^{page 444 note 1} In order to avoid confusion, the Antithesis will refer to the total construction, composed of a premise (thesis) and an antithesis (the counter-demand).

^{page 444 note 2} Manson, T. W., The Sayings of Jesus (London, 1954), pp. 23 f.Google Scholar; Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 387 f.Google Scholar; Dupont, J., Les B´atitudes (Louvain, 2nd ed. 1958), PP. 145–56.Google Scholar

^{page 444 note 3} Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (E.T. xford, 1963), pp. 135 f.Google Scholar

^{page 444 note 4} Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology (E.T. New York, 1971), 1, 251 ff.Google Scholar; Wrege, H.-Th., Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt: W.U.Z.N.T. IX (TÜbingen, 1968), 66–70.Google Scholar

^{page 444 note 5} Suggs, J., Wisdom, Christology, Law in Matthew's Gospel (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970), pp. 110–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This was further developed in an unpublished working paper for the 1972 S.N.T.S. seminar on the Quest for the Historical Jesus, ‘The Antitheses as Matthean Redactional Products’. See also Berger, K., Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu, W.M.A.N.T. XL (Neukirchen, 1972), 1, 525 ff.Google Scholar, who considers these to be redactional on the basis of a later Sitz im Leben of the form and content.

^{page 444 note 6} Cf. especially J. Suggs' work cited above.

^{page 445 note 1} Although the origins and implications of the difference in form between the casuistic and apodictic legal forms are highly contested today (cf. Gerstenberger, E., Wesen und Herkunft des sogenannten apodiktischen Rechtes im Alten Testament (Neukirchen, 1965Google Scholar); Richter, W., Recht und Ethos: Versuch einer Ortung des weisheitlichen Mahnspruches (München, 1966Google Scholar); Berger, K., ‘Zu den sogenannten Sätzen heiligen Rechts’, N.T.S. XVII (1970–1Google Scholar), 14 ff.), the distinction in structural form and style still holds.

^{page 446 note 1} Filson, F. V., ‘Broken patterns in the Gospel of Matthew’, J.B.L. LXXV (1956), 229Google Scholar; Bornkamm, G. and Held, H. J. in their work, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (E.T. Philadelphia, 1963), pp. 30, 54Google Scholar and 237 f.

^{page 446 note 2} Since the main thrust, however, of v. 31 f. is centred on divorce, it is not to be considered as merely a secondary element to v. 27 f.

^{page 447 note 1} appears only in this context in the New Testament, which seems to be more than mere coincidence.

^{page 447 note 2} Schürmann, H., Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien (Düsseldorf, 1968), p. 115Google Scholar = ‘Sprachliche Reminiszenzen an abgeänderte oder ausgelassene Bestandteile der Spruchsammlung im Lukas- and Matthäusevangelium’, N.T.S. VI (1959–1960), 197.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 1} A similar usage of άλαθοποιεĩν combined with suffering occurs in I Pet. ii. 20, cf. Unnik, W. C. van, ‘The teaching of good works in I Peter’, N. T.S. 1 (1954–5), 99 fGoogle Scholar. and ‘A classical parallel to I Peter, ii. 14Google Scholar and 20’, N.T.S. 11 (1955–6), 199 f.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 2} χάπις – appears eight times in Luke, none in Matt, or Mark. άμαπτωλοí – Luke has seventeen, Matt. five and Mark six. πλήν – Matt. has five (one Q, xi. 22 = Luke x. 14), Luke has fifteen. υψιστος – Matt. has one, Mark two and Luke seven.

