusstsein des Urchristentums, Oslo: Dybwad 1941. –: “Anamnesis: Mémoire et commémoration dans le christianisme primitif”, ST 1 (1947/48), 69–95; ET in: idem, Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church (1976), 11– 29. –: “Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments”, TRu 22 (1954), 21–49. –: “Der historische Jesus als geschichtswissenschaftliches und theologisches Problem”, KD 1 (1955), 104–132 (= first in Rett lære og kjetterske meninger, Oslo: Forlaget Land Og Kirke 1953, 156–202; ET: “The Problem of the Historical Jesus”, in idem, The Crucified Messiah [see below], 48–89). –: The Crucified Messiah and other Essays, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House 1974. –: Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church: Essays, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House 1976.

596

Bibliography

Dalman, Gustaf: Jesus-Jeschua: Die drei Sprachen Jesu; Jesus in der Synagoge, auf dem Berge, beim Passahmahl, am Kreuz, Leipzig: Hinrichs 1922. –: Die Worte Jesu: Mit Berücksichtigung des nachkanonischen jüdischen Schrifttums und der aramäischen Sprache, Leipzig: Hinrichs 21930. D’Angelo, Mary Rose: “Abba and ‘Father’: Imperial Theology and the Jesus Traditions”, JBL 111 (1992), 611–630. Daube, David: New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, London: Athlone 1956. Davies, William D.: The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1964. –: The Sermon on the Mount, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1966; GT: Die Bergpredigt: Exegetische Untersuchung ihrer jüdischen und frühchristlichen Elemente, München: Claudius 1970. Davies, William D./Dale C. Allison: “Reflections on the Sermon on the Mount”, SJT 44 (1991), 283–309. –: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC), Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1997. Davison, James E.: “Anomia and the Question of an Antinomian Polemic in Matthew”, JBL 104 (1985), 617–635. Deines, Roland: Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias: Mt 5,13–20 als Schlüsseltext der matthäischen Theologie (WUNT 177), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2004. –: Im Streit um die Bergpredigt: Jüdische Einwände gegen Jesus und seine “christliche” Interpretation (Biblisch-theologische Studien 69), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2005. –: “Die Verwendung der Bergpredigt im ältesten erhaltenen Text der jüdischen AdversusChristianos-Literatur”, in Lutz Doering/Hans-Günther Waubke/Florian Wilk (eds.), Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft: Standorte – Grenzen – Beziehungen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2008, 372–400. –: “God and Mammon”, in Matthias Konradt/Esther Schläpfer (eds.), Anthropologie und Ethik im Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament (WUNT 322), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2014, 327–345. Deißmann, Adolf: Bible Studies, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1901. Delargy, James H.: The Gaelic Story-Teller (Proceedings of the British Academy 31), London: Oxford University Press 1945. Delehaye, Hippolyte: Les légendes hagiographiques, Bruxelles: Polleunis & Ceuterick 1905. –: Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires, Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes 1921. Delobel, Joël (ed.): Logia: Les paroles de Jésus; The Sayings of Jesus (BETL 59), Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University 1982. Denaux, Adelbert: “Criteria for Identifying Q-Passages”, NovT 37 (1995), 105–129. Denaux, Adelbert/Rita Corstjens/Hellen Mardga: The Vocabulary of Luke (Biblical Tools and Studies 10), Leuven etc.: Peeters 2009. Deppe, Dean B.: The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James, Diss. Amsterdam 1989. Derrett, J. Duncan M.: Jesus’ Audience: The Social and Psychological Environment in which He Worked, London: Darton, Longman & Todd 1973. –: The Ascetic Discourse: An Explanation of the Sermon on the Mount, Eilsbrunn: KOÁMAR 1989. –: The Sermon on the Mount: A Manuel for Living, Northampton: Pilkington 1994. –: “Morality not to Be Codified (Matthew 6,34)”, BeO 48/3 (2006), 181–190.

Bibliography

597

Dibelius, Martin: Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1919, 3 1959 = 51966. –: Der Brief des Jakobus, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1921/121984 (ed. Hermann Greeven). –: “Review of Bornhäuser”, TLZ 49 (1924), 346–348. –: “Review of Fiebig”, TLZ 50 (1925), 200f. –: Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur, 2 vols., Berlin/Leipzig: De Gruyter 1926. –: Die Botschaft von Jesus Christus: Die alte Überlieferung der Gemeinde in Geschichten, Sprüchen und Reden wiederhergestellt und verdeutscht, Tübingen: Mohr 1935. –: Jesus (Sammlung Göschen 1130), Berlin: De Gruyter 1939 (21947/31960); ET: Jesus, Philadelphia: Westminster Press 1949. –: “Die Bergpredigt”, in idem, Botschaft und Geschichte, vol. I, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1953, 79–174; ET: The Sermon on the Mount, New York: Scribner 1940. –: Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte, ed. Heinrich Greeven (FRLANT 42), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 61968. Dihle, Albrecht: Die goldene Regel: Eine Einführung in die Geschichte der antiken und frühchristlichen Vulgärethik, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1962. Di Lella, Alexander A.: “The Structure and Composition of the Matthean Beatitudes”, in Maurya P. Horgan/Paul J. Kobelski (eds.), To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., New York: Crossroad 1989, 237–242. Dobschütz, Ernst: “Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechet”, ZNW 27 (1928), 338–349. Dodd, Charles H.: The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, New York: Harper & Brothers 1951. –: New Testament Studies, Manchester: Manchester University Press 1954 (“Matthew and Paul”, 53–66). –: “The Primitive Catechism and the Sayings of Jesus”, in Angus J.B. Higgins (ed.), New Testament Essays. FS T.W. Manson, Manchester: Manchester University Press 1959, 106–118 (revised in Dodd, More New Testament Studies [1968], 11–29). –: More New Testament Studies, Manchester: Manchester University Press 1968 (“The Beatitudes: A form-critical study”, 1–10). Dods, Marcus: An Introduction to the New Testament, London: Hodder & Stoughton 1902. Doering, Lutz: Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography (WUNT 298), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2012. Donaldson, Terence L.: Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology (JSNTSup 8), Sheffield: JSOT Press 1985. Dormeyer, Detlev: Das Neue Testament im Rahmen der antiken Literaturgeschichte: Eine Einführung, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1993. –: “Formen/Gattungen III. Neues Testament”, RGG 4 3 (2000), 190–196. Downing, F. Gerald: Christ and the Cynics (JSOT Manuals 4), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1988. Droysen, Johann Gustav: Grundriss der Historik, Leipzig: Veit 1868 (critical edition: Historik: Rekonstruktion der ersten vollständigen Fassung der Vorlesungen [1857]; Grundriß der Historik in der ersten handschriftlichen [1857/1858] und in der letzten gedruckten Fassung [1882], ed. Peter Leyh, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog 1977); ET: Outline of the Principles of History, Boston: Ginn & Company 1893. Dundes, Alan: “The Devolutionary Premise in Folklore Theory”, Journal of the Folklore Institute 6 (1969), 5–19. –: Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield 1999.

598

Bibliography

Dunn, James D.G.: The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity, London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International 1991. –: Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making I), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2003. –: “Q and the Oral Tradition”, in Markus Bockmuehl/Donald A. Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel. FS G. Stanton, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005, 45–69. Dunn, James D.G./Scot McKnight: The Historical Jesus in Recent Research (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 10), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 2005. Dupont, Jacques: Les Béatitudes, vol. I: Le probléme littéraire, Louvain: Nauwelaerts 1958. Du Toit, Andrie B.: “The Self-revelation of Jesus in Matthew 5–7”, Neot. 1 (1967), 66–72. –: “Analysis of the Structure of Mt 4,23–5,48”, Neot. 11 (1977), 32–47. –: “Revisiting the Sermon on the Mount: Some Major Issues”, Neot. 50 (2016), 59–91. Ebner, Martin: Jesus von Nazaret in seiner Zeit: Sozialgeschichtliche Zugänge (SBS 196), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2003. Eckey, Wilfried, Das Lukas-Evangelium, 2 vols., Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2006. Eddleman, H. Leo: Teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5–7, Nashville: Convention Press 1955. Edwards, James R.: The Gospel according to Luke, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2015. Edwards, Richard A.: A Theology of Q, Philadelphia: Fortress 1976. Egger, Wilhelm: “Faktoren der Textkonstitution in der Bergpredigt”, Laurentianum 19 (1978), 177–198. Ehrman, Bart D.: Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication, Springfield: Teaching Co. 2002. –: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, New York: Harper 2007. –: Jesus before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior, New York: HarperOne 2016. Eichholz, Georg: Auslegung der Bergpredigt: Tradition und Interpretation (Biblische Studien 46), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1965/51982. Eleder, Felix: Jakobusbrief und Bergpredigt, Diss. Wien 1966. Elliott, John H.: “The Epistle of James in rhetorical and ‘social scientific’ Perspective: Holiness – Wholeness and Patterns of Replication”, BTB 23 (1993), 71–81. Ellis, Peter F.: Matthew: His Mind and his Message, Collegeville: Liturgical Press 1974. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels: “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1–8 on the Logic of God’s χάρις and Its Human Response”, HTR 101 (2008), 15–44. –: “Giving and Doing: The Philosophical Coherence of the Sermon on the Plain” (2009), in Horn/Zimmermann (eds.), Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ I (see below), 267– 287. Erk, Wolfgang (ed.): Der verbotene Friede: Reflexionen zur Bergpredigt aus zwei deutschen Staaten, Stuttgart: Radius-Verlag 1982. Ernst, Josef: Das Evangelium nach Lukas (RNT 3), Regensburg: Pustet 1977. Evans, Craig A.: Luke (NIBCNT 3), Peabody: Hendrickson 1990 = Luke (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), Grand Rapids: Baker Books 2011. Evans, Christopher P.: Saint Luke, London: SCM 1990. Eve, Eric: Behind the Gospel: Understanding the Oral Tradition, London: SPCK 2013. Farrer, Austin: St. Matthew and St. Mark, Westminster: Dacre Press 1954. Fascher, Erich: “Bergpredigt. Auslegungsgeschichtlich”, RGG3 1 (1957), 1047–1055.

Bibliography

599

Feine, Paul: “Matthäus als Verfasser und Vermittler einer judenchristlichen Theologie”, Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie 12 (1886), 1–86. Feldmeier, Reinhard: “Verpflichtende Gnade: Die Bergpredigt im Kontext des ersten Evangeliums”, in idem, Salz der Erde: Zugänge zur Bergpredigt (Biblisch-theologische Schwerpunkte 14), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1998, 15–107. –: “Die Alternative des Allmächtigen: Gottes Herrschaft und menschliches Handeln in der Bergpredigt”, EvK 11 (2003), 34–41. Fiebig, Paul: Altjüdische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu, Tübingen: Mohr 1904. –: Die Gleichnisse Jesu und die Bergpredigt: In Verbindung mit rabbinischen Parallelen erläutert für die Schüler und Schülerinnen höherer Lehranstalten, Tübingen: Mohr 1911. –: Die Gleichnisreden Jesu im Licht der rabbinischen Gleichnisse des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters, Tübingen: Mohr 1912. –: Jesu Bergpredigt: Rabbinische Texte zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt, ins Deutsche übersetzt, in ihren Ursprachen dargeboten und mit Erläuterungen und Lesarten versehen (FRLANT NF 20), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1924. –: Der Erzählungsstil der Evangelien im Lichte des rabbinischen Erzählungsstils, zugleich ein Beitrag zum Streit um die “Christusmythe” (UNT 11), Leipzig: Hinrichs 1925. –: “Der Sinn der Bergpredigt”, ZST 7 (1929/30), 497–515. Fiedler, Peter: Das Matthäusevangelium (TKNT 1), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2006. Fitzmyer, John A.: The Gospel according to Luke (AncB 28), New York: Doubleday 1981. Fleddermann, Harry T.: Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts; with an Assessment by Frans Neirynck (BETL 122), Leuven: Peeters 1995. –: Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary (Biblical Tools and Studies 1), Leuven: Peeters 2005. Flusser, David: Jesus (Rowohlts Bildmonographien 140), Reinbek: Rowohlt 1968. –: “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew”, Immanuel 5 (1975), 37–45 (= idem, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, Jerusalem: Magnes 1988, 552–560. –: Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, Part 1 (Judaica et Christiana 4), Bern etc.: Peter Lang 1981. –: Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament, vol. 1: Jesusworte und ihre Überlieferung, ed. Martin Majer, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1987 (“Die Tora in der Bergpredigt”, 21–31). –: “Es wurde zu den Alten gesagt” (1992), in idem, Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament, vol. II: Jesus – Qumran – Urchristentum, ed. Martin Majer, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1999, 83–88. Flusser, David/R. Steven Notely, The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2007. Fornberg, Tord: Matteusevangeliet, vol. I (Kommentar till Nya Testamentet 1A), Uppsala: EFS-förlaget 1989. Foster, Paul: Community, Law and Mission in Matthew’s Gospel (WUNT 2/177), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2014. France, Richard T.: The Gospel according to Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1985. –: The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2007. Francis, Fred O.: “The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John”, ZNW 61 (1970), 110–126. Frankemölle, Hubert: Jahwebund und Kirche Christi: Studien zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte des Evangeliums nach Matthäus (NTA), Münster: Aschendorff 1974.

600

Bibliography

–: “Gespalten oder ganz: Zur Pragmatik der theologischen Anthropologie des Jakobusbriefes”, in Hans-Ulrich von Brachel/Norbert Mette (eds.), Kommunikation und Solidarität, Freiburg (Switzerland): Edition Exodus 1985, 160–178. –: “Das semantische Netz des Jakobusbriefes: Zur Einheit eines umstrittenen Briefes”, BZ 34 (1990), 161–197. –: Der Brief des Jakobus, 2 vols. (ÖTK 17), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 1994. –: Matthäus: Kommentar, vol. 1, Düsseldorf: Patmos 1994 (21999). Freyne, Sean: Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations, Minneapolis: Fortress 1988. –: Jesus a Jewish Galilean: A new reading of the Jesus-Story, London/New York: T&T Clark 2004. –: Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays (WUNT 125), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2010. Frid, Bo: “A Brief Note on πλήν in Roman Times”, SEÅ 51/52 (1986/87), 65–71. Friedlander, Gerald: The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount, London/New York: Routledge 1911. Funk, Robert W.: The Gospel of Jesus according to the Jesus-Seminar, Sonoma: Polebridge 1999. Funk, Robert W./Roy W. Hoover (and the Jesus Seminar): The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, New York: Macmillan 1993. Gaechter, Paul: Das Matthäusevangelium: Ein Kommentar, Innsbruck: Tyrolia 1963. Gammie, John G.: “Paraenetic Literature: Towards a Morphology of a Secondary Genre”, Semeia 50 (1990), 41–77. Garland, David E.: The Intention of Matthew 23 (NovTSup 52), Leiden: Brill 1979. –: Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3), Grand Rapids: Zondervan 2012. Garleff, Gunnar: Urchristliche Identität in Matthäusevangelium, Didache und Jakobusbrief (Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel 9), Münster: Lit 2004. Geffcken, Johannes: Kynika und Verwandtes, Heidelberg: C. Winter 1909. Gemünden, Petra von: “Die Wertung des Zornes im Jakobusbrief auf dem Hintergrund des antiken Kontexts und seine Einordnung” (2003), in eadem/Konradt/Theißen, Jakobusbrief (see below), 97–118. –: Affekt und Glaube: Studien zur Historischen Psychologie des Frühjudentums und Urchristentums (NTOA 73), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2009. –: “Affekte in den synoptischen Evangelien”, in eadem/David Horrell/Max Küchler (eds.), Jesus – Gestalt und Gestaltungen. FS G. Theißen (NTOA 100), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2013, 255–284. Gemünden, Petra von/Matthias Konradt/Gerd Theißen (eds.): Der Jakobusbrief: Beiträge zur Rehabilitierung der “strohernen Epistel” (Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel 3), Münster: Lit 2003 (“Die pseudepigraphische Intention des Jakobusbriefes”, 54–82). Gerdmar, Anders: Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann (Studies in Jewish History and Culture 20), Leiden: Brill 2008. Gerhardsson, Birger: Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (ASNU 22), Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell 1961, 21964. –: The Testing of God’s Son (Matt. 4:1–11 & par): An Analysis of an Early Christian Midrash (ConBNT 2/1), Lund: Gleerup 1962. –: “Geistiger Opferdienst nach Matth 6,1–6.16–21”, in Heinrich Baltensweiler/Bo Reicke (eds.), Neues Testament und Geschichte. FS O. Cullmann, Zürich: TVZ 1972, 69–77.

Bibliography

601

–: The Origins of the Gospel Tradition, London: SCM 1979 (= Evangeliarnas förhistoria, Lund: Verbum 1977; Die Anfänge der Evangelientradition, Wuppertal: Theologischer Verlag Brockhaus 1977). –: The Ethos of the Bible, Lund: Gleerup 1979 = Philadelphia: Fortress 1981. –: “Der Weg der Evangelientradition”, in Peter Stuhlmacher (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (WUNT 28), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1983, 79–102; extended version: The Gospel Tradition (ConBNT 15), Lund: Gleerup 1986. –: The Shema in the New Testament: Deut 6:4–5 in significant passages, Lund: Novapree 1996. –: The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition, Peabody: Hendrickson 2001. Geyer, Hans-Georg: “Luthers Auslegung der Bergpredigt”, in idem (ed.), Wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann? FS H.-J. Kraus, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1983, 283–293. Gnilka, Joachim: Das Matthäusevangelium, vol. I (HTKNT 1/1), Freiburg: Herder 1986. Goodacre, Mark: The Case against Q: Studies in Markan priority and the synoptic problem, Harrisburg: Trinity Press 2002. Goppelt, Leonhard: “Das Problem der Bergpredigt: Jesu Gebot und die Wirklichkeit dieser Welt”, in idem, Christologie und Ethik: Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1968, 27–43. –: Die Bergpredigt und die Wirklichkeit dieser Welt, Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag 1968. Goulder, Michael D.: Midrash and Lection in Matthew, London: SPCK 1974. –: “Is Q a Juggernaut?”, JBL 115 (1996), 667–681. –: “Self-Contradictions in the IQP [International Q-Project]”, JBL 118 (1999), 477–496. Green, Joel B.: The Gospel of Luke (NICNT), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1997. Greenman, Jeffrey P./Timothy Larsen/Stephen S. Spencer (eds.): The Sermon on the Mount through the Centuries: From the Early Church to John Paul II, Grand Rapids: Brazos 2007. Griffith, John G.: “Wisdom about to-morrow”, HTR 53 (1960), 219–221. Grundmann, Walter: Die Frage der ältesten Gestalt und des ursprünglichen Sinnes der Bergrede Jesu (Schriften zur Nationalkirche 10), Weimar: Verlag Deutsche Christen 1939. –: “Die Bergpredigt nach der Lukasfassung”, SE I (1959) = TU 73, 180–189. –: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (THKNT 1), Berlin: Akademie Verlag 1968; ET: The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2002. –: Das Evangelium nach Lukas (THKNT 3), Berlin: Akademie Verlag 1984. Guelich, Robert A.: The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding, Waco: Word Books 1982. –: “The Sermon on the Mount”, in Oxford Companion of the Bible, eds. Bruce M. Metzger/Michael D. Coogan, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1993, 687–689. Gundry, Robert H.: Matthew, a Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1982 (21994). –: “The Sermon on the Mount according to H.D. Betz” (1997), in idem, The Old is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations (WUNT 178), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005, 129–148. –: Commentary on Luke (Commentary on the New Testament Series 3), Peabody: Hendrickson 2010. Hagner, Donald A.: Matthew 1–13 (WBC 33A), Dallas: Word Books 1993. –: “Ethics and the Sermon on the Mount”, ST 51 (1997), 44–59. Hahn, Ferdinand/Peter Müller: “Der Jakobusbrief”, TRu 63 (1998), 1–73.

602

Bibliography

Hanssen, Olav: “Zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt”, in Eduard Lohse/Christoph Burchard/ Berndt Schaller (eds.), Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde. FS J. Jeremias, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1970, 94–111. Harnack, Adolf (von): Die Apostellehre und die jüdischen beiden Wege, Leipzig: Hinrichs 2 1896. –: Das Wesen des Christentums, Leipzig: Hinrichs 1900; ed. by Claus-Dieter Osthövener, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005; ET: What is Christianity?, New York: Putnam 21901. –: Sprüche und Reden Jesu, die zweite Quelle des Matthäus und Lukas, Leipzig: Hinrichs 1907. –: “Geschichte eines programmatischen Worts Jesu (Matth. 5,17) in der ältesten Kirche”, in SPAW.PH 1912, Berlin: Verlag der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1912, 184–207. Harrington, Daniel J.: The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina 1), Collegeville: Liturgical Press (1991) 22007. Harrington, Daniel J./James F. Keenan: Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, Lanham: Sheed & Ward 2002. Hartin, Patrick J.: James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (JSNTSup 47), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1991. –: “Call to Be Perfect through Suffering (James 1,2–4): The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount”, Bib. 77 (1996), 477–492. –: A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James, Collegeville: Liturgical Press 1999. –: James (Sacra Pagina 14), Collegeville: Liturgical Press 2003. –: “James and the Jesus Tradition” (2009), in K.-W. Niebuhr/Wall (eds.), The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition (see below), 55–70. Harvey, Anthony Ernest: Strenuous Commands: The Ethic of Jesus, London: SCM 1990. Hasler, Victor: “Das Herzstück der Bergpredigt”, TZ 15 (1959), 90–106. Hauck, Friedrich: Das Evangelium des Lukas (THKNT), Leipzig: Deichert 1934. Hauerwas, Stanley: A Community of Character, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press 1980. –: “Living the Proclaimed Reign of God”, Int. 47 (1993), 152–158. –: “Dietrich Bonhoeffer and John Howard Yoder” (2007), in Greenman et al. (eds.), Sermon (see above), 207–222. Heiligenthal, Roman: Werke als Zeichen: Untersuchung zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühjudentum (WUNT 2/9), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1983. Heinrici, Carl Friedrich Georg: “Gleichnisse”, RE3 6 (1899), 688–703. –: Die Bergpredigt (Matth. 5–7, Luk. 6,20–49): Quellenkritisch und begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht, Leipzig: Dürr 1900. –: Die Bergpredigt (Matth. 5–7, Luk. 6,20–49): Begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht, Leipzig: Dürr 1905 (= Heinrici, Bergpredigt II). –: Der literarische Charakter der neutestamentlichen Schriften, Leipzig: Dürr 1908. Hengel, Martin: “Leben in der Veränderung: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt”, EvK 3 (1970), 647–651; repr. in idem, Jesus und die Evangelien: Kleine Schriften V (WUNT 211), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007, 205–216. –: Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2 Jh.s v.Chr., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1969, 3 1988; ET: Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period, London: SCM 1974.

Bibliography

603

–: “Jesus und die Tora”, TBei 9 (1978), 152–172; repr. in idem, Jesus und die Evangelien: Kleine Schriften V (WUNT 211), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007, 352–374. –: “Das Ende aller Politik: Die Bergpredigt in der aktuellen Diskussion”, EvK 14 (1981), 686–690; repr. in idem, Jesus und die Evangelien: Kleine Schriften V (WUNT 211), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007, 375–390. –: “Die Stadt auf dem Berge: Die Bergpredigt in der aktuellen Diskussion (II)”, EvK 15 (1982), 19–22. –: “Die Bergpredigt im Widerstreit”, TBei 14 (1983), 53–67; repr. in idem, Jesus und die Evangelien: Kleine Schriften V (WUNT 211), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007, 391–407. –: Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity, London: SCM 1983 (= Waco: Baylor University Press 2013). –: “Wider den politischen Mißbrauch der Bergpredigt”, in Günter Brakelmann/Eberhard Müller (eds.), Abschaffung des Krieges: Beiträge zu einer realistischen Friedenspolitik, Gütersloh: Mohn 1983, 44–51. –: “Jakobus der Herrenbruder – der erste Papst?” (1985), in idem, Paulus und Jakobus: Kleine Schriften III (WUNT 141), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2002, 549–582. –: “Zur matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund”, TRu 52 (1986), 327– 400; repr. in idem, Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften II (WUNT 109), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1999, 219–292. –: “Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik”, in Gerald F. Hawthorne/Otto Betz (eds.), Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. FS E.E. Ellis, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1987, 247–278; repr. in idem, Paulus und Jakobus: Kleine Schriften III (WUNT 141), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2002, 511–548. –: “Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt: Ihre Bedeutung und Funktion für die Gemeinde des Matthäus”, BK 48 (1993), 128–133. –: “Postscriptum: Überlegungen zur Logienquelle, zum Lukas- und zum Matthäusevangelium”, in idem, Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (WUNT 224), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008, 274–353. Herrmann, Wilhelm: “Die sittlichen Weisungen Jesu: Ihr Mißbrauch und ihr richtiger Gebrauch” (1904), in idem, Schriften zur Grundlegung der Theologie, vol. I (TB 36), München: Kaiser 1966, 200–241. Hickling, Colin J.A.: “Conflicting Motives in the Redaction of Matthew: Some Considerations on the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 18:15–20”, in SE VII, Oxford, 1973 = TU 126, Berlin: Akademie Verlag 1982, 247–260. Hoffmann, Paul: Tradition und Situation: Studien zur Jesusüberlieferung in der Logienquelle und den synoptischen Evangelien (NTA NF 28), Münster: Aschendorff 1995 (“Der Q-Text der Sprüche vom Sorgen”, 62–87; “Die Sprüche vom Sorgen”, 88– 106; “Jesu ‘Verbot des Sorgens’”, 107–134). –: “Betz and Q”, ZNW 88 (1997), 197–210. Holmberg, Bengt: “Jewish versus Christian Identity in the Early Church”, RB 105 (1998), 397–425. Holmén, Tom: Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking (BIS 55), Leiden: Brill 2001. –: “Seven Theses on the So-called Criteria”, RCT 33 (2008), 343–376. Holmén, Tom/Stanley E. Porter (eds.): Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 4 vols., Leiden: Brill 2011. Holtz, Traugott: “Grundzüge einer Auslegung der Bergpredigt”, ZdZ 31 (1977), 8–16. Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius: Die Synoptiker (HKNT I/1), Tübingen: Mohr 31901.

604

Bibliography

Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm/Ruben Zimmermann (eds.): Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ, vol. I (WUNT 238), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2009. Horsley, Richard A.: Galilee: History, Politics, People, Valley Forge: Trinity Press 1995. –: Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder, Minneapolis: Fortress 2003. Hultgren, Stephen: Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A Study of Their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative (BZNW 113), Berlin: De Gruyter 2002. Hunter, Archibald Macbride: Design for life: An exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, its making, its exegesis and its meaning, London: SCM 1953/Philadelphia: Westminster 1965. Iser, Wolfgang: Der implizite Leser: Kommunikationsformen des Romans von Bunyan bis Beckett, München: Fink 1972; ET: The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1974. –: Der Akt des Lesens: Theorie ästhetischer Wirkung, München: Fink 1976; ET: The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1978. Jackson-McCabe, Matt: Logos and Law in the Letter of James: The Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, and the Law of Freedom (NovTSup 100), Leiden: Brill 2001. – (ed.): Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress 2007. Jauß, Hans Robert: Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, Brighton: The Harvester Press 1982. Jeremias, Joachim: “‘Laß allda deine Gabe’ (Mt 5,23f.)”, ZNW 36 (1937), 150–154 = idem, Abba (1966), 103–107. –: Die Gleichnisse Jesu, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1947, 71965, 21952, 81970; ET: The Parables of Jesus, New York: Scribner 1972/2003. –: “Goldene Regel 2.”, RGG3 2 (1958), 1688f. –: Die Bergpredigt (Calwer Hefte 27), Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag 1959, 51965; repr. in idem, Abba (1966), 171–190; ET: The Sermon on the Mount, London: SCM 1961. –: Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966. –: Neutestamentliche Theologie, vol. 1: Die Verkündigung Jesu, Gütersloh: Mohn 1971; ET: New Testament Theology, vol. 1: The Proclamation of Jesus, New York: Scribner 1971. –: Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums: Redaktion und Tradition im Nicht-Markusstoff des 3. Evangeliums (KEK Sonderband 3), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1980. –: Jesus and the Message of the New Testament (Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies), ed. Kenneth C. Hanson, Minneapolis: Fortress 2002. Jervell, Jacob: “The Mighty Minority”, ST 34 (1980), 13–38. John Paul: Blessed are the Poor: Catechesis on the Sermon on the Mount and Writings of St. Paul, Boston: St. Paul Eds. 1983. Johnson, Luke T.: The Letter of James (AB 37A), New York: Doubleday 1995. –: The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Original Gospels, San Fransisco: Harper 1996. –: “The Sermon on the Mount“, in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, ed. Adrian Hastings, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000, 654–656. –: Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2004. –: The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina 3), Collegeville: Glazier 2006.

Bibliography

605

Jones, E. Stanley: The Christ of the Mount: A Working Philosophy of Life, New York: Abingdon 1931. Jones, Peter Rhea: Studying the Parables of Jesus, Macon: Smyth & Helwys 1999. Joubert, Stephan: Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection (WUNT 2/124), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000. Jülicher, Adolf: Neue Linien in der Kritik der evangelischen Überlieferung, Berlin: Töpelmann 1906. –: Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 2 vols., Tübingen: Mohr 21910 (repr. in one vol., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1976). Kaden, David A.: “Stoicism, Social Stratification and the Q Tradition in James: A Suggestion about James’ Audience” (2014), in Batten/Kloppenborg, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and Early Jesus traditions (see above), 97–119. Kaiser, Walter C., jr.: “James’ View of the Law”, Miskan 8/9 (1988), 9–12. Kampen, John: “4QMMT and New Testament Studies”, in idem/Moshe J. Bernstein (eds.), Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (SBLSymS 2), Atlanta: Scholars Press 1996, 129–144. Kantzenbach, Friedrich Wilhelm: Die Bergpredigt: Annäherung – Wirkungsgeschichte, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1982. Käsemann, Ernst: “Hinweise auf neuere neutestamentliche Forschung”, VF 7 (1949/50, 1951/52), 191–218. –: Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, vol. 1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1964 (“Sackgassen im Streit um den historischen Jesus”, 31–68; “Das Problem des historischen Jesus”, 187–214). –: “Bergpredigt – eine Privatsache?”, in idem, In der Nachfolge des gekreuzigten Nazareners: Aufsätze und Vorträge aus dem Nachlass, ed. Rudolf Landau, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005, 117–129; repr. from Wolfgang Brinkel/Burkhardt Scheffler/Martin Wächter (eds.), Christen im Streit um den Frieden: Beiträge zu einer neuen Friedensethik, Freiburg i.Br.: Dreisam 1982, 74–83). Katz, Steven T.: “Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 C.E.: A Reconsideration”, JBL 103 (1984), 43–76. Kazen, Thomas: Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity?, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell 2002. –: Scripture, Interpretation, or Authority? Motives and Arguments in Jesus’ Halakic Conflicts (WUNT 320), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2013. Keener, Craig S.: A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1999. Keith, Chris: Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee, New York: T&T Clark 2011. –: “'Memory and Authenticity: Jesus tradition and what really happened”, ZNW 102 (2011), 155–177. –: “The Indebtedness of the Criteria Approach to Form Criticism and Recent Attempts to Rehabilitate the Search for an Authentic Jesus” (2012), in idem/Le Donne (eds.), Jesus, Criteria (see below), 25–48. –: “The Fall of the Quest for an Authentic Jesus: Concluding Remarks” (2012), in idem/Le Donne (eds.), Jesus, Criteria (see below), 200–205. Keith, Chris/Anthony Le Donne (eds.): Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity, New York: T&T Clark 2012. Kelber, Werner H.: “Mark and oral tradition”, Semeia 16 (1980), 7–55.

606

Bibliography

–: The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul and Q, Philadelphia: Fortress 1983. Kennedy, George A.: The Art of Persuasion in Greece, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1972. –: Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and secular tradition from ancient to modern times, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1980, 21999. –: New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Studies in Religion), Waco: Baylor University Press 1984. –: A new history of classical rhetoric: With additional discussion of late Latin rhetoric, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1994. Kilpatrick, George D.: The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, Oxford: Clarendon 1946, 21950. Kingsbury, Jack D.: “The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount within Matthew”, Int. 41 (1978), 131–143. Kirk, Alan: Q in Matthew: Ancient Media, Memory, and Early Scribal Transmission of the Jesus Tradition (LNTS 564), London/New York: T&T Clark 2016. Kissinger, Warren S.: The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography (ATLA Bibliography Series 3), Metuchen/London: Scarecrow/The American Theological Library Association 1975 (repr., 1999). –: “Sermon on the Mount”, Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, John H. Hayes (ed.), Nashville: Abingdon 1999, vol. II, 462–466. Kittel, Gerhard: “Die Bergpredigt und die Ethik des Judentums”, ZST 2 (1925), 555–594. –: “Der geschichtliche Ort des Jakobusbriefes”, ZNW 41 (1942), 71–115. Klauck, Hans-Josef: Ancient Letters and the New Testament, Waco: Baylor University Press 2006, 196–206. Klein, Hans: Bewährung im Glauben: Studien zum Sondergut des Evangelisten Matthäus (Biblisch-theologische Studien 26), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1996. –: Das Lukasevangelium (KEK 1,3), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2006. Klein, Martin: “Ein vollkommenes Werk”: Vollkommenheit, Gesetz und Gericht (BWANT 139), Stuttgart etc.: Kohlhammer 1995. Kloppenborg, John S.: The Formation of Q: Trajectories in ancient wisdom collections (SAC), Philadelphia: Fortress 1987. –: Q-Thomas Reader, Sonoma: Polebridge 1988. –: The Shape of Q – Signal Essays on the Sayings Gospel, Minneapolis: Fortress 1994. –: Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 2000. –: “Diaspora Discourse: The Construction of Ethos in James”, NTS 53 (2007), 242–270. –: “The Emulation of the Jesus Tradition in the Letter of James” (2007), in Webb/Kloppenborg (eds.), Reading James with New Eyes (see below), 121–150. –: “The Reception of the Jesus Tradition in James” (2009), in K.-W. Niebuhr/Wall (eds.), The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition (see below), 71–100. –: “Agrarian Discourse in the Sayings of Jesus” (2009), in Longenecker/Liebengood (eds.), Engaging Economics (see below), 104–128. –: “James 1,2–15 and Hellenistic Psychagogy”, NovT 52 (2010), 37–71. Klostermann, Erich: Das Matthäusevangelium (HNT 4), Tübingen: Mohr 21927. –: Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5), Tübingen: Mohr 21929. Kodjak, Andrej: A Structural Analysis of the Sermon on the Mount (Religion and Reason 34), Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1986.

Bibliography

607

Konradt, Matthias: Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief: Eine Studie zu seiner soteriologischen und ethischen Konzeption (SUNT 22), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1998. –: “Der Jakobusbrief im frühchristlichen Kontext”, in Jacques Schlosser (ed.), The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition (BETL 176), Leuven: Leuven University Press 2004, 171–212. –: “Werke als Handlungsdimension des Glaubens: Erwägungen zum Verhältnis von Theologie und Ethik im Jakobusbrief” (2009), in Horn/Zimmermann (eds.), Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ I (see above), 309–327. –: “Sünde im Jakobusbrief”, ZNT 16 (2013), 21–28. –: Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew, Waco: Baylor University Press 2014. –: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Neubearbeitung (NTD 1), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2015. –: Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (WUNT 358), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2016. Köster, Helmut: Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Harrisburg: Trinity Press; London: SCM 1990. –: From Jesus to the Gospels: Interpreting the New Testament in its Context, Minneapolis: Fortress 2007. Krämer, Michael: Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt: Eine synoptische Studie zu Mt 4,23–7,29 und Lk 6,17–49 (Deutsche Hochschulschriften 433), Egelsbach: Hänsel-Hohenhausen 31994. Kremer, Jacob: “Die Bergpredigt – Weisung Jesu Christi”, Lebendige Seelsorge 30 (1979), 157–162. –: “Mahnungen zum innerkirchlichen Befolgen des Liebesgebotes: Textpragmatische Erwägungen zu Lk 6,27–45”, in Hubert Frankemölle/Karl Kertelge (eds.), Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus. FS J. Gnilka, Freiburg etc.: Herder 1988, 231–245. –: Lukasevangelium (NEB 3), Würzburg: Echter 31992. Krieger, Klaus-Stefan: “Das Publikum der Bergpredigt (Mt 4,23–25): Ein Beitrag zu der Frage: Wem gilt die Bergpredigt?”, Kairos 28 (1986), 98–115. Krohn, Karl: Die folkloristische Methode: Begründet von Julius Krohn und weitergeführt von nordischen Forschern (Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning, Serie B: Skrifter, nr. 5), Oslo: Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning 1926. Kümmel, Werner Georg: Verheißung und Erfüllung: Untersuchungen zur eschatologischen Verkündigung Jesu (ATANT 6), Zürich: Zwingli Verlag 1946; ET: Promise and Fulfillment: The eschatological message of Jesus, London: SCM 1956. –: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer 201980. –: Jesu Antwort an Johannes den Täufer: Ein Beispiel zum Methodenproblem in der Jesusforschung (Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der JohannWolfgang-Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main 11,4), Wiesbaden: Steiner 1974. Kürzinger, Josef: “Zur Komposition der Bergpredigt nach Matthäus”, Bib. 40 (1959), 569– 589. Lachs, Samuel Tobias: A rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Hoboken: KTAV 1987. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph: Évangile selon Saint Luc (EBib), Paris: Lecoffre 1921. –: Évangile selon Saint Matthieu (EBib), Paris: Lecoffre 21923, 71948. Lakoff, George: “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor”, in Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 21993, 202–251.

608

Bibliography

Lakoff, George/Johnson, Mark: Metaphors we live by, Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press 1980. Lakoff, George/Turner, Mark: More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1989. Lambrecht, Jan: Ich aber sage euch: Die Bergpredigt als programmatische Rede Jesu (Mt 5–7, Lk 6,20–49), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1984; ET: The Sermon on the Mount: Proclamation and Exhortation (GNS), Wilmington: Glazier 1985. Lampe, Peter/Helmut Schwier (eds.): Neutestamentliche Grenzgänge. FS G. Theißen (NTOA 75), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2010. Lang, Bernhard: Die weisheitliche Lehrrede (SBS 54), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1972. Lapide, Pinchas: Die Bergpredigt: Utopie oder Programm?, Mainz: Matthias Grünewald 1982, 61986; ET: The Sermon on the Mount: Utopia or Program for Action?, Maryknoll: Orbis 1986. Larfeld, Wilhelm: Die neutestamentlichen Evangelien nach ihrer Eigenart und Abhängigkeit untersucht, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1925. Lausberg, Heinrich: Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, München: Hueber 1960. Levinas, Emmanuel: Humanisme de l’autre homme, Montpellier: Fata Morgana 1972; ET: Humanism of the Other, Chicago: Illinois University Press 2003. –: Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, Dordrecht: Springer 1991 (1978). Levine, Amy-Jill/Marianne Blickenstaff (eds.): A Feminist Companion to Matthew (Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 1), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 2001. –: (eds.): A Feminist Companion to Luke (Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 3), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 2002. Lichtenberger, Hermann: “Eine weisheitliche Mahnrede in den Qumranfunden (4Q 185)”, in Mathias Delcor (ed.), Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (BETL 46), Gembloux/Leuven: Duculot 1978, 151–162. Liestøl, Knut: Norske ættesogor, Oslo: Norli 1922. Lieu, Judith M.: “‘The Parting of the Ways’: Theological Construct of Historical Reality?”, JSNT 56 (1994), 101–119. –: Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004. Lindbeck, George A.: The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age, Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press 1984. Lindemann, Andreas: “Die Logienquelle Q: Fragen an eine gut begründete Hypothese”, in idem (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, Leuven: Peeters 2002, 3–26. –: Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte (WUNT 241), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2009. Linton, Olof: “Bjergpredikan”, Svensk Biblisk Uppslagsbok 1962, 235–245. –: “The Q-Problem reconsidered”, in David E. Aune (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature. FS A.P. Wikgren (NovTSup 33), Leiden: Brill 1972, 43–59. –: “Das Dilemma der synoptischen Forschung”, TLZ 101 (1976), 881–892 (= “Den synoptiske forsknings dilemma”, DTT 35 [1972], 47–62). Lioy, Dan: The Decalogue in the Sermon on the Mount (Studies in Biblical Literature 66), New York: Peter Lang 2004. Lips, Hermann von: Weisheitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament (WMANT 64), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1990.

Bibliography

609

Lloyd-Jones, David M.: Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959. Lohfink, Gerhard: Wie hat Jesus Gemeinde gewollt?, Freiburg etc.: Herder 1982 (“Die Praxis des ‘Miteinander’”, 116–124); ET: Jesus and Community, Philadelphia: Fortress 1984. –: Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? Beiträge zur christlichen Ethik, Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 1988 (“Das Publikum der Bergpredigt: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Klaus-Stefan Krieger”, 199–209, cf. TQ 163 [1983], 264–284; BZ 34 [1990], 104–108). –: Jesus von Nazareth: Was er wollte, wer er war, Freiburg: Herder 2011; ET: Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was, Collegeville: Liturgical Press 2012. Lohmeyer, Ernst: Galiläa und Jerusalem (FRLANT 52), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1936 (21953). –: Das Evangelium des Matthäus, ed. Werner Schmauch (KEK Sonderband), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 41967. Lohr, Charles H.: “Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew”, CBQ 23 (1961), 403–435. Lohse, Eduard: “Ich aber sage euch”, in idem/Christoph Burchard/Berndt Schaller (eds.), Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde. FS J. Jeremias, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1970, 189–203. –: Theologische Ethik des Neuen Testaments, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1988. Luck, Ulrich: Die Vollkommenheitsforderung der Bergpredigt: Ein aktuelles Kapitel der Theologie des Matthäus (TEH 150), München: Kaiser 1968. Lüdemann, Gerd: Jesus nach 2000 Jahren: Was er wirklich sagte und tat, Lüneburg: Klampen 2000; ET: Jesus after Two Thousand Years: What He Really Said and Did, London: SCM 2000, new ed.: New York: Prometheus 42014. Ludwig, Martina: Wort als Gesetz (Europäische Hochschulschriften: Reihe XXIII, 502), Frankfurt etc.: Peter Lang 1991. Lührmann, Dieter: Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (WMANT 33), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1969. Lund, Nils W.: Chiasmus in the New Testament: A Study in the Form and Function of Chiastic Structures (1942), Peabody: Hendrickson 1992. Lundbom, Jack R.: Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount: Mandating a Better Righteousness, Lanham: Fortress 2015. Lütgert, Wilhelm: “Die Bergpredigt als Grundgesetz der Kirche”, in idem, Der Kampf der deutschen Christenheit mit den Schwarmgeistern, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1936, 63–77 (= abbreviated TBei 40 [2009], 127–134). Luther, Susanne: “Protreptic Ethic in the Letter of James: The Potential of Figurative Language in Character Formation” (2010), in Zimmermann/Watt/Luther, Moral Language (see below), 330–364. –: Sprachethik im Neuen Testament: Eine Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses (WUNT 2/394), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2015. Luz, Ulrich: “Die Bergpredigt im Spiegel ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte”, in Jürgen Moltmann (ed.), Nachfolge und Bergpredigt (Kaiser-Traktate 65), München: Kaiser 1981, 37–72. –: Die Jesusgeschichte des Matthäus, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1993, 2 2008; ET: Studies in Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2005. –: “Bergpredigt: I. Neues Testament”, RGG4 1 (1998), 1309–1311. –: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. I: Mt 1–7 (EKKNT 1/1), Düsseldorf etc.: Patmos; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 52002; ET: Matthew 1–7: A Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis: Fortress 22007.

610

Bibliography

–: “Die Bergpredigt – politisches Programm oder lebensferne Utopie? Replik zu R. Feldmeier”, EvK 11 (2003), 43–47. –: “The discourse on the Mount (Matthew 5–7)”, in idem, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012, 42–61. –: Exegetische Aufsätze (WUNT 357), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2016. Luz, Ulrich/Axel Michaels, Jesus oder Buddha: Leben und Lehre im Vergleich, München: C.H. Beck 2002. Mack, Burton L.: Rhetoric and the New Testament (GBS), Minneapolis: Fortress 1990. Maisch, Ingrid: “Christsein in Gemeinschaft (Mt 18)”, in Lorenz Oberlinner/Peter Fiedler (eds.), Salz der Erde, Licht der Welt. FS A. Vögtle, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1991, 239–266. Malina, Bruce J.: The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, Louisville: John Knox Press 1981, 32001. –: Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology: Practical Models for Biblical Interpretation, Atlanta: John Knox Press 1986. Malina, Bruce J./Richard L. Rohrbaugh: Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Minneapolis: Fortress 1992, 22003. Mánek, Jindrich: “On the Mount – On the Plain (Mt. 5,1 – Lk. 6,17)”, NovT 9 (1967), 124– 131. Manson, Thomas W.: The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1931, 21935. –: The Sayings of Jesus: As recorded in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke arranged with Introduction and Commentary, London: SCM 1949. –: Ethics and the Gospel, London: SCM 1962. Manson, William: Jesus the Messiah, Philadelphia: Westminster 1945. Marriott, Horace: The Sermon on the Mount, London/New York: Macmillan 1925. Marshall, I. Howard: The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC), Exeter: Paternoster 1978. Marshall, Jonathan: Jesus, Patrons and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke (WUNT 2/259), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2009. Marxsen, Willi: “Streit am falschen Ort”, EvK 15 (1982), 508. –: “Der Streit um die Bergpredigt – ein exegetisches Problem? Anmerkungen zum Umgang mit der Sprache”, in Wolfgang Schrage (ed.), Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments. FS H. Greeven (BZNW 47), Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1986, 315–324. –: ‘Christliche’ und christliche Ethik im Neuen Testament, Gütersloh: Mohn 1989; ET: New Testament foundations for Christian ethics, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1994. Mauss, Marcel: “Essai sur le don: Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques”, L’Année sociologique 1923/24; ET: The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, London: Routledge 1954/1990. Mayor, Joseph B.: The Epistle of James, London: Macmillan 1897 (= Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications 1990). McArthur, Harvey K.: Understanding the Sermon on the Mount, London: Epworth 1960. McEleney, Neil J.: “The Principles of the Sermon on the Mount”, CBQ 41 (1979), 552– 570. –: “The Unity and Theme of Matthew 7:1–12”, CBQ 56 (1994), 490–500. Meeks, Wayne A.: The Moral World of the First Christians (LEC 6), Westminster: John Knox Press 1986. –: The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries, New Haven: Yale University Press 1993.

Bibliography

611

Meier, John P.: A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. I, New York: Doubleday 1991. –: Matthew, Wilmington: Glazier 1980. Meier-Reutti, Gerhard: Die Bergpredigt in der evangelischen und außerkirchlichen Publizistik des 19. Jahrhunderts: Reform, Restauration, Revolution, Erlangen: ChristlichePublizistik-Verlag 2001. Meistad, Tore: Martin Luther and John Wesley on the Sermon on the Mount (Pietist and Wesleyan Studies 10), Lanham: Scarecrow 1999 (= Diss. Trondheim 1989). Mell, Ulrich (ed.): Die Gleichnisreden Jesu 1899–1999: Beiträge zum Dialog mit Adolf Jülicher (BZNW 103), Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1999. –: “Die neutestamentliche Gleichnisforschung 100 Jahre nach Adolf Jülicher I/II”, TRu 76/1 (2011), 37–81; 78/4 (2013), 431–461. Merklein, Helmut: Die Jesusgeschichte – synoptisch gelesen (SBS 156), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1994 (repr., 1995), 86–95. Merklein, Helmut/Volker Eid/Louis Ridez: “Bergpredigt”, LTK3 2 (1994), 253–258. Metzner, Rainer: Der Brief des Jakobus (THKNT 14), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 2017. Meyer, Arnold: Das Rätsel des Jacobusbriefes (BZNW 10), Berlin: De Gruyter 1930. Meyer, Ben F.: The Early Christians: Their World Mission and Self-Discovery, Wilmington: Glazier 1986. –: “The Church in Earliest Christianity: Identity and Self-Definition”, in idem, Christus Faber: The Master-Builder and the House of God, Princeton: Pickwick 1992, 140–169. Meyer, Eduard: Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, vol. I: Die Evangelien, Stuttgart/ Berlin: J.G. Cotta 1921. Miller, Robert J.: The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics, Salem: Polebridge 1999. Miller, Russell B.: “The Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain”, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr et al., Chicago: Howard-Severance Company 1925 (1994), vol. IV, 2732–2736. Mitchell, Margaret M.: “John Chrysostom” (2007), in Greenman et al. (eds.), Sermon (see above), 19–42. –: “The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism?” (2007), in Webb/Kloppenborg (eds.), Reading James with New Eyes (see below), 75–98 (= eadem, and the Emergence of Christian Literacy [2017], 257–278). –: Paul and the Emergence of Christian Literacy: Early Christian Literary Culture in Context; Collected Essays I (WUNT 393), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2017. Mitton, C. Leslie: “Threefoldness in the Teaching of Jesus”, ExpTim 75 (1963/64), 228– 230. –: The Epistle of James, London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott 1966. Mogensen, Bent: Israelitiske leveregler og deres begrundelse, København: Gad 1983. Moltmann, Jürgen (ed.): Nachfolge und Bergpredigt, München: Kaiser 1981. Mongstad-Kvammen, Ingeborg: Toward a Postcolonial Reading of the Epistle of James (BIS 119), Leiden: Brill 2013. Montefiore, Claude G., The Synoptic Gospels, vol. II (London: Macmillan 21927), New York: KTAV 1968, 26–127. –: Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings, London: Macmillan 1930/New York: KTAV 1970. Morris, Leon: The Gospel According to St. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1974. –: The Gospel according to Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1992.

612

Bibliography

Mosbech, Holger: “The Ethics of the Sermon on the Mount”, in Auseklis Societas Theologorum Universitatis Latviensis (ed.), Spiritus et veritas. FS K. Kundzin̦š, Eutin: Ozolins 1953, 121–134. Moulton, James: “Sermon on the Mount”, The Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. IV, New York: Macmillan 1903, 4375–4391. Mounce, Robert H.: “The Sermon on the Mount”, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. James D. Douglas, Leicester: Inter-Varsity 1984, vol. IV, 1417–1419. Mounce, Robert H./Frederick W. Danker: “Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, in Geofferey W. Bromiley (ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1995, vol. IV, 411–416. Moxnes, Halvor: “The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of the Lower Galilee in the First Century: Implications for the Nascent Jesus Movement”, in Lee I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America 1992, 53–73. –: “Constructing the Galilee of Jesus in an Age of Ethnic Identity”, in Magnus Zetterholm/Samuel Byrskog (eds.), The Making of Christianity: Conflicts, Contacts, and Constructions. FS B. Holmberg, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 2010, 147–170. Müller, Johannes: Die Bergpredigt, verdeutscht und vergegenwärtigt, München: C.H. Beck 1906. Mußner, Franz: Der Jakobusbrief (HTKNT 13), Freiburg: Herder 21967. Nägelsbach, Friedrich: Der Schlüssel zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt (BFCT 20/5), Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1916. Neirynck, Franz: “The Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel Synopsis”, in idem, Evangelica: Collected Essays [vol. I], Leuven: Peeters 1982, 729–736. –: “The Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel Synopsis; Note on the Codex Bezae in the textual apparatus of the synopsis; The synoptic Gospels according to the new textus receptus”, ETL 52 (1976), 350–379. –: “Matthew 4:23–5:2 and the Matthean Composition of 4:23–11:1”, in David L. Dungan (ed.), The Interrelations of the Gospels (BETL 95), Leuven: Leuven University Press 1990, 23–46. Nel, Philip Johannes: The Structure and Ethos of the Wisdom Admonitions in Proverbs (BZAW 158), Berlin: De Gruyter 1982. Nepper-Christensen, Poul: Das Matthäusevangelium: Ein judenchristliches Evangelium, Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget 1958. Neusner, Jacob: “Vow-Taking, the Nazirites, and the Law: Does James’ Advice to Paul accord with Halakhah?”, in Bruce D. Chilton/Craig A. Evans (eds.), James the Just & Christian Origins, Leiden: Brill 1999, 59–82. Neyrey, Jerome H.: Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, Westminster: John Knox Press 1998 (164–228, “The Sermon on the Mount in Cultural Perspective”). Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm: Gesetz und Paränese: Katechismusartige Weisungsreihen in der frühjüdischen Literatur (WUNT 2/28), Tübingen 1987. –: “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht frühjüdischer Diasporabriefe”, NTS 44 (1998), 420–443. –: “Tora ohne Tempel: Paulus und der Jakobusbrief im Zusammenhang frühjüdischer Torarezeption für die Diaspora”, in Beate Ego/Armin Lange/Jörg Frey (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel/Community without Temple (WUNT 118), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1999, 427–460. –: “James in the Minds of the Recipients: A Letter from Jerusalem” (2009), in idem/Wall (eds.), The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition (see below), 43–54. –: “A New Perspective on James?”, TLZ 129 (2014), 1019–1044.

Bibliography

613

Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm/Robert W. Wall (eds.): The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition, Waco: Baylor University Press 2009. Niebuhr, Reinhold: Moral Man and Immoral Society, New York: Harper 1932. –: An Interpretation of Christian Ethics, New York: Harper 1935. Niederwimmer, Kurt: Askese und Mysterium: Über Ehe, Ehescheidung und Eheverzicht in den Anfängen des christlichen Glaubens (FRLANT 113), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1975. Niehoff, Maren R.: “The implied Audience in the Letter of James”, in Gary Anderson/Ruth Clements/David Satran (eds.), New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity (STDJ 106), Leiden: Brill 2013, 57–77. Nolland, John: Luke, 2 vols. (WBC 35 A/B), Dallas: Word Books 1993. –: The Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2005. Nygren, Anders: “Bergpredigt”, EKL 1 (1957), 392–395. Ong, Walter J.: Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, London: Routledge 1982. Overman, J. Andrew: Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The social world of the Matthean community, Minneapolis: Fortress 1990. Patte, Daniel: The Gospel according to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew’s Faith, Philadelphia: Fortress 1987. –: Discipleship according to the Sermon on the Mount: Four Legitimate Readings. Four Possible Visions of Discipleship, and Their Relative Value, Valley Forge: Trinity Press 1996. –: The Challenge of Discipleship: A Critical Study of the Sermon on the Mount as Scripture, Harrisburg: Trinity Press 1999. Patterson, Stephen J.: The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, Sonoma: Polebridge 1993. Pentikäinen, Juha: “Quellenanalytische Probleme der religiösen Überlieferung”, Themenos 6 (1970), 110–118. Perdue, Leo G.: “Paraenesis and the Epistle of James”, ZNW 72 (1981), 240–256. –: “The Wisdom Sayings of Jesus”, Foundations & Facets Forum 2/3 (1986), 3–35. Perelman, Chaïm/Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca: Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France 1958; ET: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press 1969. Perrin, Norman: “The Evangelist as Author”, BR 17 (1972), 5–18. Perry, Alfred M.: “The Framework of the Sermon on the Mount”, JBL 54 (1935), 103–115. Pesch, Wilhelm: Der Lohngedanke in der Lehre Jesu verglichen mit der religiösen Lohnlehre des Spätjudentums (Münchener theologische Studien, 1. Abteilung 7), München: Zink 1955. –: “Die sogenannte Gemeindeordnung Mt 18”, BZ 7 (1963), 220–235. –: Matthäus als Seelsorger (SBS 2), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1966. Petersen, Walter: Zur Eigenart des Matthäus: Untersuchung zur Rhetorik in der Bergpredigt (Osnabrücker Studien zur jüdischen und christlichen Bibel 2), Osnabrück: Univ.Verl. Rasch 2001. Peterson, Erik: “Bergpredigt: Biblisch”, RGG2 1 (1927), 907–910. Petzke, Gerd: Das Sondergut des Lukas, Zürich: TVZ 1990. Pfleiderer, Otto: Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren, 2 vols., Berlin: Reimer 2 1902 (11887); ET: Primitive Christianity, its Writings and Teachings in Their Historical Connections, 4 vols., London: Williams & Norgate 1906–1911.

614

Bibliography

Piper, Ronald A: The Wisdom in the Q-Tradition (SNTSMS 61), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1989. – (ed.): The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current studies on Q (NovTSup 75), Leiden: Brill 1995. Plummer, Alfred: A Commentary, Critical, Expository and Practical on the Gospel of Luke (ICC 33), Edinburgh: T&T Clark 81964 (1911/51922). Pokorný, Petr: Der Kern der Bergpredigt: Eine Auslegung, Hamburg: Reich 1969. –: “Die Bergpredigt/Feldrede als supra-ethisches System”, in Klaus Wengst (ed.), Ja und Nein: Christliche Theologie im Angesicht Israels. FS W. Schrage, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1998, 183–193. –: “Die matthäische Theologie – eine bewusste Rückkehr zur Lehre Jesu”, in Christfried Böttrich (ed.),Eschatologie und Ethik im frühen Christentum. FS G. Haufe, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 2006, 213–224. Popkes, Wiard: Adressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbriefes (SBS 125/126), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1986. –: Paränese und das Neue Testament (SBS 168), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1996. –: Der Brief des Jakobus (THKNT 14), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 2001. Porter, Stanley E.: The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposal (JSNTSup 191), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 2000. Porter, Stanley E./Sean A. Adams (eds.): Paul and the Ancient Letter Form (Pauline Studies 6), Leiden: Brill 2010. Powell, Mark Allan: “Matthew’s Beatitudes: Reversals and Rewards of the Kingdom”, CBQ 58 (1996), 460–479. –: “The Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. V, Nashville: Abingdon 2009, 178–190. – (ed.): Methods for Matthew, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2009. Preisker, Herbert: “Die Art und Tragweite der Lebenslehre Jesu”, TSK 92 (1919), 1–45. Rade, Martin: “Glossen zur Bergpredigt”, Christliche Welt 10 (1896), 937f, 985f, 1009f, 1033f, 1057f, 1081–1083. Radl, Walter: Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. I: 1,1–9,50, Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 2003. Ragaz, Leonhard: Die Bergpredigt Jesu, Bern: Herbert Lang 1945 (Hamburg: Furche 1971 = Stundenbuch 102; Gütersloh: Mohn 31983 = GTB Siebenstern 451/GTB 1429). Ratzinger, Josef: Jesus von Nazareth, vol. I: Von der Taufe im Jordan bis zur Verklärung, Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 2007 (esp. 93–160); ET: Jesus of Nazareth, New York: Doubleday 2007. Reed, Annette Yoshiko: Jewish-Christianity and the History of Judaism (TSAJ 171), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2018. Reicke, Bo: Diakonie, Festfreude und Zelos in Verbindung mit der altchristlichen Agapenfeier, Uppsala: Lundequist 1951. –: The Epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter (AB 37), Garden City: Doubleday 21964. –: The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels, Minneapolis: Fortress 1986. Renan, Ernest: Histoire des origines du Christianisme, vol. I: Vie de Jésus, Paris: Lévy 1863/1923. Rendall, Gerald H.: The Epistle of St. James and Judaic Christianity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1927. Repschinski, Boris: Nicht aufzulösen, sondern zu erfüllen: Das jüdische Gesetz in den synoptischen Jesuserzählungen (FB 120), Würzburg: Echter 2009.

Bibliography

615

Richter, Wolfgang: Recht und Ethos: Versuch einer Ortung des weisheitlichen Mahnspruches, München: Kösel 1966. Ricœur, Paul: “The Golden Rule: Exegetical and theological perplexities”, NTS 36 (1990), 392–397. –: Liebe und Gerechtigkeit (Amour et Justice), ed. Oswald Bayer, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1990. Riesenfeld, Harald: The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings: A Study in the Limits of “Formgeschichte”, London: Mowbray 1957 (= SE [TU 73], 1959, 43–65). –: Att tolka Bibelen: Bibelteologiske uppsatser, Stockholm: DSF 1967. Riesner, Rainer: Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der EvangelienÜberlieferung (WUNT 2/7), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1981, 31988. Robinson, James McConkey: A New Quest of the Historical Jesus, London: SCM 1959. –: “ΛΟΓΟΙ ΣΟΦΩΝ: Zur Gattung der Spruchquelle Q”, in Erich Dinkler (ed.), Zeit und Geschichte. FS R. Bultmann, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1964, 77–96. –: The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays (BETL 189), Leuven: Leuven University Press 2005. Robinson, James McConkey/Paul Hoffmann/John S. Kloppenborg (eds.): The critical edition of Q: Synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French translations of Q and Thomas, Leuven: Peeters 2000. – (eds.): Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q through two centuries of Gospel research, excerpted, sorted, and evaluated; the database of the International Q Project, Leuven: Peeters 2000. – (eds.): The sayings gospel Q in Greek and English: With parallels from the gospels of Mark and Thomas (CBET 30), Leuven: Peeters 2001. Rodriguez, Rafael: Oral Tradition and the New Testament, London: T&T Clark 2013. Roitto, Rikard/Colleen Shantz/Petri Luomanen (eds.): Social and Cognitive Perspectives on the Sermon on the Mount, Sheffield: Equinox 2019. Roloff, Jürgen: Neues Testament (Neukirchener Arbeitsbücher), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1977, 31982, 41985, 107–122 (§ 8: “Die Bergpredigt”). Ropes, James H.: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of the Epistle of St James, London: T&T Clark 1916/1961. Runesson, Anders: “Early Jewish-Christian Relations”, JBL 127 (2008), 95–132. –: Divine Wrath and Salvation in Matthew: The Narrative World of the First Gospel, Minneapolis: Fortress 2016. Runestam, Arvid: “Das ethische Problem der Bergpredigt”, ZST 4 (1927), 555–574. Rustler, K. Michael: Thema und Disposition des Jakobusbriefes: Eine formkritische Studie, Diss. Wien 1952. Ruzer, Serge: “James on Faith and Righteousness in the Context of a Broader Jewish Exegetical Discourse”, in Gary A. Anderson/Ruth Clements/David Satran (eds.), New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity (STDJ 106), Leiden: Brill 2007, 79–104. Sæbø, Magne: Sprüche (ATD 16/1), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2012. Saldarini, Anthony J.: Matthew’s Christian Jewish Community, Chicago: Chicago University Press 1994. Sand, Alexander: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (RNT), Regensburg: Pustet 1956. Sanders, Ed P. (ed.): Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. I: The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries, Philadelphia: Fortress 1980. –: Jesus and Judaism, Philadelphia: Fortress 1985. –: The Historical Figure of Jesus, Lane: Penguin 1993.

616

Bibliography

Sandmel, Samuel: “Parallelomania”, JBL 81 (1962), 1–13. Scaer, David P.: The Sermon on the Mount – the Church’s First Statement of the Gospel, St. Louis: Concordia 2000. Schäfer, Peter: “Tempel und Schöpfung: Zur Interpretation einiger Heiligtumstraditionen in der rabbinischen Literatur”, Kairos 16 (1974), 122–133. –: “Die Torah der messianischen Zeit”, ZNW 65 (1974), 27–42. –: Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton: Princeton University Press 2007. Schenz, Alphons: Die Bergpredigt in ihrer ursprünglichen Schönheit, Augsburg: Benno Filser 1929. Schlatter, Adolf: Der Evangelist Matthäus, Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung 21933 (61983). Schmid, Josef: “Markus und der aramäische Matthäus”, in idem/Anton Vögtle (eds.), Synoptische Studien. FS A. Wikenhauser, München: Zink 1953, 148–183. Schmithals, Walter: Das Evangelium nach Lukas (ZBK Neues Testament 3/1), Zürich: TVZ 1980. Schnackenburg, Rudolf: “Bergpredigt”, LTK2 2 (1958), 223–227. –: “Die Bergpredigt Jesu und der heutige Mensch” (1966), in idem, Christliche Existenz nach dem Neuen Testament, vol. I, München: Kösel 1967, 109–130. –: Alles kann, wer glaubt: Bergpredigt und Vaterunser in der Absicht Jesu, Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 1985; ET: All things are possible to Believers: Reflections on the Lord’s Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount, Westminster: John Knox Press 1995. –: Matthäusevangelium, 2 vols. (NEB), Würzburg: Echter 1985–1987; ET: The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2002. –: Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1: Von Jesus zur Urkirche (1954, 2 1962), völlige Neubearbeitung (HTKNTSup), Freiburg: Herder 1986; ET: The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, New York: Seabury 1965. Schnackenburg, Rudolf/Johannes Gründel (eds.): Die Bergpredigt: Utopische Visionen oder Handlungsanweisungen?, Düsseldorf: Patmos 1982. Schneider, Gerhard: Botschaft der Bergpredigt, Aschaffenburg: Pattloch 1969. –: Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Kapitel 1–10 (ÖTK 3/1), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 1977, 21984, 31992. Schneider, Johannes: Der Sinn der Bergpredigt: Von der Grundordnung christlichen Lebens (Aus der Welt der Bibel 12), Berlin: Furche-Verlag 1936. Schnelle, Udo: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 6 2007. –: Die getrennten Wege von Römern, Juden und Christen: Religionspolitik im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2019. Schniewind, Julius: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 2), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1937, 61953, 81956, 111964. Schockenhoff, Eberhard: Naturrecht und Menschenwürde: Universale Ethik in einer geschichtlichen Welt, Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag 1996; ET: Natural Law and Human Dignity: Universal Ethics in an Historical World, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press 2003. –: Ethik des Lebens: Grundlagen und neue Herausforderungen, Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 2 2013. –: Bergpredigt: Aufruf zum Christsein, Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 2014. Schottroff, Luise: “Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in der urchristlichen Jesustradition: Mt 5,38–48; Lk 6,27–36”, in Georg Strecker (ed.), Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie. FS H. Conzelmann, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1975, 197–221.

Bibliography

617

–: The Parables of Jesus, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress 2006. Schrage, Wolfgang: “Bergpredigt”, Evangelisches Soziallexikon, ed. Theodor Schober, Stuttgart: Kreuz-Verlag 71980, 136–138. –: “Das Ende aller Politik? Kritische Fragen an Martin Hengel”, EvK 15 (1982), 333–337. –: Ethik des Neuen Testaments (GNT 4), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 51989. –: “Bergpredigt und Christologie”, in Jiří Mrázek/Jan Roskovec (eds.), Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology in Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu; Studies in Honour of Petr Pokorný (JSNTSup 272), London/New York: T&T Clark 2004, 171–188. Schröter, Jens: “The historical Jesus and the sayings tradition: Comments on current research”, Neot. 30 (1996), 151–168. –: Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas (WMANT 76), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1997. –: Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament: Studien zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zur Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons (WUNT 204), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007; ET: From Jesus to the New Testament: Early Christian Theology and the Origin of the New Testament Canon, Waco: Baylor University Press 2013. –: “The Criteria of Authenticity in Jesus Research and Historiographical Method” (2012), in Keith/Le Donne (eds.), Jesus, Criteria (see above), 49–70. Schüller, Bruno: “Zur Problematik allgemein verbindlicher ethischer Grundsätze”, TP 45 (1970), 1–23. –: “Zur Rede von der radikalen sittlichen Forderung”, TP 46 (1971), 321–341. –: Die Begründung sittlicher Urteile: Typen ethischer Argumentation in der Moraltheologie, Düsseldorf: Patmos 1973. –: “Zur Interpretation der Antithesen der Bergpredigt”, in Dietrich-Alex Koch et al. (eds.), Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte im frühen Christentum: Beiträge zur Verkündigung Jesu und zum Kerygma der Kirche. FS W. Marxsen, Gütersloh: Mohn 1989, 101–115. Schulz, Siegfried: “Strategie zeitgemäßer Veränderungen: Relevanz und Relativität der Bergpredigt”, Zeitwende 41 (1970), 226–236. –: Neutestamentliche Ethik (Zürcher Grundrisse zur Bibel), Zürich: TVZ 1987. Schürmann, Heinz: “Die Warnung des Lukas vor der Falschlehre in der Predigt am Berge, Lk 6,20–49”, BZ NF 10 (1966), 57–81. –: Das Lukasevangelium, vol. I (HTKNT 3/1), Freiburg i Br.: Herder 1969, 41990. Schütz, Roland: “Der Jakobusbrief: Kolometrisch übersetzt”, TBl 1 (1922), 24–32. Schwarz, Günther: Die Bergpredigt, eine Fälschung? Die Worte der Berglehre im Originalton Jesu, München: Ukkam-Verlag 1991. Schweitzer, Albert: Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis Jesu: Eine Skizze des Lebens Jesu, Tübingen: Mohr 1901, 31956. –: Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, Tübingen: Mohr 21913 (1st ed. 1906 under the title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), Tübingen: Mohr 61951, Siebenstern Taschenbuch, 2 vols., München: Siebenstern Taschenbuch Verlag 1966; ET: The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, New York: Macmillan 51962. –: Ehrfucht vor dem Leben (1916), Karlsruhe: Müller 1947; ET: The Teaching of Reverence for Life, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1966. –: Werke aus dem Nachlaß: Predigten 1898–1948, ed. Richard Brüllmann/Erich Gräßer, München: C.H. Beck 2001.

618

Bibliography

Schweizer, Eduard: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 2), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1973, 41986; ET: The Good News according to Matthew, Atlanta: John Knox Press 1975. –: Matthäus und seine Gemeinde (SBS 71), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1974. –: Die Bergpredigt (Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe 1481), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1982 (21984). –: Das Evangelium nach Lukas (NTD 3), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1986 (31993). –: “Aufnahme und Gestaltung von Q bei Matthäus”, in Lorenz Oberlinner/Peter Fiedler (eds.), Salz der Erde, Licht der Welt. FS A. Vögtle, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1991, 111–130. –: “Die Bergpredigt im Kontext des Matthäusevangeliums”, in Cornelius Mayer et al. (eds.), Nach den Anfängen fragen. FS G. Dautzenberg (Gießener Schriften zur Theologie und Religionspädagogik 8), Gießen: Selbstverlag des Fachbereichs … 1994, 607– 617. Scott, Bernard Brandon: Hear Then the Parable, Minneapolis: Fortress 1989. Scott, Bernard Brandon/Margaret E. Dean: “A Sound Map of the Sermon on the Mount”, SBLSP 32 (1993), 672–725 = in Bauer/Powell (eds.), Treasures New and Old (1996) (see above), 311–378. Seeberg, Reinhold: Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt (Schriften des Instituts für Sozialethik und Wissenschaft der Inneren Mission an der Universität Berlin 4), Leipzig: Deichert 1934. Selwyn, Edward G.: The First Epistle of St. Peter, London: Macmillan 1946/21961. Sheffield, Julian: “The Father in the Gospel of Matthew” (2001), in Levine/Blickenstaff (eds.), A Feminist Companion to Matthew (see above), 52–69. Shepherd, Massey H., Jr.: “The Epistle of James and the Gospel of Matthew”, JBL 75 (1956), 40–51. Sider, John W.: Interpreting the Parables: A Hermeneutical Guide to their Meaning, Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1995. Sidgwick, Henry: The Methods of Ethics, London: Macmillan1898/71907. Sigal, Philip: “The Halacha of James”, in Ekkehard W. Stegemann (ed.), Festschrift für Markus Barth, Basel: Reinhardt 1985, 337–353. Sim, David C.: The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism (Studies in the New Testament and Its World), Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1998. –: “Matthew 7:21–23: Further Evidence of its Anti-Pauline Perspective”, NTS 53 (2007), 325–343. Skarsaune, Oskar/Reidar Hvalvik: Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, Peabody: Hendrickson 2007. Smit Sibinga, Joost: “Exploring the Composition of Matth. 5–7: The Sermon on the Mount and Some of its ‘Structures’”, Filologia Neotestamentica 8 (1994), 175–196. Snodgrass, Klyne: Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2008. Snyder, Graydon F.: “The Tobspruch in the New Testament”, NTS 23 (1977), 117–120. Sobrino, Jon: “Jesus and the Kingdom of God”, in idem, Jesus the Liberator: A HistoricalTheological Reading of Jesus of Nazareth, Maryknoll: Orbis 1993, 67–104. Soiron, Thaddäus: Die Logia Jesu: Eine literarkritische und literargeschichtliche Untersuchung zum synoptischen Problem, Münster: Aschendorff 1916. –: Die Bergpredigt Jesu: Formgeschichtliche, exegetische und theologische Erklärung, Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 1941. Stange, Carl: “Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt”, ZST 2 (1925), 37–74.

Bibliography

619

Stanton, Graham N.: “The Origin and Purpose of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount”, in Gerald F. Hawthorne/Otto Betz (eds.), Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. FS E.E. Ellis, Grand Rapids/Tübingen: Eerdmans/Mohr Siebeck 1987, 181– 192 (= idem, A Gospel for a New People [1992], 307–325). –: “Sermon on the Mount”, in Richard J. Coggins/James Leslie Houlden (eds.), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, London: SCM 1990, 625–628. –: A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1992. –: “Sermon on the Mount/Plain”, in Joel B. Green/Scot McKnight/I. Howard Marshall (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Downers Grove: InterVarsity 1992, 735– 744. –: Studies in Matthew and Early Christianity (WUNT 309), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2013. Starr, James/Troels Engberg-Pedersen (eds.): Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (BZNW 125), Berlin: De Gruyter 2004. Stassen, Glen H.: “Grace, Deliverance in the Sermon on the Mount”, RevExp 89 (1992), 229–244. –: “The Fourteen Triads of the Sermon on the Mount”, JBL 122 (2003), 267–308. –: “Sermon on the Mount”, in Joel B. Green (ed.), Dictionary of Scripture & Ethics, Grand Rapids: Baker 2011, 715–717. Stassen, Glen H./David P. Gushee: Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press Academic 2003. Stauffer, Ethelbert: Jesus: Gestalt und Geschichte, Bern: Francke 1957. Stegemann, Ekkehard W.: “Jesu Stellung zum Judentum seiner Zeit”, in Wolfgang Stegemann/Bruce J. Malina/Gerd Theißen (eds.), Jesus in neuen Kontexten, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2002, 237–245. Stegemann, Ekkehard W./Wolfgang Stegemann: Urchristliche Sozialgeschichte: Die Anfänge im Judentum und die Christengemeinden in der mediterranen Welt, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 21997. Stegemann, Wolfgang: “Kontingenz und Kontextualität der moralischen Aussagen Jesu”, in idem/Bruce J. Malina/Gerd Theißen (eds.), Jesus in neuen Kontexten, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2002, 167–184. Stein, Robert H.: Luke (NAC 24), Nashville: Broadman 1992. Stendahl, Krister: Matthew (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible), Middlesex: Nelson 1962. –: Meanings: The Bible as Document and Guide, Philadelphia: Fortress 1984 (85–97, “The Messianic Licence: The Sermon on the Mount”). Stiewe, Martin/François Vouga: Die Bergpredigt und ihre Rezeption als kurze Darstellung des Christentums, Tübingen/Basel: Francke 2001. Stott, John: Christian Counter-culture: The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (Bible speaks today), London: InterVarsity 1978 = The Message of the Sermon on the Mount: Christian counter-culture, Leicester: InterVarsity 1985. Stowers, Stanley K.: Letter Writing in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (LEC 5), Philadelphia: Westminster 1986. Strauss, David Friedrich: Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet, 2 vols., Tübingen: Osiander 1835/36 (repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1969); ET: The Life of Jesus: Critically Examined, London: SCM 1973; new translation by George Eliot, 3 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010. Strecker, Georg: Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus (FRLANT 82), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1962.

620

Bibliography

–: Die Bergpredigt: Ein exegetischer Kommentar, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2 1985; ET: The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1998/Nashville: Abingdon 1988. –: “Das Gesetz in der Bergpredigt – die Bergpredigt als Gesetz”, in Timo Veijola (ed.), The Law in the Bible and Its Environment (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 51), Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1990, 109–125. –: Literaturgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (UTB 1682), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1992. Streeter, Burnett H.: The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins; Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Date, London: Macmillan 1925. Strobel, August: “Die Bergpredigt als ethische Weisung heute”, TBei 15 (1984), 3–16. Stuckenbruck, Loren T./Stephen C. Barton/Benjamin G. Wold (eds.), Memory in the Bible and Antiquity (WUNT 212), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007. Stuhlmacher, Peter: Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (FRLANT 87), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1965. –: “Jesu vollkommenes Gesetz der Freiheit: Zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt”, ZTK 79 (1982), 283–322. –: “Leben unter der Vergebung”, in Ulrike Mittmann-Richert/Friedrich Avemarie/Gerbern S. Oegema (eds.), Der Mensch vor Gott. FS H. Lichtenberger, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2003, 161–168. Sydow, Carl W. von: “Om traditionsspridning”, Scandia 5 (1932), 321–344. Syreeni, Kari: The Making of the Sermon on the Mount (AASF.DHL 44), Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia 1987. –: “Separation and Identity: Aspects of the Symbolic World of Matt 6.1–18”, NTS 40 (1994), 522–541. Talbert, Charles H.: Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel, New York: Crossroad 1982, rev. ed. 2002. –: Reading the Sermon on the Mount: Character Formation and Decision Making in Matthew 5–7, Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press 2004. Theißen, Gerd: “Wanderradikalismus: Literatursoziologische Aspekte der Überlieferung von Worten Jesu im Urchristentum”, ZTK 70 (1973), 245–271; repr. in idem, Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (WUNT 19), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 31989, 79– 105; ET: “Itinerant Radicalism: The Tradition of Jesus Sayings from the Perspective of the Sociology of Literature”, in Norman K. Gottwald (ed.), The Bible and Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneutics; A Radical Religion Reader, Berkeley: Community for Religious Research and Education 1975, 84–93. –: “Die soziologische Auswertung religiöser Überlieferung”, Kairos 17 (1975), 284–299. –: Soziologie der Jesusbewegung: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Urchristentums (TEH 194), München: Kaiser 1977; ET: The First Followers of Jesus: A Sociological Analysis of the Earliest Christianity, London: SCM 1978. –: Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, Philadelphia: Fortress 1978. –: “Das Matthäusevangelium: Die ethische Abgrenzung vom Judentum (und Heidentum)”, in idem, Die Religion der ersten Christen: Eine Theorie des Urchristentums, Gütersloh: Kaiser 2000, 242–253; ET: The Religion of the Earliest Churches: Creating a Symbolic World, Minneapolis: Fortress 1999. –: “Nächstenliebe und Statusverzicht als Grundzüge christlichen Ethos”, in Wilfrid Härle (ed.), Das ist christlich: Nachdenken über das Wesen des Christentums, Gütersloh: Mohn 2000, 119–142.

Bibliography

621

–: “Die politische Dimension des Wirkens Jesu”, in Wolfgang Stegemann/Bruce J. Malina/idem (eds.), Jesus in neuen Kontexten, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2002, 112–122. –: “Die goldene Regel (Matthäus 7:12/Lukas 6:31): Über den Sitz im Leben ihrer positiven und negativen Form”, BibInt 11 (2003), 386–399. –: “Die pseudepigraphische Intention des Jakobusbriefes” (2003), in von Gemünden/ Konradt/idem (eds.), Jakobusbrief (see above), 54–82. –: Die Jesusbewegung: Sozialgeschichte einer Revolution der Werte, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 2004. –: “Urchristliches Ethos – eine Synthese aus biblischer und griechischer Tradition”, in Christian Strecker (ed.), Kontexte der Schrift II: Kultur, Politik, Religion, Sprache – Text. FS W. Stegemann, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2005, 209–222 (= “Urkristet etos – en syntes av biblisk och grekisk tradition”, STK 79 [2003], 2–12). –: Erleben und Verhalten der ersten Christen: Eine Psychologie des Urchristentums, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 2007. –: “Gesetz und Goldene Regel: Die Ethik des Matthäusevangeliums zwischen Regel- und Empathieorientierung”, in Peter Lampe et al. (eds.), Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog: Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäusevangelium. FS U. Luz, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2008, 237–254. –: Von Jesus zur urchristlichen Zeichenwelt (NTOA 78), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2011. Theißen, Gerd(/Philipp Vielhauer): Rudolf Bultmann, Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition: Ergänzungsheft, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1979 (2011). Theißen, Gerd/Annette Merz: Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1996, 32001; ET: The historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, London: SCM 1997. Theißen, Gerd/Dagmar Winter: Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung: Vom Differenzkriterium zum Plausibilitätskriterium, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1997; ET: The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press 2002. Thielicke, Helmut: “Ich aber sage euch”: Auslegung der Bergpredigt, Stuttgart: Quell 1946–1948 (= Die Bergpredigt, Stuttgart: Quell 1950 = Das Leben kann noch einmal beginnen, Stuttgart: Quell 51960). –: Theologische Ethik, 2 vols., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 51981. Tholuck, P.G. August: Philologisch-theologische Auslegung der Bergpredigt Christi nach Matthäus: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Begründung einer rein-biblischen Glaubens- und Sittenlehre, Hamburg: Perthes 1833/21835 (= Ausführliche Auslegung der Bergpredigt Christi nach Matthäus: Neue Bearbeitung, Hamburg: Perthes 31845; ET: Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1869). Thom, Johan C.: “Dyads, Triads and Other Compositional Beasts in the Sermon on the Mount”, in Cilliers Breytenbach/Johan C. Thom/Jeremy Punt (eds.), The New Testament Interpreted. FS B.C. Lategan (NovTSup 128), Leiden: Brill 2006, 290–308. –: “Justice in the Sermon on the Mount: An Aristotelian Reading”, NovT 51 (2009), 314– 338. Thurén, Lauri: “Risky Rhetoric in James?”, NovT 37 (1995), 262–284. –: “The general New Testament Writings”, in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 300 B.C.–A.D. 400, Leiden: Brill 1997, 587–607. Thurneysen, Eduard: Die Bergpredigt (TEH 46), München: Kaiser 1936; ET: The Sermon on the Mount, Richmond: John Knox Press 1964.

622

Bibliography

Tomson, Peter J.: Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (CRINT 3/1), Assen: van Gorcum 1990. –: Jésus et les auteurs du Nouveau Testament dans leur relation au Judaïsme, Paris: Édition du Cerf 2003. Topel, L. John: Children of a Compassionate God: A Theological Exegesis of Luke 6,20– 49, Collegeville: Liturgical Press 2001. Traub, Friedrich: “Das Problem der Bergpredigt”, ZTK 17 (1936), 193–218. Trilling, Wolfgang: Das wahre Israel (SANT 10), München: Kösel 1959, 31964. Trites, Allison A.: “The Blessings and Warnings of the Kingdom (Matthew 5:3–12; 7:13– 27)”, RevExp 89 (1992), 179–196. Trockmorton, Burton H., jr.: “Did Mark Know Q?”, JBL 67 (1948), 319–329. Tsuji, Manabu: Glaube zwischen Vollkommenheit und Verweltlichung (WUNT 2/93), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1997. Vaganay, Léon: “L’absence du sermon sur la montagne chez Marc”, RB 58 (1951), 5–48. Vahrenhorst, Martin: “Ihr sollt überhaupt nicht schwören”: Matthäus im halachischen Diskurs (WMANT 95), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2002. –: “Die Bergpredigt als Weisung zur Vollkommenheit: Noch ein Versuch, die Struktur und das Thema der Bergpredigt zu finden”, in Volker A. Lehnert/Ulrich RüsenWeinhold (eds.), Logos – Logik – Lyrik: Engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Reden Gottes. FS K. Haacker (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 27), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 2007, 115–136. Verhey, Allen: The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1984. Vermes, Geza: Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels, Minneapolis: Fortress 1973. –: The Religion of Jesus the Jew, Minneapolis: Fortress 1993. –: Jesus in his Jewish Context, Minneapolis: Fortress 2003. –: The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, London: Penguin 2003. –: Jesus in the Jewish World, London: SCM 2010. –: Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicea, New Haven: Yale University Press 2013. Verseput, Donald L.: “Genre and Story: The Community Setting of the Epistle of James”, CBQ 62 (2000), 96–110. Via, Dan O., Jr.: The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension, Philadelphia: Fortress 1967. –: “Sermon on the Mount”, in A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics, ed. James F. Childress, London: SCM 1986, 575–577. Viljoen, François P.: “Righteousness and Identity Formation in the Sermon on the Mount”, HTR 69 (2013), 1–10. Viviano, Benedict T.: “The Sermon on the Mount in recent study”, Bib. 78 (1997), 255– 265. –: Matthew and his world (NTOA 61), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2007. Vorster, Willem S.: “The Structure of Matthew 13”, in J. Eugene Botha (ed.), Speaking of Jesus (NovTSup 92), Leiden: Brill 1999, 139–148. Votaw, Clyde W.: “Sermon on the Mount”, in James Hastings (ed.), Dictionary of the Bible, vol. V (Supplementum), New York: T&T Clark 1904, 1–45. Wachob, Wesley H.: The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James (SNTSMS 106), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2000.

Bibliography

623

Watson, Duane F.: “James 2 in Light of Graeco-Roman Schemes of Argumentation”, NTS 39 (1993), 94–121. –: “The Rhetoric of James 3,1–12 and a Classical Pattern of Argumentation”, NovT 35 (1993), 48–64. –: “An Assessment of the Rhetoric and Rhetorical Analysis of the Letter of James” (2007), in Webb/Kloppenborg, Reading James with New Eyes (see below), 99–120. –: “The Rhetorical Composition of the Epistle of James”, in Eric F. Mason/Darian R. Lockett (eds.), Reading the Epistle of James: A Resource for Students, Atlanta: SBL Press 2019, 99–116. Webb, Robert L./John S. Kloppenborg (eds.): Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James (LNTS 342), London: T&T Clark 2007. Weder, Hans: Die ’Rede der Reden’: Eine Auslegung der Bergpredigt heute, Zürich: TVZ 1985. –: Einblicke ins Evangelium: Exegetische Beiträge zur neutestamentlichen Hermeneutik. Gesammelte Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1980–1991, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1992. Weidemann, Hans-Ulrich: “‘Vergeltet nicht dem bösen Mann!’ Versuch einer konsequent androzentrischen Lektüre der Bergpredigt”, in idem (ed.), “Er stieg auf den Berg … und lehrte sie” (Mt 5,1f.): Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Bergpredigt (SBS 226), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2012, 25–70. Weinel, Heinrich: Die Bergpredigt: Ihr Aufbau, ihr ursprünglicher Sinn und ihre Echtheit, ihre Stellung in der Religionsgeschichte und ihre Bedeutung für die Gegenwart, Leipzig: Teubner 1920. Weinfeld, Moshe: “The Charge of Hypocrisy in Matthew 23 and in Jewish Sources”, Immanuel 24/25 (1990), 52–58. Weiß, Bernhard: “Die Redestücke des apostolischen Matthäus”, JDT 9 (1864), 49–140, esp. 52–65. Weiß, Johannes: Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. I/1: Die drei älteren Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1906. –: Das Urchristentum, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1913. Weisse, Christian Hermann: Die evangelische Geschichte, kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, 2 vols., Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel 1838. Weizsäcker, Carl (Heinrich von): Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche, Freiburg i.Br.: Mohr 1886, 31902. Welch, John W.: The Sermon on the Mount in Light of the Temple (SOTSMS), Aldershot: Ashgate 2009. Wellhausen, Julius: Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, Berlin: Reimer 1905, 21911. –: Das Evangelium Matthaei, Berlin: Reimer 21914. Wendland, Heinz-Dietrich: Ethik des Neuen Testaments (GNT 4), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1970. Wendland, Paul: Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihrer Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum, Tübingen: Mohr 1912. Wengst, Klaus: Das Regierungsprogramm des Himmelreichs: Eine Auslegung der Bergpredigt in ihrem jüdischen Kontext, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2010. –: Der wirkliche Jesus?, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2013. Wernle, Paul, “Die Forderungen der Bergpredigt und ihre Durchführung in der Gegenwart”, in idem, Evangelisches Christentum in der Gegenwart: Drei Vorträge, Tübingen: Mohr 1914, 79–118.

624

Bibliography

Wesley, John: John Wesley on the Sermon on the Mount, ed. Kenneth C. Kinghorn, vol. II: The standard sermons in modern English, Nashville: Abingdon 2002, 21–33. Wette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de: Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Bibel, vol. 2, Berlin: Reimer 1826, 21830, 31834. –: Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi (Kurzgefaßtes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 1/1), Leipzig: Weidmann 1836, 21838, 31846, 41857. Weyde, Karl W.: “Do this in Remembrance of me”, in Reidar Hvalvik/John Kaufman (eds.), Among Jews, Gentiles and Christians in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. FS O. Skarsaune, Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press 2011, 195–210. White, Leland J.: “Grid and Group in Matthew’s Community: The Righteousness/Honor Code in the Sermon on the Mount”, Semeia 35 (1986), 61–90. White, Hayden: Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1973/2014. –: Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1986. Wick, Peter: “Die Bergpredigt: Synagogale Toraauslegung in Vollmacht”, EuroJTh 5/1 (1995), 9–13. –: “Volkspredigt contra Gemeinderegel? Matthäus 5–7 im Vergleich zu Matthäus 18”, Kirche und Israel 13 (1998), 138–153. Wiefel, Wolfgang: Das Evangelium nach Lukas (THKNT 3), Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 1988. –: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (THKNT 1), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 1998. Wilder, Amos N.: Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus, New York: Harper 1950. –: “The Teaching of Jesus: II. The Sermon on the Mount”, in The Interpreter’s Bible 1, New York/Nashville: Abingdon 1951, 155–164. Williams, James G.: “Parable and Chreia: From Q to Narrative Gospel”, Semeia 43 (1988), 85–114. –: “Paraenesis, Excess and Ethics: Matthew’s Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount”, Semeia 50 (1990), 163–187. Wilson, Walter T.: “A Third Form of Righteousness: The Theme and Contribution of Matthew 6,19–7,12 in the Sermon on the Mount”, NTS 53 (2007), 303–324. Windisch, Hans: Der Sinn der Bergpredigt: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der richtigen Exegese (UNT 16), Leipzig: Hinrichs 1928 (new ed., Der Sinn der Bergpredigt: Ein Beitrag zum geschichtlichen Verständnis der Evangelien und zum Problem der richtigen Exegese, Leipzig: Hinrichs 1937; ET: The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount: A Contribution to the Historical Understanding of the Gospels and to the Problem of Their True Exegesis, Philadelphia: Westminster Press 1951). Wink, Walter: “Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus’ Nonviolent Way”, RevExp 89 (1992), 197–214. Wischmeyer, Oda: “Reconstructing the Social and Religious Milieu of James: Methods, Sources, Possible Results”, in Hubertus W.M. van de Sandt/Jürgen Zangenberg (eds.), Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings, Atlanta: SBL 2008, 33–42. –: “Polemik im Jakobusbrief: Formen, Gegenstände und Fronten”, in eadem/Lorenzo Scornaienchi (eds.), Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur: Texte und Kontexte (BZNW 170), Berlin: De Gruyter 2011, 357–379.

Bibliography

625

Witherington III, Ben: Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom, Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1994. Wittmann, Dieter: Die Auslegung der Friedensweisungen der Bergpredigt in der Predigt der Evangelischen Kirche im 20. Jahrhundert (Europäische Hochschulschriften: Reihe XXIII 224), Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang 1984. Wold, Benjamin: “James in the Context of Jewish Wisdom”, in Eric F. Mason/Darian R. Lockett (eds.), Reading the Epistle of James: A Resource for Students, Atlanta: SBL Press 2019, 73–86. Wolter, Michael: Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008. Worth, Roland H., Jr.: The Sermon on the Mount: Its Old Testament Roots, New York/ Mahwah: Paulist 1997. Wrege, Hans-Theo: Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt (WUNT 9), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1968. Wuellner, Wilhelm: “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht der Rhetorik und Textpragmatik”, LB 43 (1978), 5–66. Wünsch, Georg: “Bergpredigt und die Politik”, Christliche Welt 33 (1919), 427–431. –: Die Bergpredigt bei Luther: Eine Studie zum Verhältnis von Christentum und Welt, Tübingen: Mohr 1920. –: “Bergpredigt und Kultur der Gegenwart”, Christliche Welt 35 (1921), 586–589 (O. Baumgarten). –: “Bergpredigt. Kirchengeschichtlich”, RGG2 1 (1927), 910–913. Young, Brad H.: Jesus and the Jewish Parables, New York: Paulist 1989. –: The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation, Peabody: Hendrickson 1998. Young, Stephen E.: Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers: Their Explicit Appeals to the Words of Jesus in Light of Orality Studies (WUNT 2/311), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2011. Zager, Werner: “Weisheitliche Aspekte in der Bergpredigt” (2001), in Henning Graf Reventlow/Axel Graupner (eds.), Weisheit, Ethos und Gebot: Weisheits- und Dekalogtraditionen in der Bibel und im frühen Judentum (Biblisch-theologische Studien 43), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2001, 1–28. –: Bergpredigt und Reich Gottes, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2002. Zahn, Theodor (von): Das Evangelium des Matthäus (KNT 1), Leipzig: Deichert 1903, 4 1922. –: Das Evangelium des Lucas (KNT 3), Leipzig: Deichert 1920. Zeilinger, Franz: Zwischen Himmel und Erde: Ein Kommentar zur “Bergpredigt“ Matthäus 5–7, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2002. Zeller, Dieter: Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche bei den Synoptikeren (FB 17), Würzburg: Echter Verlag 1977. –: “Jesus als vollmächtiger Lehrer (Mt 5–7) und der hellenistische Gesetzgeber”, in Ludger Schenke (ed.), Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. FS W. Pesch (SBS), Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1988, 299–317 = idem, Neues Testament und hellenistische Umwelt (BBB 150), Hamburg: Philo 2005, 95–107. –: “Jesu weisheitliche Ethik”, in Ludger Schenke (ed.), Jesus von Nazareth: Spuren und Konturen, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2004, 193–215. Zimmermann, Ruben: “Entwurf einer ‘impliziten Ethik’ des Paulus am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefes”, TLZ 132 (2007), 259–264. – (ed.): Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 2007.

626

Bibliography

– (ed.): Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Methodische Neuansätze zum Verstehen urchristlicher Parabeltexte (WUNT 231), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008. –: “Parabeln – sonst nichts! Gattungsbestimmung jenseits der Klassifikation in ‘Bildwort’, ‘Gleichnis’, ‘Parabel’ und ‘Beispielerzählung’”, in idem (ed.), Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu (2008), 383–419. –: “The ‘Implicit Ethics’ of New Testament Writings: A Draft on a New Methodology for Analysing New Testament Ethics”, Neot. 43 (2009), 399–423. –: “How to understand the parables of Jesus: A paradigm shift in parable exegesis”, Acta Theologica 49/1 (2009), 157–182. –: “Sermon on the Mount, The”, in Robert L. Brawley (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Ethics, vol. 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, 262–279. –: Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretation, Minneapolis: Fortress 2015. Zimmermann, Ruben/Jan G. van der Watt/Susanne Luther (eds.): Moral Language in the New Testament (WUNT 2/296), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2010. Zohary, Michael: Plants of the Bible: a complete handbook of all the plants. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1982. Zorell, Franz: “Ἀρκετὸς in Mt. 6,34: Sufficit diei malitia sua”, Bib. 1 (1920), 95f.

Index of Sources 1. Tanach Genesis 3 3,16ff 4,8 4,24f 5,5 6,1–4 8,21 12,3ff 15,1 16,13ff 21,7 30,33

490 517 423 179 399 490 399, 490 370 529 403 529 517

Exodus 3,14 13,14 19,5ff 20,5 20,13–17 22f

513 517 484 468 413, 463 468

Leviticus 1,2 2,1ff 3,6ff 11,24–41 18f 19,2 19,8 19,12 19,18 19,34 19,37 20,5 25,6–55

559 564 564 179 468, 485 365 473 485 338, 354, 463, 473, 485 473 484 468 484

Deuteronomy 1,1 1,5 1,21 6,2f 6,4f

6,5 7,13 8,2 11,1 11,27 15,2 15,9 16 16,16 16,17 18,13 18,14–18 19,11 27f 30,6 30,11–18 30,11–14 31,16.18 32,6 33,25

529 366 529 366 338, 364–366; cf. below, p. 661, under Religion-history/ relation to Judaism: Issues: Shema) 463 463 529 369, 463 525 572 401 529 349 369 484 381, 422, 484 397 258 365 525 484 529 375 528

Joshua 4,6 24,15

517 525

1 Samuel 16,7

365

628

Index of Sources

2 Samuel 3,29 5,8 7,14

534 398 375

1 Kings 13,33 18,21

534 351

1 Chronicles 17,13 22,10 28,6

375 375 375

Nehemia 8,10

522

Psalms 1,2 9,7 15 19,3 24 27,1 30,24 31,20 34,12 34,14 37,11 38,18 39,9.11 55,8.22f 66,6 85,10 89,19.27 90,12–14 91,6 103,13 104,5ff 107,3–9 118 118,24 119,66 119,89.107–114 121,1ff 145

469 490 350 528 258, 349f 502 463 516 535 399 370 516 484 516, 528 375 416 416, 375 525 534 375 206 416 350 525 369 484 206 258

Proverbs

179, 466–469, 476, 487

1,7 3,28 3,34 6,25 10,1–22 10,3 14,29 14,32 15,11 17,16 23,6 24,3 25,16 26,15 26,27 27,1 27,11 28,22.27 30,21 31,15

517 525f 495 468 507, 352 507, 352 396 534 352 451 401 352 522 451 474 502, 518 518 401 451 451

Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) 4,6 517 5,12 534 7,12 517 7,14 522, 528, 534 8,7 518 9,7 522 Canticles (Songs) 5,1

522

Isaiah 7,4 8,12 9,5 25,6ff 35,4 40,3 40,9 40,14 41,10 43,5 45,7 49,13 51,6 52,7 55,1 56,12

529 529 375 416 529 351 206 351 529, 534 529 404 206 416 206 416 535

629

Index of Sources 58,6ff 60,21 61,3.10 63,16 64,7 Jeremiah 1,8.17 2,27 3,4 4,4 10,2.5 17,8ff 29 31,22 31,31–34 Ezekiel 13,11ff 36,26 44,7 (9)

351 370 416 375 375

529, 535 375 375 365 529, 535 351 434 351 381, 484

351 351 351, 365

Hosea 6,6 11,1

351 375

Joel 2,28ff 3,1–5

351 351

Micah 1,4 4,1 6,8

206 206 257, 439

Zechariah 8,19

463

Malachi 1,6 2,10 3,17 3,22–24

403 403 403 351, 381

2. Septuagint and Pseudepigrapha 2 Baruch 78–86

434

4 Baruch 6,17–23 7,23–29

434 434

1 Enoch 6–36 58,2 98(,4)

490 393 399, 490

Joseph and Aseneth 16,7f 390 1 Maccabees 4,46 7,42 9,27 14,41

351 534 351 351

2 Maccabees 1,2

434

4 Maccabees 1,1–6.22–24 2,12 8,5

491 535 491

Pseudo-Phocylides 261 116f 116f 118–121 534 Sibylline Oracles II,79 Sirach (Ben Sira) 1,21 7 11,19 12,1 14,10 15,14 22,24 25(,20f) 27,30

497 179, 277, 353, 439, 455f, 476, 487 397 465 523 417 401 399, 490 397 490 396, 398

630 28,4 28,6ff 30,21.23ff 31 31,13 34,23.29 35,8 35,12 38,20 40,1–7

Index of Sources 572 398 513, 517 517 401 564 403 417 513 527

6,15 7,23 10,3 12,10 16,14

517 517 397 484, 535 534

Testament of Job 18,3 24,6–8

404 504

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs T.Ben. 4,2f 401 T.Dan 1,6–8 398 T.Dan 4,3 396 T.Gad 4,1ff 398 T.Sim. 2,11 398 T.Zeb. 4,11 398

Syriac Menander, Sentences of 385f 514 Wisdom of Solomon 1,1–2a 404 2,21 535 2,24 490

3. Qumran CD 7,3 9,1ff 11,18

258, 261, 363, 436 396 398 490

4,1–3 4,10 5,25(ff) 6,24ff

490 396 396, 398 398

1QS 1,13–15.21 3,6–8.13–18 3,13–4,26 3,13–18

258, 261, 363, 436 490 490 490 399, 490

1QSa

258, 261, 363, 436

4Q525 (4QBeat)

363, 416

4QMMT

363, 434, 476

4. Josephus and Philo Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae (Ant.) III,231 517 VII,118 559, 564 VII,249 390 XVII,91 517 XX,49 559, 564

Contra Apionem (C. Ap.) I,27–41 351

Bellum Judaicum (Bell.) I,590 390

De congressu quærendæ eruditionis gratia (Congr.) 4 405

Philo of Alexandria De Abrahamo (Abr.) 14 563 150–156 404

631

Index of Sources De somniis (Somn.) I, 97 375 II,98 563

De decalogo (Decal.) 87 563, 567 De gigantibus (Gig.) 4 405 De opificio mundi (Opif.) 53 404

De specialibus legibus (Spec. leg.) I,270 564 II,12ff 368 IV,75 43

De praemiis et poenis (Praem.) 101–105 375

De vita Mosis (Mos.) I,334 368

5. New Testament Matthew 1,1–4,16 1,17 1,18ff 1,22 2,5.15 4,1–11 4,14 4,23–25 5–7 (lists)

5,1–12

5,1f

5,13–16

5,16

5,17–20

82, 95, 101, 110, 113, 127, 131–135, 255f 159, 304, 377 162 301 163 163 169 163 199, 206, 304f 212, 219, 229, 237– 246, 253, 256–258, 267, 270, 276f, 278, 310, 383f, 385–387 7, 15, 32, 37, 40, 67, 102, 150–152, 154, 163, 178, 211, 232, 247f, 264, 266, 269, 276f, 341, 350, 386, 392–295, 312, 363, 410, 441, 455, 457, 538 147, 150, 162, 199, 202, 256, 271, 278, 293, 303, 310 7, 18, 36, 66, 102, 179, 211, 230, 255, 285, 311, 336, 439 36, 170, 230, 266, 280, 315, 376, 408, 440, 467 7, 32, 111, 133, 135, 161–163, 209, 214,

5,17

5,19 5,20

5,21–48

5,23f 5,38–47 5,48

217, 230, 256–258, 275f, 278, 280, 439, 466f 44, 70, 256, 271, 313f, 344, 364, 366– 368, 373, 377, 426, 483f 180, 214, 437, 466f 262, 265f, 280, 304f, 371, 379, 403, 423, 440f, 466 7, 12, 17f, 23, 32f, 58, 72, 80, 84, 100– 102, 107, 112, 117, 134, 136, 152, 158, 161f, 175f, 178, 186, 217, 232f, 247, 263f, 267–270, 272f, 275– 277, 280f, 312f, 317, 328, 333–335, 340, 342f, 440, 452, 459, 545–549 545–573 and passim 107, 150–153, 341, 365, 441 3, 7, 35, 48, 79, 115, 151, 162, 164, 173f, 254, 263f, 270f, 276, 281, 303, 315, 328, 338, 341, 345, 347, 365, 376, 381f, 419, 440f, 471, 473f, 486, 516

632 6,1–18

6,9–13

6,19–24

6,21 6,24

6,25–33

6,33 6,34 7,1f 7,6

7,7f

7,12

Index of Sources 7, 18, 117, 133, 141, 160–165, 178, 209f, 213, 227, 230, 253, 256–259, 269, 271, 278, 317f, 334, 364, 366, 371f, 387, 393, 402f, 408, 417f, 439– 441, 460 7, 10, 15f, 28, 32, 34, 36, 40, 42, 56, 85, 90, 111, 116, 141, 154, 158f, 161, 209, 212, 258, 265f, 270–272, 276, 302, 314, 342, 363, 373f, 376, 383, 385, 399, 409, 439f, 484, 507, 512, 538 7, 32, 36f, 47, 102, 124, 155, 257f, 315, 344, 373f 179, 241, 267, 316, 364–366, 373, 542 7, 24, 35, 37, 124, 155, 178, 219, 340, 310, 316, 342, 365, 373, 395, 441, 463, 478, 537 7, 32, 36, 57, 102, 156, 170, 230, 297, 315, 342, 363, 394f, 488 262f, 33,8 379, 440, 529, 533, 540–542 344, 396, 399, 458, 497–544 36, 68, 186, 212, 347, 537, 542f 157–163, 208, 214, 230, 236, 302, 311, 332, 344, 373, 410– 412, 466, 472 7, 43, 111, 156, 168, 342f, 382, 410, 412, 417 7, 30, 33, 51, 67, 87– 89, 92, 120, 149–151, 153, 177, 180, 186, 238, 254, 286–288, 319, 321, 341f, 345,

7,15–20 7,21–23 7,24–27 7,28f

8,5–13 8,17 9,14f 10

10,2ff 10,5 10,16 10,23 10,26 10,34 11,2.19 11,21 11,25–30 12,35–38 13 13,52–58 15,24 16,7 16,17–19 16,27 18 18,12–14 18,15–20 18,23–35 19,21 19,23 19,28 21,23–27 21,32 22,37–40 23–25 23 23,3 23,5f

367, 374, 381, 383, 391, 412–414, 419, 440, 466, 471, 473 43, 111, 153f 377–379, 440 438f 147, 150, 200f, 203, 271, 278, 293, 305f, 307 169, 201 163 245, 371 147, 159, 164f, 197, 270, 273, 301, 309, 427 201, 304 164, 301, 422 162 164, 301, 422 162 85, 107, 173, 425 174 176 169 133 147, 159, 164f, 197, 270, 272f, 309, 427 202 301, 422 427 133 163 147, 159, 164f, 270, 272f, 301, 309, 427 272, 570 133, 272, 301, 427 162, 272 263, 471 27 163 203 162 163, 364f, 422, 442, 463 147, 159, 164, 197, 270, 272f, 309, 427 259, 272, 301 133, 160, 174, 245 160, 245

Index of Sources 23,15–22 23,21f 23,23 23,26 24–25 24,2 24,11 24,30 25,31–46 26,10 26,42 27,64f 28,11–15 28,18–20

169, 245 160, 245 133, 245 160, 245 165, 203, 272 427 169 427 66, 163, 427, 554 174 464 163, 301 163, 301 164, 169, 203, 264, 421, 439

Mark

7, 11, 53, 79, 111, 132, 135, 137–139, 144–148, 157–161, 166, 182, 188, 198– 201, 204f, 226, 233f, 272, 300–303, 310, 343f, 376, 419f, 423, 431, 450 160 503 187, 201, 305, 359 200 306 470 201 421 198f 187, 199, 201, 306 187, 199, 200f, 205 199, 304, 306 198 426 408, 480 346 166, 272f, 378 570 426, 568 147, 157, 159, 211f, 243, 343 151, 157f, 169, 171f, 243, 343, 533, 541 552, 570 470

1,1–3,19 1,11 1,21f 1,22.27f 1,28 1,34 1,39.40–45 2,7 3,7–12 3,7f 3,13 3,14 3,20 3,24 3,29 3,31–35 4 4,3–9 4,10–12 4,21 4,24 4,26–32 5,9

5,26 6 6,2 6,6b 6,7–13 6,34 7,1ff 7,3–13 7,6 7,11 7,22 8,29 8,34–9,1 8,38 9 9,33–50 9,41 9,43.45.47f 9,49f 10,1 10,10–12 10,17–31 10,21 11,13 11,21 11,24f

12 12,26 12,29–32 12,33 12,41 13 13,1–27 13,22 13,28ff 13,29–37 13,30f 13,34 13,35 13,38–40 14,6 14,24 14,36 14,64

633 503 166 359 198 273 198 424 346 154 410, 564 419 232 201, 203 406 166 273 158 158, 212, 243, 343, 387, 419 147, 157–159, 172, 243 308 147, 158f, 243, 343 346, 359 244, 343 172 158 147, 157, 160, 169, 212, 245, 343f, 366, 408 166 173, 390 364 485 350 166 273 169 272 570 147, 157, 245, 343, 366 174 515 273 171, 174 370 259 480

634 Luke

1,5–6,19 1,33 1,48 1,59 1,72 1,75 2,21 2,43 4,1–13 4,5 4,10 4,22 4,16–30 4,32 5,17 5,21 6,13–19 6,17–20a 6,17 6,19 6,20–49

6,20 6,40 7,1–10 7,1 8,4–18 8,10 8,16f 8,19–21 8,26 9,2–5 9,51–18,14 9,57–62 10,1–17 10,27 10,30–37 11,2–4

Index of Sources 56f, 66, 74, 81, 88f, 94, 109, 134f, 137–146, 148f, 159f, 168–170, 178, 187, 197–206, 208, 213, 216, 226, 235, 249f, 254f, 310f, 326, 343f, 370f, 429f 165 377 495 373 370 416 373 349 169, 201 377 381 202 11f, 166, 201–203 203, 305 204 421 304 202 306 303 149–154, 175–179, 237–240, 280–290, and passim 293 306 169, 201 293, 303, 305 166, 197 426 147, 157f, 240, 243, 310, 343 346 204 197 154–159, 169, 252f, 279, 342 346 197 364, 463, 473, 485 55, 551, 553f 154f, 156, 241, 342, 310, 342, 378

11,5–8 11,9–13 11,17 11,28 11,33 11,34–36 11,37–44 11,47–54 12,2 12,5 12,15–21 12,22–31

12,31 12,32 12,33f 12,39–46 12,42ff 12,50 12,57–59 13,6–9 13,18f 13,23f 13,26f 13,28 13,34 14,7–11/14 14,16ff 14,26 14,28–30 14,34 15,4–10 15,11ff 16,13–18 16,13 16,16 16,17 16,18 16,19–31

570 147, 154f, 158, 242– 244, 310, 342 426 383 154f, 240, 310 154f, 157, 182, 241, 319, 405, 486 197 197 157 387 384, 522f, 538, 553f 154f, 242, 310, 342, 404, 498, 502, 505, 525f, 541 378 184, 502f 154f, 158, 240, 310, 342f 197 552 302 154f, 240, 310, 552, 556, 559, 570 570 157 154f, 158, 243, 310, 419 154f, 240, 310, 342, 369 387, 426 423 533f 570 107, 346 552 147, 154–157, 244, 310, 343 552, 570 570 156 154f, 242, 310, 342 163 147, 154f, 158, 240, 310, 342f, 399 154, 158, 241, 302, 310, 343 533f, 551–553

635

Index of Sources 17,1f 17,3 17,7–10 18,9–14 18,15–30 18,39 19,12ff 21,8–36 21,34 22,1 22,20 23,7 23,48 23,56

147, 158, 243, 310, 343 262, 555 552 369, 551–553 346 425 570 197 523, 531 191 370, 402 203 404 369

John

10, 186, 203f, 226f, 230, 235, 255, 349, 371, 373, 381, 425 204 160 174 168, 246 168, 246

6,26–65 8,12 10,33 13,16 15,20

2 2,41.47 7 7,5 7,27 11,15 11,17 13 13,36 17,16ff 20,28f

173f, 176, 293, 359, 373 166 541 166 481 485 165 167 166 171 166 503

Romans 4,17 5,2 10,4 13,8–10 14,17

569 471 568 463, 485 542

1 Corinthians 7,32–34 11,25f 15,32ff

530 199 523

Acts

2 Corinthians 6,14

369

Galatians 3,24 5,14

368 485

Ephesians 2,8 4,25 5,15 6,3

572 485 536 523

Philippians 4,6 4,15

530 411

Titus 3,8

530

Hebrews 2,15 12,19

480 541

James 1,1 1,2–12 1,4f 1,12 1,13–27 1,13–15 1,16–18 1,19–21 1,22–25 1,26f 2,1–13 2,1 2,5–7 2,8–12

2,13 2,14–17 2,19 2,20–26 3,1f 3,10–12 3,13–18

429–496 477, 482 439f 447, 457, 480 440, 479 439 479 439, 443, 446, 479f, 483 480, 492 437, 482, 483, 492 440, 457, 479, 492 477, 488 482, 492 457, 479f, 481 431, 437, 440, 446, 463, 466, 473, 483, 485, 492 431, 437, 440, 480 436, 447 478 440 441 417, 441, 443 457, 467, 492

636 4,4–6 4,7–10 4,11f 4,13–5,6 4,13–17 5,7–20

Index of Sources 431, 446, 458, 479f 431, 479 437, 441, 443, 447, 481, 483, 485 439 437, 439, 448, 488 439

5,7–11 5,12 5,13–16 5,19f

431, 443, 482 481 437, 482 437, 443

1 Peter 5,7

526

6. Apostolic Fathers Aristides Apologia 2,2

17

1 Clement 1,1 1,3 3,3 13,1 13,2 44,3f.6 47,6

12, 31 486 390 486 396 168, 245 486 486

2 Clement 10,1

31 339

Didache

31, 33, 160, 168f, 258, 303, 333, 343, 345, 375, 436, 476 33, 303 417 448 396 448 448 303 303 160

1,2–3,10 1,6 3,1 3,2 3,3.4.5.6 4,1 4,14 6,2 8,1.2

11–15 14,1f 15,3

303 558f, 572 396

Diognetus 2

17

Ignatius of Antioch Ephesians 5,2 486 Magnesians 7,1 10,3

486 17

Philadelphians 6,1

17

Kerygmata Petrou Frag. 2b 17 Papias

9, 136f, 188, 190f

Polycarp Philippians 2,3 4,2

168, 245 390, 486

7. New Testament Apocrypha, Nag Hammadi Dialogue of the Saviour 14b 132 34b 132 53c 168

Gospel of Thomas 31f, 97, 107, 109f, 111, 132f, 136, 160, 203f, 218, 226, 261 13(,3) 419 32 160, 245

637

Index of Sources 33,2 34 45 62 69,2 93

157 168, 245 168, 246 160, 245 470 160, 245

104

160, 245

Oxyrhynchus Papyri 132 132 655,24 132

8. Rabbinic Judaism Mishnah Abot (m.Abot) 1,2 2,9 2,14 3,17 4,23

18, 231, 258, 362, 436 258, 261, 436 258 403 513 180, 320 320

Baba Qamma (m.BQ) 9,12 564 10,18 564 ’Eduyyot (m.Ed.) 2,7

381

Pesachim (m.Pes.) 3,1.7 564 Yoma (m.Yom.) 8,9 Tosefta Pesachim (t.Pes.) 3,1

564

564

60b

409

Nedarim (b.Ned.) 22b

397

Sanhedrin (b.San.) 58b 398 97a/b 381 100b 502, 513, 532 Shabbat (b.Shab.) 1.51b 381 1.16a–b 18f Soṭah (b.Sotah) 48b

529

Targum Targum Canticles 5,10 381 8,1 381 Midrash Qohelet Rabbah 2,1 11,8

381 381

Babylonian Talmud ʿArakhin (b.Arakh.) 16b 19

Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael Wayassa 3 529

Baba Batra (b.BB) 6a 399

Sipre on Numbers on Num 6,26 258

Baba Mesiʿa (b.BM) 58b 398

Sipre on Deuteronomy 3,23; 11,23 258

17,18 Berakhot (b.Ber.) 9b

513

381

638

Index of Sources

9. Church Fathers Augustine Sermones (Serm.) III,10–IV,11 XVII,56–58 XXIV,97 LXXIII,78

288 507 43 376

Athanasius of Alexandria Vita Antonii (Vit. Ant.) 3 507 Clement of Alexandria Stromateis (Strom.) II,5 34 IV,171,2 32 V,6 34 VI,12 35 VII,13 35 Quis dives salvetur 35 Paedagogus (Paed.) I,5,12 505 III,10–IV,11 288 III,11,70 404 Cyprian 32–36 De dominica oratione (Dom. or.) IV,19 506 Treatise XII (Ad Quirinum)

Irenaeus Adversus haereses (Haer.) III,8 377 IV–V 34 Jerome Epistulae (Ep,) 55,1

507

Commentaria in Evangelium S. Matthaei PL 26, 33–50 520, 531 John Chrysostom Homiliae (Hom.) XII,12 XXII,5–8

564 501, 507, 536

Justin 34f, 62, 390 1 Apology (1 Apol.) Inscr. 33f 14–17 33 15,1f 398 15,13 287 15,14 343 16,1 268f 16,5 160, 245 Dialogus cum Tryphone (Dial.) 17f, 31f 10,2 294, 325 96,3 287

506

Eusebius of Caesarea Historia ecclesiastica (H.E.) II,23 486 III,39,3f 188 Gregory of Nyssa De beatitudinibus PG 44, 1193–1302 32 De perfectione PG 46, 252–285 = GNO 8.1, pp. 173–214) 343

Origen Contra Celsum (Cels.) Praef. 1,1 33 I,63 27 VIII,35.41 33 Fragments in Luke 506 Libellus de oratione PG 11, 413–562 32 Tertullian 32f, 36 De cultu feminarum (Cult. fem.) 12 506

639

Index of Sources De idololatria (Idol.) 2,3 Adversus Marcionem (Marc.) IV,14(–17) 32, 34

De oratione (Or.) 1 6,4

32, 34 506

Ad uxorem (Ux.) 4

506

10. Greek and Latin Authors Aelian 392 Varia historia (Var. hist.) XIV,6 392, 522 Aeschylus Agamemnon (Ag.) 214ff 397 Prometheus vinctus (Prom.) 378 387 Appian Bella civilia (Bell. civ.) III,63,257 261 Historia romana (Hist..rom.) III (Samnitika) 261 Apuleius Metamorphoses (Metam.) XI,16 389 Aristotle Ars Poetica 9

11, 13, 35, 39, 108, 368, 404f 130

Ethica Eudemia (Eth. Eud.) II,1,19 (1219a35–38) 406 Ethica Nicomachea (Eth. Nic.) 411 I,1ff (1094b1–1097b3) 377 I,4,22ff (1095a–1096a) 391

I,6,15ff (1097a15– 1097b16) I,7,14 (1098a7–20) I,8,13ff (1099a31–33) II,3–4 (1105b, 1106a) II,7,4 (1107b10–12) II,5,6ff (1106a–1109b) III,8,5ff (1116b5–24) IV,9,4ff (1125b30–35) V (1129a–1138b) V,4 (1129b25–28) V,9 (1134a2–8) V,10 (1135b8–27) VII,7ff (1153b–1154a) VIII–IX IX,5 (1166b30) IX,8ff (1169b–1170a) X,6,6–7,8 (1177a–1178b)

406 406 391 397 411f 339 397 397 415 415 415 415 391 409 409 391 339

De interpretatione (Int.) IX (19a30) 526

640

Index of Sources

De memoria et reminiscentia (Mem. rem.) 452b7 192

De oratore (De or.) III,25–52.149–208 278 III,205 554

Metaphysica (Metaph.) 1080b7 400

Orator ad M. Brutum (Or. Brut.) 37 291, 445

Politica 1303a

397

Paradoxa Stoicorum (Par. Stoic.) 33–41 492

31 291, 445 397

Tusculanae disputationes (Tusc.) IV,19.4 397 V 528 X–XII 528

291, 445 527 178

Demosthenes Philippica I 51

375

278, 527

Dio Chrysostom Orationes (Or.) 10,15f

368

Rhetorica (Rhet.) I,2 (1356a.2, 3) I,3 (1358bff) II,2 (1378a31) II,12,17 (1388b–1391b) II,20 (1393a) II,21 (1394a19ff) III,2.10 (1405a; 1410b14f) III,13,2–4 (1414a/b)

281, 442

Arrian Anabasis (Anab.) VII,9–10

11

Excerpts

148

Chrysippus Frag. 593/595

492 394

Cicero 38, 275, 513, 557 Epistulae ad Atticum (Att.) XII,2,2 524 Epistulae ad familiares (Ep.) 30 397 De fato (Fat.) 41–45

526

De inventione (Inv.) I,10–16 348 I,31,51 554 De officiis (Off.) II,52–60

411f

11

395, 520f, 527, 539

Diogenes Laertius 148 Vitae et sententiae philosophorum II,9,6 (30–33) 526 II,66 522 II,87f.90.93f.96f 392 IV,1,3 492 VI,3 392 VII,121 492 VIII,17f 261 Pseudo-Diogenes Epistulae (Ep.) 18

405

Empedocles Frag. 84

348, 366

Epictetus

148, 261, 473, 488, 532, 539 Dissertationes/Diatribai (Diss.) I,2,37 394 I,9,6ff 540 I,9,8.19 520, 527, 536 I,16 540 II,18,1 409 II,19,18f 535

641

Index of Sources Isocrates Ad Nicoclem 14–21

368

Lactantius De ira 13,19

572

Euripides Bacchae (Bacch. ) 73–83 389

Leucippus Frag. 569

526

Galen 26, 39 Platonicorum dialogorum compendia VIII, part 3 27

Lucian Quomodo historia conscribenda sit 39 130

Hesiod Theogonia (Theog.) 954–955 389

Marcus Aurelius Meditationes (Med.) II,1 409 IV,39.42 409 VIII(,22) 519 X,8,6 405 XII,1–5 528

III,26,13.28.30.33 395, 540 IV,1,3 492 Enchiridion (Ench.) 12 395, 540 16 5, 530, 532

Opera et dies (Op.) 141 393 334–340 563 Homer Ilias (Il.) IX,225–306 IX,434–605 Odyssea (Od.) V,7

194, 362 11 11

Martial Epigrammata (Epigr.) V,58,5 522 Pindar Frag. 121

389

393 Plato

Homeric Hymns II,480–483

389

Horace Carmina (Carm.) I,9,13 I,11,8 II,11,4 II,11,16 II,11,25–28 III,28–34

519, 524 519 521 528 521 524

Epistulae (Ep.) I,11,22–30

528

18, 27, 34, 108, 294, 339, 358, 392 Euthydemos (Euthyd.) 273a–304c 391

513

Iamblichus Vita Pythagorae (Vit. Pyth.) 18,80–87 261

Nomoi/Leges (Leg.) 443c(ff) 415 630f 415 705d/e 568 711b 568 715c 568 757b–758a 415 Politeia/Respublica (Resp.) II,369–374 37 IV,368c–369b (427–445) 415 VI,505a 415 VI,507b–509c 404

642

Index of Sources

VII,514a–518b IX,580bc X,612b

404 415 391

Politikos (Pol.) 301a, c

368

Timaios (Tim.) 45b–46a

404

Pliny the Elder Naturalis historia II,139–157 404 Pliny the Younger Epistulae (Ep.) X,96 26 Plutarch 394, 532 De cohibenda ira (Cohib. ira) 8 (Mor. 457B) 397 9 (Mor. 457B) 397 14 (Mor. 462E) 397 Ad principem ineruditum (Princ. iner.) 3 (Mor. 780E) 368 Quaestiones romanae et graecae (Quaest. rom.) 72 (Mor. 281B) 401 De tranquillitate animi (Tranq. an.) 539 2 (Mor. 465C) 395 13 (Mor. 472F) 405 14–16 (Mor. 473B–C) 520, 527 Pericles 17

130

Ps.-Plutarch Consolatio ad Apollonium (Cons. Apoll.) 11 (Mor. 107A–B) 535 Polybius III,11 XXI,14,4

261 261

Quintilian 291, 445, 550 Institutio oratoria (Inst.) II,15.28–37 377 III,6,1ff.60–68(f) 348 V,11–16.22 554, 557 VIII,4 312 VIII,5 192 VIII,6,8f 557 XI 312 XI,3,1–183 178 XII,1,1 352 Seneca

57, 411, 488, 513, 532

De beneficiis (Ben.) I,4,2f 412 De ira (Ira) II,4,1.3 II,10 II,10,6 II,31,6 II,32,2 II,34,7 III,5,8 III,6,1

397 409 405 397 397 397 397 397

De tranquillitate animi (Tranq.) 13,1 395 De vita beata (Vit.) 4,3 394 Epistulae morales (Ep.) 3,1 539 4,3 535 5,7f 516 24,1 520 87,25 405 92,2–3 394 101(,4) 524 103,2 397 Sophocles Antigone (Ant.) 355 875

397 397

643

Index of Sources Electra (El.) 221f

397

Oedipus coloneus (Oed. col.) 567 524

Valerius Maximus Factorum dictorumque memorabilia (Fact.) III,3 563 Virgil 522 Georgica (Georg.) II,490–494 389

Theophrastus De sensu et sensibilius

404

On Characters

278

Xenophon Hellenica (Hell.) II,4,42 VI,5,57

261 261

On Style (= Cicero, De Oratore)

278

Memorabilia (Mem.) II,6,20 409

Thucydides I,22 I,139–146 II,48,3

130 11 130

Symposium (Symp.) IV,41 391

11. Other Sources Buddha Benares-speech

Anacreon

522

Arabic proverbs

43, 523

Quran

28f, 401

Kitab az-zuhd

28f, 538

8–10, 382

Confucius Analects

30

Amen-em-Opet 19,11–13

518

Index of Authors Index of influential authors (after 350 CE to about 1800) Augustine…1–3, 18, 36–38, 43, 118, 138, 188, 205, 248, 266, 273, 294, 339, 352f, 376, 392, 439, 505–507, 525, 576 Benedict of Nursia…37, 331, 507 (Regula Benedicti, ch. 4) Bonaventura, Giovanni…331 Calvin, Johannes (Jean)…1, 40f, 44–46, 48, 117–119, 202f, 249f, 262f, 272f, 294, 339, 508, 561, 576 Comenius, Johan Amos…119 Dante Alighieri…38f Erasmus Roterodamus…38, 40f, 43f, 406 Francke, August Hermann…47 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich…51f, 54, 61f, 120, 131f, 264 Herder, Johann Gottfried von…19, 42, 49f, 52, 136f, 139, 188 Jerome…36, 505 Joachim a Fiore…38f

John Chrysostom…26, 37f, 248, 273, 294, 339, 352f, 501, 506f, 536, 563 Kant, Immanuel…21, 54, 58, 60–62, 84f, 120, 493 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim…13, 21, 47, 49f, 137 Luther, Martin…1, 4, 6, 35, 41–46, 63, 93, 119, 124, 249, 262, 273, 294, 338f, 392, 405, 417, 430, 438, 507f, 576 Melanchthon, Philipp…41, 43–45, 249 Mendelssohn, Moses…21, 50, 56, 120 Rupert de Deutz…331 Spener, Philipp Jakob…47 Thomas Aquinas…39f, 249, 273, 294, 331, 392 Wesley, John…46–48, 249, 262, 295, 338, 503, 527, 577 Zinzendorf, Nikolaus Ludwig von…47 Zwingli, Ulrich (Huldrych)…1, 41, 44f, 48, 117

Index of Modern Authors Aalen, S.…425 Aarne, A.A.…193 Agrell, G.…517 Aland, K.…199, 265 Albright, W.F.…248, 402 Allen, L.…3 Allen, W.C.…269, 504 Allison, D.C. jr.…2, 4, 6, 112, 114, 116, 129, 162–165, 220, 225, 248, 258f, 269, 291, 299, 305, 345, 367, 379f,

403f, 440, 445f, 477, 503, 512, 550, 553f Alt, F.…103 Althaus, P.…41 Ameling, W.…522 Anderson, P.N.…226 Arens, E.…567 Arenson, A.…66 Armstrong, K.…29 Asting, R.…495

646

Index of Authors

Aukrust, T.…5, 101, 291, 294, 327, 329, 345 Aune, D.E.…33, 178, 436 Austin, J.L.…437 Avalos, H.…107 Avemarie, F.…430, 453 Avery-Peck, A.J.…205, 364 Baarlink, H.…136 Baasland, E.…8, 33, 41, 57, 97, 106, 108f, 128, 130f, 135, 140f, 144f, 147, 168, 177, 195, 209–211, 213, 223, 225, 231, 248, 254f, 261, 268, 275, 278, 300–302, 338, 342, 348, 352, 366, 369, 372f, 379f, 387, 390, 396, 398, 405, 414, 416, 420, 430f, 434, 438, 440–442, 445, 450, 452, 477, 486, 488, 516f, 526, 545, 548f, 551, 553, 557, 562, 564 Bacon, B.W.…61, 110, 165, 300 Baeck, L.…23f, 70f, 83, 121 Bahr, G.J.…32 Bailey, K.E.…108f, 121, 192, 194, 546, 549, 562, 571 Baird, J.A.…309, 311 Balch, D.L.…363, 392… Barclay, R.…47 Barnard, L.W.…18 Barth, K.…3, 72, 74f, 77, 79f, 85, 87, 105, 118, 120, 260, 384, 510, 526 Barthes, R.…293 Barton, G.A.…108, 347 Barton, P.F.…41 Bartsch, H.-W.…168, 301 Bascom, W.…371 Batey, R.…402 Bauckham, R.…109, 192, 301, 432f, 439, 452f, 456, 488 Bauer, B.…56–59, 66, 131f, 208, 250 Bauer, W.…32, 72, 470, 517–519 Bauman, C.…1, 4f, 48, 118, 329f, 354 Baumgarten, O.…60, 63f, 72f, 77, 134 Baumgartner, W.…455 Baur, F.C.…53f, 58, 61, 110, 122, 131, 134, 170, 240, 250, 299, 476 Bauspieß, M.…53f Beardslee, W.A.…177, 456 Beare, F.W.…217 Becker, E.-M.…198

Becker, J.…220f, 335 Beijer, E.…260 Ben-Chorin, Sh.…24, 337, 362 Bergemann, T.…138, 141, 145, 154f, 253 Berger, K.…141, 177, 179, 264, 394, 434, 436, 445, 456 Berger, P.L.…577 Bergman, J.…390 Bergson, H.…23, 120f Berner, U.…1, 51, 80, 94 Bernheim, E.…129, 131, 207 Betz, H.-D.…3, 54, 80, 95, 102, 109, 111, 116–118, 133f, 137, 140–142, 148, 162, 169f, 189, 248–250, 261, 265, 267f, 273, 276, 287, 297, 342, 348, 353, 357, 362, 366, 385, 389f, 394f, 403f, 414, 438, 500f, 503, 511, 523, 532, 536, 539, 541f, 550, 553, 563, 571, 582 Betz, O.…113f, 257, 296 Beutler, J.…559 Beyschlag, K.…32f, 39, 294 Birkeland, H.…142 Bischoff, E.…22 Black, Matthew…504 Black, Max…557 Bloch, E.…5, 104 Bloch, M.…187 Blomberg, C.L.…558, 569, 571 Blumenthal, Ch.…366, 378, 425 Blumhardt, F.…75 Boff, L.…102 Boismard, M.-É.…199 Boman, T.…191, 193 Bonhoeffer, D.…85–89, 114, 118, 214, 295, 338, 402, 510f, 523, 526 Boobyer, G.H.…204 Borg, M.…30, 111, 218, 220 Bornhäuser, K.…31, 294f, 334, 338, 537 Bornkamm, G.…98, 100f, 110, 213, 216f, 248, 253, 255, 258, 265, 329, 335, 338, 386, 433, 436 Bornkamm, H.…41 Bourgel, J.…486 Bousset, W.…34, 64, 71, 111, 133, 195, 209, 211, 253, 263, 435 Bovon, F.…280, 282f Bowman, J.W.…121

Index of Authors Boyarin, D.…25, 113… Bradley, D.G.…440 Braun, H.…97f, 217, 235f Breck, J.…271 Brendecke, A.…127 Briggs, C.A.…209… Broer, I.…300, 382 Brown, R.E.…220 Brox, N.…33 Buber, M.…23, 79, 121 Buchman, F.N.D.…92 Bugge, C.A.…547–549 Bultmann, R.…57, 61, 74, 78–81, 91, 97–99, 101, 109, 121–123, 133, 138, 140f, 145f, 178, 189f, 193–195, 196f, 207, 210–220, 222f, 225, 227, 229– 234, 250f, 253, 255, 257, 260f, 270, 296f, 327f, 334f, 336, 340, 357–359, 362, 378, 384f, 388, 414, 488, 495, 500, 502, 505, 510, 516, 523, 525, 533, 546f, 549–552, 554–557, 561, 563, 565–567, 569, 571, 573 Burchard, C.…266, 434, 443, 445, 450f Burney, C.F.…228, 277 Burridge, K.…338 Buth, R.…185, 464 Butterfield, H.…71, 91, 93 Byrskog, S.…193f Cadbury, H.…82f, 88, 166, 215, 217 Cadoux, A.T.…560 Calvert, D.G.A.…223 Camara, H.…102… Cargal, T.…445 Carleton Paget, J.…19 Carlston, C.E.…141, 177, 456f Carr, E.H.…127 Carrington, P.…101, 189, 259f, 438 Carroll, J.T.…196, 281 Carson, D.A.…89, 295, 462, 499 Carter, W.…106, 168, 248, 266, 298, 309, 311, 571 Case, S.J.…60 Caspari, W.…22 Catchpole, D.…149 Causse, J.-D.…67 Chafer, L.S.…68 Chaine, J.…441 Charlesworth, J.H.…218, 220, 222

647

Chase, F.H.…32 Chesterton, G.K.…325 Cheung, L.L.…433 Chilton, B.D.…224, 232 Churchill, W.S.…11, 89 Cladder, H.J.…228, 440, 444 Clark, K.W.…299, 563 Clausen, H.P.…222 Cohen, G.A.…233 Collingwood, R.G.…127, 195, 233 Colville, J.R.…89 Combrink, H.J.B.…270, 275 Corbach, L.…12 Crossan, J.D.…111–113, 177, 206, 218, 220, 456f, 546f, 553, 570 Cullmann, O.…91f, 99, 214f, 537 Dahl, N.A.…97, 190f, 217, 223, 225, 232f, 552 Dahl, O.…222… Dalman, G.…99, 380 D’Angelo, M.R.…313, 376 Danker, F.W.…411 Daube, D.…101, 259, 348 Davey, N.…215 Davies, W.D.…2, 4, 6, 95, 101, 114, 118, 129, 162–165, 217, 248, 258f, 269, 299, 305, 345, 367, 403f, 439, 503, 512, 550, 553f Dawkins, R.…106 Deines, R.…16, 20, 141, 162, 214, 263, 311, 367 Deißmann, A.…139, 433, 487 Delargy, J.H.…193f Delehaye, H.…193 Delitzsch, F.J.…83f Denaux, A.…155 Derrett, J.D.M.…102, 221, 227, 332, 398, 497, 512 Deschner, K.…107 Dibelius, M.…3f, 73f, 78, 81, 86, 90, 101, 109f, 118, 120, 140f, 145, 148, 178, 189, 197, 210, 213f, 250, 255, 260f, 273, 334, 358, 433, 435f, 438f, 488, 579 Dibelius, O.…260 Diem, H.…41 Dihle, A.…403, 414

648

Index of Authors

Dodd, C.H.…81f, 101, 189, 217, 232, 384, 547, 549, 556, 566, 569, 573 Dods, M.…429 Doering, L.…20, 434 Donahue, J.R.…554 Dormeyer, D.…178, 322, 456, 550 Dostoevsky, F.…68 Doty, W.G.…434 Draper, J.A.…257 Droysen, J.G.…128, 207 Drury, J.…571 Dschulnigg, P.…546 Duchrow, U.…42 Dumais, M.…3 Dundes, A.…193f Dunn, J.D.G.…168, 191f, 220, 363, 571 Dunstone, A.S.…229 Du Plessis, P.J.…263 Dupont, J.…258, 269, 274, 282 Du Toit, A.…256, 271 Easton, B.S.…61 Ebeling, G.…99, 118 Ebner, M.…297, 333 Eckey, W.…280 Edwards, R.A.…283 Egger, W.…267, 271 Ehrman, B.…190, 193, 220 Eichholz, G.…100, 163 Eigler, U.…148 Eleder, M.…432… Elliott, J.H.…401, 441 Engberg-Pedersen, T.…283, 285–287, 412, 436 Engels, F.…57, 59, 330 Engnell, I.…142, 188, 278 Erman, A.…518 Erslev, K.…128 Eykmann, W.…119 Fanning, B.M.…185, 462 Fascher, E.…94 Faust, L.M.…268 Feine, P.…170 Feldmeier, R.…105, 375, 382 Fensham, F.C.…401 Fiebig, P.…5, 73, 84, 99, 108, 120, 139, 179f, 188, 329, 340, 346, 358, 455f, 513, 546–549, 555, 564f, 566

Fish, S.E.…292, 311 Fitzmyer, J.A.…258, 268, 275, 284, 559 Fleddermann, H.T.…146f, 157, 159, 166, 254 Flusser, D.…25, 96, 112, 218, 546 Foerster, F.W.…90 Foster, P.…363 Foucault, M.…122, 520 Fowler, R.M.…293 Fox, E.…92 Fox, G.…47… Francis, F.O.…439 Frank, G.…39 Frankemölle, H.…102f, 259, 263, 311, 317, 328, 402, 439–441, 445, 489, 559, 567f Freud, S.…67, 93 Frey, C.…105 Frey, J.…91, 545 Freyne, S.…197, 204f Fried, B.…152, 156 Friedlander, P.…23, 70, 177, 210, 332, 361, 555 Friedrich, J.H.…171 Frostin, P.…41 Fuchs, E.…98f, 213, 546f, 567 Fuchs, W.P.…132 Fuhrmann, M.…292 Funk, R.W.…111, 199, 218–220, 469, 546f, 553 Gaechter, P.…194 Gamble, R.…71 Gammie, J.G.…436 Gandhi, M.…3, 30f, 75f, 92f, 214, 297, 353 Garland, D.E.…273, 283 Garleff, G.…475f Gärtner, H.A.…148 Gathercole, S.…261 Geffcken, J.…488 Geiger, A.…22, 25 Gemünden, P. von…396–398, 430, 477, 483, 489 Gerdmar, A.…50, 54, 99, 204 Gerhardsson, B.…101, 109, 142, 189, 191, 194, 217, 260, 278, 364, 402, 422, 557, 560, 569–572, 579 Giese, F.…528

Index of Authors Gieseler, J.C.L.…136, 139, 188 Gleixner, H.…67 Gnilka, J.…27, 328, 500, 512, 519, 532, 554f Goertz, H.-J.…128 Goguel, M.…215, 325 Goppelt, L.…2f, 6, 95, 99f, 102, 110, 217, 325, 329, 331, 337, 340 Gould, G.E.…36 Gould, J.…414 Goulder, M.D.…139, 264, 266, 571 Goumaz, L.…295 Graef, H.C.…36 Graf, F.W.…73, 77 Grant, F.C.…224f, 326 Green, H.B.…196, 281, 283 Greeven, H.…199, 571 Griesbach, J.J.…136, 138f, 199 Griffiths, J.G.…497 Grindheim, S.…424 Gründel, J.…327 Grundmann, W.…88, 94, 165, 204, 214, 265 Guardini, R.…386 Guelich, R.A.…95, 217, 265, 268, 499, 512 Gundry, R.H.…196, 280, 512 Günther, H.…415 Guroian, V.…295 Gutiérrez, G.…102 Güttgemanns, E.…141 Gyllenberg, R.…5 Haeckel, E.…59 Hagner, D.A.…192, 367, 503, 553, 569 Hainz, J.…199 Halbwachs, M.…109, 143, 192f, 580 Hammann, K.…49, 211 Hammerling, R.…32 Hanssen, O.…258, 263, 266 Harnack, A. von…23, 32, 60, 63, 65f, 70f, 132, 137, 139, 156, 201, 208, 250, 367, 390, 509 Harnisch, W.…547, 549, 552f, 557, 565, 567 Harrington, D.J.…114, 296, 339f Hartin, P.J.…263, 431f, 436, 441 Harvey, A.E.…108, 233f, 347 Hasler, V.…151, 264

649

Hauck, F.…444 Hauerwas, S.…105, 114f, 295f, 339, 351 Havelock, E.…192 Hawkins, J.C.…138 Heckel, J.…42 Hedrick, C.W.…565 Heil, J.P.…106, 168, 248, 254, 266, 298, 309, 311, 571 Heiligenthal, R.…266 Heinrici, C.F.G.…61f, 74, 78, 139, 145, 227, 250, 253, 255, 261f, 281, 362, 389, 435, 488, 500, 513, 522, 537, 548, 552, 556, 561, 565 Heinzelmann, G.…87 Heitmüller, W.…61, 64, 211, 223, 234 Hempel, C.…127 Hendrickx, H.…265 Hengel, M.…104f, 113f, 118, 121, 138, 145, 192, 220f, 274, 296, 298f, 350, 453, 487, 526 Henning, M.…387 Henry, C.F.H.…89 Herrmann, H.…106f Herrmann, W.…3, 60f, 63f, 71, 108, 118, 297, 334f, 347 Herzog, W.R.…560, 567 Heschel, A.J.…101 Heschel, S.…22, 88 Hickling, C.J.A.…164 Hirsch, E.…251 Hirsch, E.D. jr.…74 Hodne, B.…194 Hoffmann, P.…97, 109, 141, 148, 254, 297 Hofmann, J.C.K. von…99 Højlund, A.C.…41 Holl, K.…68 Holland, H.S.…75 Holland, N.…293 Holmberg, B.…359, 428 Holmén, T.…224, 363, 370 Holtz, T.…94 Holtzmann, H.J.…3, 62, 69, 132, 137– 139, 189, 209, 250, 265, 509 Homolka, W.…25 Honecker, M.…86, 105, 120, 297 Hooker, M.…223, 230 Hoppe, R.…431 Horsley, R.A.…197, 205, 325

650

Index of Authors

Horst, P.W. van der…522 Hoskyns, E.C.…215 Howell, M.…230 Huber, W.…105 Huck, A.…199 Huffman, N.A.…565 Hultgren, A.J.…566 Hultgren, S.…189 Hvalvik, R.…476 Iggers, G.G.…52, 187 Iser, W.…292, 309, 311f, 442 Jackson, B.S.…476, 483, 492 Jacobs, M.…23 Jason, H.…193 Jauß, H.R.…292, 308, 311 Jeffrey, D.L.…38 Jeremias, J.…4, 6, 99f, 118, 121, 142, 156, 166, 171, 173, 217, 223, 228f, 258, 260, 265, 277, 297, 329, 377, 382, 504, 545, 548f, 554, 556, 559f, 562, 564–567, 569, 573 Jervell, J.…335, 476 Joest, W.…44 Johnson, L.T.…218, 220, 283f, 433f, 437, 445 Johnson, M.…380, 557f Jones, E.S.…5, 31, 75f Jones, I.H.…571 Jones, P.R.…546 Jordan, C.…89 Jordan, S.…128 Joubert, S.…411 Jüchen, A. von…560 Jülicher, A.…61, 223, 228, 403, 545– 554, 556–559, 561f, 566–569, 571, 573, 580 Kagawa, T.…76 Kahl, J.…106f Kähler, C.…547, 567 Kaiser, W.C. jr.…485 Kantzenbach, F.W.…1, 3, 118, 244, 297 Karmeluk, J.…67 Kartveit, M.…370 Käsemann, E.…91, 97f, 104, 213, 215– 217, 221, 223, 225, 250f, 354, 416 Katz, P.…18, 299

Kaufhold, M.…8 Kautsky, K.…66f, 94 Kazen, T.…108, 347, 485 Keenan, J.F.…114, 296, 339f Keener, C.S.…232, 262, 501 Keith, C.…129, 143, 189, 192, 221, 224, 580 Kelber, W.…204 Kennedy, G.A.…75, 108, 252, 274f, 278, 312, 441f, 445 Kieffer, R.…122 Kierkegaard, S.…57, 79, 120 Kilpatrick. G.D.…301 King, G.E.…220 King, K.L.…218 King, M.L.…11, 13, 102, 337, 577 Kingsbury, J.D.…262f, 309, 571 Kirk, A.K.…109, 143, 190 Kissinger, W.S.…1, 2, 118 Kittel, G.…5, 84, 118, 331, 431 Kjeldstadli, K.…127 Klausner, J.…23–25, 83, 121, 331, 335, 362 Klein, H.…196, 280, 563f Klein, M.…485, 545 Kloppenborg, J.S.…109, 111, 143, 147, 192, 254, 430, 432, 477, 481, 487, 489 Klostermann, E.…35, 265, 281, 316, 506, 536 Kodjak, A.…268, 272 Kohl, H.…103 Konradt, M.…135, 204, 256, 259, 396, 421, 428, 430, 432, 477, 483, 489, 504, 512, 544 Köster, H.…95 Krämer, M.…151 Kraus, S.…20 Kraus, W.…367 Krause, C.…91 Krautter, B.…12 Kremer, J.…274, 282 Krieger, K.-S.…308, 323 Küchler, M.…456f Kuhn, H.-W.…328 Kümmel, W.G.…236, 335, 385 Küng, H.…112 Künzel, G.…263 Kürzdorfer, K.…435

Index of Authors Kürzinger, J.…262 Kutsch, E.…370 Kvalbein, H.…512 Labahn, M.…556 Lachmann, K.…53, 132, 137, 189, 199, 208, 249, 264 Lagrange, M.-J.…72, 269, 282, 509 Lakoff, G.…380, 557, 568 Lambrecht, J.…263, 571 Lamennais, H.-F.R. de…56 Lamouille, A.…199 Lang, B.…455 Lange, D.…122… Langlois, C.-V.…128, 131, 207 Lapide, P.…4f, 25, 112, 114, 121, 220, 329, 337, 361 Larfeld, W.…146 Latourelle, R.…223 Lausberg, H.…442 Le Donne, A.…192, 232… Lehmann, M.…230 Lehmann, P.…295 Lentzen-Deis, F.…224 Léon-Dufour, X.…217 Lerle, E.…325 Levinas, E.…79, 297, 340, 413f, 493 Levine, A.-J.…25, 113, 313 Lhotsky, A.…127 Lichtenberger, H.…526 Liebenberg, J.…557 Liestøl, K.…191 Lieu, J.…359, 428 Lightfoot, J.B.…75, 361 Lindbeck, G.A.…358, 581 Lindemann, A.…110, 134, 201 Lindeskog, G.…16, 83 Lindsay, A.D.…83 Linton, O.…145, 157 Lioy, D.…257, 268, 363 Lips, H. von…352, 456, 501, 514 Ljungman, H.…367 Løgstrup, K.E.…328, 340 Lohfink, G.…115f, 118, 220f, 293–296, 303f, 307f, 317f, 327–339, 376 Lohfink, N.…317f Lohmeyer, E.…204, 268, 353, 547, 553, 560 Lohr, G.H.…190, 250, 270f, 278

651

Lohse, E.…260 Loisy, A.…55, 65 Longstaff, T.R.W.…136, 138, 157 Lord, A.B.…191, 193f Louw, J.P.…271 Löwenstein, K.…555 Löwith, K.…67 Luck, U.…101 Lüdemann, G.…227, 231, 503, 555 Ludwig, M.…485 Lührmann, D.…109, 133, 148 Lund, N.W.…270f Lundbom, J.R.…109, 114 Lütgert, W.…85f, 338, 384 Luther, S.…454 Luz, U.…30, 85, 105, 109f, 112, 116– 118, 141, 162, 174, 248, 252, 256, 261, 263f, 270f, 299f, 332, 340, 347, 353, 403, 414, 433, 501, 503, 505, 511f, 526, 532, 541, 550, 565 Machinek, M.…68 MacIntyre, A.C.…340 Mack, B.L.…109, 111, 218, 220, 274 MacKenzie, J.…34 Madsen, I.K.…565f Magonet, J.…25 Malina, B.J.…108, 205, 221, 394, 411, 546, 549, 562 Manson, T.W.…70, 81f, 215, 226, 228f, 309, 311, 323, 325, 511, 532, 547 Manson, W.…82 Marriott, H.…83 Marshall, I.H.…282f Marshall, J.…411 Martin, J.…348 Marx, K.…22, 55f, 59, 66f, 72, 94, 103f, 120, 221, 233, 297, 330, 353, 415, 546 Marxsen, W.…2, 110, 134, 202, 204, 255 Massebieau, L.…476 Massey, I.A.…25 Matur, T.…326 Mauss, M.…411 Mayordomo, M.…46, 311 McArthur, H.K.…4, 89, 384 McCullagh, C.B.…223 McEleney, N.J.…223, 265 McKay, K.L.…462

652

Index of Authors

McIntire, S.…9f Meeks, W.A.…256, 333, 335, 392, 487 Mees, M.…35 Mehnert, G.…71 Meier, J.P.…220, 224, 231f, 299, 556 Meier-Reutti, G.…12, 49 Meinertz, M.…73, 96 Meistad, T.…48, 262 Mell, U.…547 Merklein, H.…115, 284 Meyer, A.…250, 429f, 435, 476 Meyer, B.F.…225, 233, 359, 428 Meyer, E.…251 Meyer, G.…103 Miller, R.B.…61 Miller, R.J.…220 Milz, B.…51 Minear, P.S.…295, 309, 311 Mitchell, M.M.…19, 37, 294, 302, 353, 453, 488 Mitton, C.L.…438 Mogensen, B.…186, 467f Moltmann, J.…46, 79, 103–105, 115 Momigliano, A.…187 Mongstad-Kvammen, I.…431, 442, 477 Montefiore, C.…3, 22f, 25, 70, 81, 84f, 209f, 214, 265, 361, 398, 401, 541 Montefiore, S.S.…8 Morgenthaler, R.…171 Moule, C.F.D.…470 Moulton, J.H.…81, 469, 516 Moxnes, H.…197, 205, 221 Mühlhaupt, E.…41 Muilenburg, J.…108 Müller, J.…66, 72 Müller, K.W.…91 Müller, L.…87f, 338 Müller, M.…367 Müller-Fahrenholz, G.…91 Münch, C.…88, 371 Mußner, F.…431 Nägelsbach, F.…266 Nauck, W.…521 Naumann, F.…3, 69–71, 347 Neander, A.…22, 55, 120 Neirynck, F.…138, 147, 155, 199, 201, 254 Nel, P.J.…186, 455, 468, 487

Nepper-Christensen, P.…555 Neumann, N.…274 Neusner, J.…8, 19, 25, 112 Neville, D.J.…232 Neyrey, J.H.…108, 221, 363 Niebuhr, B.…128 Niebuhr, K.-W.…260, 430, 434, 446, 477, 489 Niebuhr, R.…77, 88, 95, 215, 325, 362, 385 Niederwimmer, K.…332, 390, 398 Niehoff, M.R.…453 Nielsen, E.…142 Nietzsche, F.…60f, 66f, 70, 72, 330, 332 Nolland, J.…261, 281, 283, 536 Nordsieck, R.…470 Nussbaum, M.…516 Ochs, C.…374 Oden, T.C.…32 Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.…108, 252, 291, 442, 445 Olden-Jørgensen, S.…128 Oppong-Kumi, P.Y.…571 Orchard, J.B.…136, 199 Overman, J.A.…256, 421 Park, J.S.…522 Patte, D.…272 Pelikan, J.…36f Penner, T.C.…495 Pentikäinen, J.…193 Perdue, L.G.…178, 435, 456 Perelman, Ch.…108, 252, 291, 442, 445 Perrin, N.…230, 235, 251 Perry, A.M.…262 Pesch, R.…115 Pesch, W.…272 Petersen, W.…273, 462, 503, 517, 562 Peterson, E.…47, 74, 216, 250, 253, 435 Petzke, G.…167 Pfeiffer, E.…440 Pfleiderer, O.…60f, 131, 167 Philippidis, L.J.…414 Pinckaers, S.…339 Piper, R.A.…297, 352, 456 Plessner, H.…328 Plummer, A.…264, 283, 503 Polag, A.…109, 133, 254

Index of Authors Popkes, W.…149, 430–434, 436, 440 Popper, K.…223f Porter, J.I.…278 Porter, S.E.…224, 232, 278, 434, 462 Powell, M.A.…272, 309 Prabhavananda, S.…31, 353 Proudhon, P.-J.…56 Quarles, C.L.…115 Rade, M.…63, 77 Radl, W.…148, 260, 280, 284 Ragaz, L. von…75, 94, 118, 325, 336f, 384 Raillard, H.…47 Räisänen, H.…28, 58, 353 Ranke, L. von…52, 130–132, 137, 140, 169, 187, 190, 195, 207, 210, 236 Ratzinger, J.…104f, 112, 116, 118, 348 Rau, E.…567 Rauschenbusch, W.…75 Reed, A.Y.…16 Reicke, B.…189, 445 Reinbold, W.…367 Reiner, H.…414 Reiser, M.…554 Renan, E.…55, 204, 209 Repo, E.…390 Repschinski, B.…367 Resseguie, J.L.…293 Richter, W.…178, 455, 468 Ricœur, P.…120, 193, 264, 297, 401, 414, 557, 567 Riesenfeld, H.…101, 142, 189, 191, 217, 260, 278, 537, 547, 579 Riesner, R.…142f, 191 Ritschl, A.…62–64, 208 Robinson, J.M.…109, 132, 145, 147, 201, 211, 215, 218, 220, 232 Rodrigues, J.H.…22 Röhm, E.…85 Rohrbaugh, R. L.…108, 221, 562 Röhser, G.…335 Roloff, J.…48, 110, 329, 552, 571 Ropes, J.H.…433, 441f, 477, 488 Rüger, H.P.…229 Rukundwa, L.S.…106 Runesson, A.…143, 386f, 421 Runestam, A.…331

653

Rüsen, J.…127f, 187, 196, 223 Russell, B.…93 Saebø, M.…455 Saldarini, A.J.…333, 421 Samuels, M.…21 Sanday, W.…(71), 137f Sanders, E. P.…101, 121, 157, 220, 228, 232, 344, 370, 430 Sandmel, S.…25, 96, 101, 513 Schäfer, P.…19, 204, 368, 381 Schäfer, R.…51, 62 Schellong, D.…45 Schenk, W.…254 Schlatter, A.…65, 71, 79f, 99, 263, 441f, 444, 509, 555 Schleiermacher, F.D.E.…47, 51f, 54f, 137, 139, 250, 508f, 526 Schmahl, G.…326 Schmauch, W.…337 Schmeller, T.…297 Schmemann, A.…295 Schmid, J.…197, 201 Schmidt, H.…103f Schmidt, K.L.…139, 189, 196 Schmidt, K.O.…92 Schmidt, W.…279 Schmiedel, P.W.…22 Schmithals, W.…284 Schnackenburg, R.…76, 80, 153 Schneider, G.…197, 280, 284, 571 Schneider, J.…5, 337… Schneider, T.M.…66, 85, 87 Schnelle, U.…16, 161, 298, 362, 511f, 533, 536, 541 Schniewind, J.…214, 232, 248, 253, 511f, 533, 536, 541 Schockenhoff, E.…105, 116, 297 Schoeps, H.-J.…25, 96, 99, 329 Scholem, G.…25 Schopenhauer, A.…510 Schöttgen, C.…361 Schottroff, L.…102, 386, 398, 547, 549, 562, 570, 573 Schottroff, W.…102 Schrage, W.…104f, 221, 340 Schramm, T.…555, 556 Schröder, G.…104 Schröder, J.…103

654

Index of Authors

Schröter, J.…28, 129, 189f, 224 Schüller, B.…327, 334 Schulte, J.M.…576 Schulte-Sasse, J.…50 Schulz, S.…4, 105, 109, 133, 148, 161, 164, 254, 298, 325 Schürmann, H.…94, 96, 142, 166, 260, 280, 283 Schütz, R.…279, 444 Schwarz, A.…12 Schwarz, G.…504 Schweitzer, A.…5, 55, 69f, 78, 82, 117, 131, 204, 226, 233, 329f, 336, 340, 345, 358, 384 Schweizer, E.…117, 163, 280, 282, 284, 300, 504, 512, 554 Scott, B.B.…278f, 547, 550, 560 Scott, E.F.…25 Seaford, R.…410 Searle, J.R.…437 Seeberg, A.…260 Seeberg, R.…7, 86, 88 Segovia, F.F.…106 Seignobos, C.…128, 131, 207 Seligman, M.E.P.…392 Sellin, G.…547, 552, 571 Selwyn, E.…101, 189, 259, 436 Sheffield, J.…313, 376 Shepherd, M.…432, 440 Sheridan, T.…497, 508 Sider, J.W.…547, 549 Sidgwick, H.…60 Sigal, P.…25, 485 Sim, D.C.…369 Skarsaune, O.…476 Smit Sibinga, J.…248, 264–266 Smith, J.…58 Smith, M.…109, 191, 258 Snodgrass, K.…546f, 550, 554, 560 Soares-Prabhu, G.M.…31 Socin, Albert…523, 528 Söderblom, N.…64f, 68, 75f, 122 Soiron, T.…73, 96, 139, 142, 188, 228, 251, 262, 270, 555 Sparks, H.F.D.…199 Spengler, O.…72 Spitta, F.…476 Spurgeon, C.H.…85 Städeli, W.…72

Stange, C.…44, 84, 331 Stansell, G.…410 Stanton, G.N.…110, 165, 271, 299f, 423 Stassen, G.H.…114f, 269, 339, 382 Staudinger, J.…96 Stauffer, E.…217, 333 Stefanovic, Z.…258 Stegemann, W.…102, 333, 411 Stein, R.H.…560 Stendahl, K.…58, 95, 301, 335 Steubing, H.…327 Stiewe, M.…402 Stirewalt, M.L. jr.…434 Stolpe, M.…103 Stott, J.…295, 339 Stowers, S.K.…434, 448, 488 Strauß, D.F.…53f, 57f, 131f, 207–209, 211, 249 Strecker, G.…3, 248, 267, 299, 319, 390, 415, 502f, 512, 555, 569 Streeter, B.H.…30, 74, 138 Strobel, A.…297 Stuckenbruck, L.…229 Stuhlmacher, P.…116, 296, 382, 416, 545, 564, 572 Suggs, M.J.…33, 390 Sugirtharajah, R.S.…106 Sydow, C.…191, 194 Syreeni, K.…2, 111, 141, 163, 309, 403 Taatz, I.…434 Talbert, C.H.…249, 263, 266f, 282, 349, 439 Tannehill, R.…283 Theißen, G.…102, 116, 118, 191, 205, 207, 220, 222–225, 231, 234, 248, 268, 297, 299, 332f, 335, 341, 386, 398, 411, 430, 477, 547, 549, 552, 562, 565… Theobald, M.…116 Thiel, J.E.…295 Thielicke, H.…90, 120, 511 Tholuck, F.G.A.…20, 43, 54, 57, 63, 137, 188, 208, 249f, 254, 264, 266, 509… Thom, J.C.…109, 262f, 270, 274f, 441, 556 Thompson, P.R.…193 Throckmorton, B.H. jr.…146f

Index of Authors Thurén, L.…442 Thurén, T.…128 Thurneysen, E.…3, 74, 79f, 87, 334 Tolbert, M.A.…547, 573 Tolstoy, L.…3, 5, 68, 72, 84, 119, 297, 336 Topel, L.J.…165, 282, 382 Topolski, J.…128 Traub, F.…3, 5, 88, 329, 335… Trillhaas, W.…295, 327 Trilling, W.…263 Trites, A.A.…266 Troeltsch, E.…64, 72f, 296, 330 Tsuji, M.…434, 439, 445 Tucker, J.T.…553 Tuckett, C.M.…145, 232 Turner, M.…380, 568 Turner, N.…469 Usener, S.…308, 312 Vahrenhorst, M.…263 Varkey, M.…106 Verhey, A.…386 Vermes, G.…25, 112f, 121, 197, 205, 220, 229, 456 Via, D.O.…553, 560–562, 567 Vielhauer, P.…299 Visotzky, B.L.…19 Vorster, W.S.…272, 278, 392 Votaw, C.W.…61, 65, 81 Vouga, F.…402 Wachob, W.H.…433, 442, 445, 477, 481… Walker, W.O.…232 Wall, R.…483 Wallace, D.B.…462 Walther, D.…327 Walzer, A.E.…352 Walzer, R.…26 Ward, R.B.…477 Watson, D.F.…441f, 447 Watson, F.…157, 200 Wattles, J.…144, 414 Weaver, W.P.…209 Weber, H.…327 Weber, M.…77, 296, 508

655

Weder, H.…117, 263, 332, 336, 353, 414, 512, 531, 546f, 549, 557, 567 Weibull, L.…128 Weidemann, H.-U.…313 Weinel, H.…73, 81, 214, 223, 227, 230, 236 Weinfeld, M.…164, 259, 370, 372, 423 Weiser, A.…560 Weiß, B.…61f, 138, 146f, 189 Weiß, C.…42 Weiß, J.…61, 69, 265, 384, 476, 509, 548 Weisse, C.H.…53, 132, 137, 189, 203, 249, 254, 264 Weizsäcker, C.H. von…139, 264, 432, 476 Wellek, R.…251 Wellhausen, J.…139f, 209, 229, 265, 361, 504 Wendland, H.-D.…337 Wendland, P.…488 Wengst, K.…114, 121, 296, 304 Wenham, D.…560 Wernle, P.…62f, 139, 209 Wette, W.M.L. de…54, 137, 149, 167, 249… Wettstein, J.J.…361f, 389, 513 White, H.…130, 187, 223, 235 White, J.L.W.…434 Whitlark, J.A.…492 Wichern, J.H.…56 Wick, P.…301, 308 Wiebering, J.…327 Wiefel, W.…282f Wifstrand, A.…487f Wilder, A.N.…95, 108, 215, 217 Wilke, C.G.…53f, 132, 137, 250 Wilken, R.L.…37 Wilson, W.T.…263, 265, 490 Windisch, H.…35, 70, 73f, 81, 84, 209, 214, 337, 352, 362, 385, 509 Wischmeyer, O.…453, 477, 480 Wolf, A.…70f Wolfreys, J.…311 Wolter, M.…156, 167, 275, 280–283, 285f Worden, R.D.…165 Worth, R.H.…363 Wrede, W.…207

656

Index of Authors

Wrege, H.-T.…111, 142f, 188 Wright, T.N.…220 Wuellner, W.…441 Wünsch, G.…41, 73, 75, 77, 88 Wünsche, A.…22, 361 Wyrwa, D.…34 Yo, K.C.L.…433 Yoder, J.H.…95, 114, 118 Young, B.H.…546 Zahn, T.…65, 258, 265, 493, 509, 520, 564

Zaphiris, G.…34 Zeilinger, F.…275, 402, 498, 519 Zeller, D.…177f, 332, 352, 363, 368, 398, 455f, 555, 563, 565 Zimmerli, W.…468 Zimmermann, C.…375 Zimmermann, R.…454, 545–551, 553f, 556f, 560, 562, 571, 573 Zizioulas, J.D.…295 Zohary, M.…389 Zorell, F.…497 Zunz, L.…12

Table of Subjects General History of research…248–252, 294–298, 329–341, 505–512, 545–550 ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’…2, 6f, 31 Sociology of knowledge…6, 94, 119 socio-political…76, 102f, 106, 150, 204, 206 Hermeneutics…99, 116f, 123, 187f, 195f, 235, 513 ‘Übergeschichtliche’ questions…234, 358 Historiography…127–131, 137, 187, 195, 221–223, 225, 233f, 236, 503, 579, 581

Historical Reconstruction Methodology…52, 64, 72, 97, 111, 127–129, 131, 193, 196, 220, 222–224, 226 Reconstruction…140–143, 187–194, 207, 249, 300f, 341 Historical-genetical…141, 247, 250–252, 255f, 311 critical-epistemological approach…234 historical explanations…130, 170, 183, 236 (monocausal) hypothetic-deductive method (HDM)…129, 234 ‘Geschichtstheorie’…126, 130, 187, 222 Paradigm…106, 187, 195, (227), 311, 548f, (573) Annales-circle…195 Source-problems Relics…130f, 135f, 137 Source-criticism…52f, 58, 60f, 78, 125, 127–136, 140–143, 187–194, 207, 249, 300f, 341 Form-history (form-criticism)…73f, 88, 98f, 109–111, 122, 139–142, 188–190, 192, 194, 210f, 227–230, 252f, 255f, 258f, 279 Redaction-criticism…61, 75, 89, 100f, 122–126, 129, 133f, 143, 187, 215–217, 251–256, 268f, 279, 292, 301, 323, 512, 571 Proto (Mark/Q/Luke/Matthew)…74, 137f, 141, 149, 201f Layers (‘Schicht’)…64, 135, 140f, 143, 253, 341, 579 Literacy versus orality Literacy…137f, 144, 277, 292f, 311, 323, 445, 578f Orality…109, 127–129, 136, 144, 188–194, 196, 221f, 236, 248, 277–279, 288–290, 292f, 323, 445, 578–580 – Anamnesis 190f (Jesus remembered 191–193), Eye-witness 190–193 – Social-memory…109, 143, 192–194

658

Table of Subjects

Sources Inaugural speech…27, 81, 124, 128f, 132, 135, 137f, 144f, 146–154(–160), 165–169, 173, 196–198, 200–203, 206, 209, 237, 254, 256, 259, 272f, 276, 279f, 291, 301f, 310, 323, 341f, 344, 347, 367, 381, 420, 428, 446, 466 Double-tradition (Q as source)…154–157, 171 Q-community/Sondergemeinde…132–134 QMatt /QLuke…110f, 139, 141 Genre of Q/Q as epitome…147f, 154, 156, 169, 198, 206, 255, 261, 275, 429 Q precedes Mark…146f Triple-tradition…157–159, 169, 243–245 – Mark and Q…146f, 157–159 Overlaps…138, 144, 147, 157f – ‘Sondergut’ (Matthew/Luke)…128, 145f, 245f, 343f MattS…135, 159–165, 231, 253, 382, 366, 419f LukeS…165–168, 553 Matthean community…101, 110f, 118, 132–135, 195, 197, 221, 248, 255, 302f, 323, 333, 368, 420f Product of Matthew…110f, 117, 132–135, 159–165, 221, 272, 576–578, 581 Creative authors/redactors…134, 143, 159, 255f Historicity Authenticity…72, 99, 110, 124, 127–129, 187–190, 192–196, 208–211, 213–216, 222– 232, 235f, 505 Criteria…105, 130, 132, 155f, 190, 194-196, 209, 218-220, 224-237, 505, 513 ipsissima verba…228f, 232 (structura), 249 Quest…§ 2 (127ff) – First Quest…206–210 – No Quest…97f, 210–215, 222 – New Quest/Second Quest…84, 87, 111, 207, 215–218, 222, 234, 549 – Third Quest…111f, 218–222, 224, 236 Explanations (covenant laws/cause-explanations – motive-explanations – functional explanations)…233 ‘Action’ versus ‘events’…233f Historical setting Palestinian church (‘Urgemeinde’)…79, 95, 131–133, 138, 209, 258, 555f Galilee…1, 18, 88, 123, 135, 189, 196, 200, 204–206, 229f, 308, 362f, 389, 424, 448, 514, 558, 563 Itinerant Charismatics (‘Wanderradikalismus’)…333

Literary Interpretation (Grammatical issues, BDR…185, 315, 462, 469, 516, 530, 533f) Historic-genetical…247, 250, 252, 255f Author-oriented…190, 247, 251f, 255, 311 Text-oriented…190, 247, 251, 255f, 271, 278, 311 Text-linguistic…251, 268, 271 Structuralism…251, 271f, 512

Table of Subjects

659

‘Wortfeld’…380 Reader-response…108, 271, 292f, 309, 311, 323, 445, 454, 568 (reader-oriented 247, 271, 311f) Forms Diatribe…156, 176, 390f, 433, 436, 440, 452, 456, 464, 488, 516 Chiasm…117, 162, 254, 264, 270f, 278, 284f, 305, 376, 439f, 501, 561 Triads…162, 269f, 278, 288 inclusio…162, 267, 276, 278, 305, 501, 561 Aphoristic sayings…177, 179, 253, 455–457, 560, 570 – Maxims (sententiae, gnomē/ai)…153, 178f, 181, 187, 454, 456–458, 461, 500f General sentences…178–180, 185, 187, 286, 319f, 323, 449, 454, 457f Correlative sentences…181f, 486 (Un)conditional sayings…178–181, 186, 291, 320, 455, 458, 472, 555 Interrogative (interrogatio)/rhetorical questions…180, 182f, 450, 456 Antithetical sayings…178, 182, 277f, 455, 458–460, 486 Parabolic language mashal/meshalim…342, 455–457, 500, 540, 549–552, 571 Simile (‘Bildwort’, figures)…178, 547, 551f, 556–558 similitudo (‘Gleichnis’)…551f, 554, 556f Comparison (‘Vergleich’)…178, 182, 196, 474, 551f Allegory (allegorical)…36, 546–552, 569, 586 Riddle…99, 228, 455 Fable…455, 550, 568 Irony…311, 549 Metaphor – conceptually sustained metaphors…380, 425 – conventional metaphors…565 source/target/goal domain…380, 392f Frame and imagery…547, 571, 573 tertium comparationis…547, 566f, 571 One-point (‘Sache’)…552, 561, 566–568 (‘Sachhälfte’ 552) Intended language…547f, 565f, 568 Constructed imagery…565 Surprising features (lack of) realism…565f Point of view…561

Ethical interpretation Radicalism…4f, 7, 16f, 35, 37, 45, 60, 80, 98, 124, 217, 281, 293, 297, 317, 325–355, 362, 365, 374, 578–581 Radical demands…113, 115, 121, 135, 218f, 223,256, 259, 302, 305, 333f, 336–355, 385, 455 Impracticality…112, 325f Left-wing of Reformation…3, 46, 295 (Anabaptists, 41, 44f, 46, 104, 114f, 117, 118, 121, 295, 331; Mennonites, 95, 114, 116)

660

Table of Subjects

Schleitheim confession (M. Sattler)…46 Disciple-ethics…6, 36, 46, 81, 102, 106, 112, 281, 293, 296–298, 303f, 323, 340 Interim ethics…4f, 62, 69f, 78, 82, 112, 329, 354 Sectarian ethos…291, 296f, 300, 333, 352, 354 Ascetical…35–37, 39, 58, 103, 123f, 223, 246f, 301, 306, 327, 329, 332f, 337, 511, 515, 517, 576 Ethics of attitude…3–5, 45, 51, 62–65, 68f, 72–74, 77, 79–81, 84, 90, 112, 328, 334, 339, 353–355, 407, 411f, 493, 529, 578 Ethics of conviction (‘Gesinnungsethik’)…3, 63f, 77, 339 Internalized ethic (‘Verinnerlichung’)…63, 347 Satyagraha…353 Immoderate view (‘Maßlosigkeit’)…117 Hearing and doing…270, 314, 407f, 418f, 441, 470 Forms Diatribe…156, 176, 390f, 433, 436, 440, 452, 456, 464, 488, 516 Chiasm…117, 162, 254, 264, 270f, 278, 284f, 305, 376, 439f, 501, 561 Triads…162, 269f, 278, 288 inclusio…162, 267, 276, 278, 305, 501, 561 Aphoristic sayings…177, 179, 253, 455–457, 560, 570 – Maxims (sententiae, gnomē/ai)…153, 178f, 181, 187, 454, 456–458, 461, 500f General sentences…178–180, 185, 187, 286, 319f, 323, 449, 454, 457f Correlative sentences…181f, 486 (Un)conditional sayings…178–181, 186, 391, 320, 455, 458, 472, 555 Interrogative (interrogatio)/rhetorical questions…180, 182f, 450, 456 Antithetical sayings…178, 182, 277f, 455, 458–460, 486 Imperatives…152f, 178, 184f, 276f, 285–287, 315f, 346f, 381f, 447, 454, 460–467, 460, 496, 556, 559 – Plural vs. singular; aorist vs. present tense…185, 462, 464 – Exhortations…151, 154, 178, 183–187, 274–276, 285f, 312, 316, 347, 381, 384, 436, 449, 454, 460–466 – Admonitions…7, 161, 177f, 183, 186f, 276, 287, 449, 454–456, 460–468, 493, 499– 501, 514f, 538, 544 Motivations (reasons)…186, 467–475, 496 Aggravated meaning (‘Verschärfung’)…347 Exaggeration…123, 168, (275), 312, 318, 331, 346f, 389, 398, 498, 543, 564f Strenuous commands…128, 346f Hyperbolic commands…64, 99, 108, 228, 311, 318, 326, 343, 345f, 556 Overstatement…374 Extreme examples/sayings…5, 293, 329, 332–334, 341f, 346, 354f, 458 (Un)conditional sayings…178–181, 186, 320, 455, 458, 472, 555 Content Eschatological versus wisdom…214f, 384–386, 502, 570 Commandments…32, 40, 79, 81, 86, 257–282, 352, 364, 369, 416 Decalogue…13, 26, 29, 39f, 42, 46, 48, 60, 90, 119, 257f, 317, 363, 374, 384, 398, 413f, 449, 463, 467f, 478, 483, 523

Table of Subjects

661

Love commandment…7, 117, 120, 176, 189, 208, 263f, 276, 280, 315, 317, 334, 347, 365, 422, 441, 484f, 490 Golden rule (see above, Index of Sources, under Matt 7,12) Righteous…6f, 9, 41, 43, 47, 71, 86, 95f, 179, 238, 262–265, 267f, 270, 274f, 280, 315, 321, 323, 328, 403f, 415–420, 441, 493, 529

Sociological Approach socio-historical…106, 108, 134f, 204f, 545–547, 549, 561–563, 567 socio-anthropological (cultural)…106, 108, 111, 125, 205, 218, 300, 387, 404 Issues Honor–Shame…108, 122, 300, 359, 370, 405–407, 420, 495f, 563 Benefactor…120 Patronage…122, 380, 411f, 494 – Gift…(40), 108, 120, 122, 277, 393, 408, 411f, 417, 558f, (572) Benefit…410, 412 – Exchange…411 – Giving/receiving…283, 343, 390, 410–412, 417 Friendship…409, 412, 433 Wealth/Possessions…263, 351, 392–395, 406, 415, 511, 541 Prosperity (versus limited good)…35, 37, 108, 120, 346, 359, 365, 394f, 411, 489, 541 Feminist perspective (gender)…108, 193, 312f, 313, 408

Religion-History/Relation to Judaism Jewish versus Hellenistic…7, 11f, 112, 114, 124, 257–262, 277, 353, 357, 360–362, 368, 389f, 397–399, 404, 408 Identity (formation)…7, 36, 106, 225, 256, 338, 354, 357–360, 362, 371, 373, 382, 388, 428, 435, 476–478, 486, 496, 581 Self-presentation…359f, 363, 364–369, 375–382, 421–425, 581 Forms (see above, p. 660) Commandments, passim Apodictic sentences…303, 321, 363, 413, 463, 466–468 Casuistic sentences…(98), 179, 303, 327, 334, 348, 363, 467f, 555 Christian halachah…113, 485 Issues Tanach (more above)…55, 70, 99f, 107, 113, 178f, 200, 257–259, 317, 335f, 343, 348, 354, 363, 366, 374–377, 381, 384, 388, 393, 401, 416, 430f, 478, 481, 493, 516f, 529, 564–566 Shema…50, 135, 177, 179, 321, 342, 355, 357, 369f, 373, 395, 562 Torah…7, 18, 88, 113f, 121, 156, 206, 258, 335, 343, 348, 366–370, 381, 399, 416, 482– 486, 492 Covenant (covenantal thinking)…257, 359–363, 368–373, 381f, 414, 422, 468, 485f

662

Table of Subjects

Temple…204f, 230, 258, 349f, 369–371, 373, 389, 423, 425, 427, 477, 485f, 555f, 557f, 562f Offerings…351, 370f, 405, 423, 486, 554f, 558–566, 568, 573 Purity…(50f, 57, 60, 90) 153, 209, 211, 214, 335, 338, 447f, 480, 505 Fasting, alms and prayer…163, 170, 250, 259, 301, 322, 335, 344, 366, 370–372, 383f, 386, 406, 417, 419, 423, 466, 472, 485

Theological Interpretation Theological interpretation…6, 61, 105, 115, 117, 122–124, 126, 196, 214, 249, 262ff, 337, 359, 362, 384, 497 Cognitive-propositional…358, 375, 388, 578 experiential-expressive approach…358, 388, 578 cultural-linguistic…358, 388, 578 Intrinsic versus extended meaning…115, 124, 412, 517, 578 Issues Essence of Jesus teaching…207, 209, 214, 235f, 339, 342, 359, 558, 576 Essence of Christianity…2, 53f, 58f, 65, 69, 71f, 208, 428, 576 Core conviction (Jewish, Christian)…329f, 363–369, 375–382, 421–425, 428, 478, 576f Forms Beatitudes…151f, 154, 178, 232, 276f, 341, 350, 386, 392–395, 410, 441, 455, 457, 538 Entrance requirement-sayings…82, 279, 349f, 416 I-sayings: ἐγὼ δὲ) λέγω ὑµῖν-sayings…175, 237, 241, 314, 345, 377, 446 ἀµήν λέγω ὑµῖν-sayings…163, 175, 313, 364, 377, 425, 446, 469, 482 ἦλθον-sayings…163, 313, 377, 446 Issues Theocentric perspective…267, 341f, 365, 376, 402f, 417, 424, 464, 479 God (passim) Shema (see previous page under “Religion-History/Relation to Judaism: Issues) God as Father…267, 313f, 317, 366, 375–377, 383, 424f, 529 (Abba, 88, 100, 313, 376f) Kingdom of God…(50, 62, 69, 74f, 82, 86, 91, 100), 229–237, 265, 267f, 271, 276, 376, 380, 386, 417, 424–426, 481f, 506, 523, 536, 535f Implicit Christology…17, 100, 163, 175–177, 345, 364, 373, 387, 421, 425f, 476f, 482 (different from the so-called Christological interpretation, 79f, 214, 334, etc.) Reconciliation…62, 346, 407, 409, 414, 493f, 546, 555, 566–568, 573

Philosophical Interpretation Philosophy of life…51, 118–123, 187, 232, 255, 328, 342, 355, 357–364, 388–392, 394, 419f, 454, 496, 511, 517, 524, 537, 543f, 575, 581f Rhetorical approach…108f, 152, 249, 252, 267, 273–277, 279, 288, 441–443, 496 – ‘Nouvelle rhétorique’…108, 252, 291, 442, 445

Table of Subjects

663

Deliberative (symbouleutic) speech…9, 154, 168, 274–276, 279, 281f, 312, 349, 367, 436, 438, 441f, 455 Protreptic…11, 183, 261, 274, 279, 288, 312, 315, 342, 349, 384, 400, 427, 433, 436–438, 443f, 446, 448, 450, 454f, 457, 476, 496 Decision making…92, 98, 156, 168, 258, 274, 288, 312, 336, 349, 416, 436, 450 Rhetorical forms exordium…150f, 249, 268, 275–277, 279, 281, 284, 287f, 349, 386, 395, 438, 440–442 propositio…100, 123, 156f, 159, 161, 266, 268, 272, 275–277, 280f, 288, 336, 349, 366, 368, 386, 400, 438, 441–443, 477, 483f transitus…275 argumentatio…151f, 161, 168, 232, 237, 275–278, 280–282, 288, 290, 386, 442–444 peroratio…153, 161, 168, 239, 249, 268, 274–277, 280–282, 284, 287f, 290, 366, 382, 419, 436, 441–443, 466f Topoi…267, 349, 390f, 414 Issues Tranquility…105, 390, 394–396, 419, 489, 507, 516f, 523, 538f, 540, 542, 544, 582 Forgiveness (based on gift)…156, 158, 160–162, 169, 245, 318, 342–344, 346, 397, 407– 410, 413f, 493, 555, 558, 560, 567f, 571–573 Spontaneous expressions of life…462 lex talionis (‘do ut des’)…417, 470 Reciprocity (negative, balanced, generalized)…158, 178, 276f, 280–282, 285, 288, 410– 412, 414, 417, 441, 456 ‘Logic of superabundance’…417, 572 – Notion of the other…413f, 493f carpe diem…391, 498, 508, 514, 519–524, 535, 542, 544 Good life/happiness…57, 359, 391–394, 419, 488, 528, 536, 540, 544, 582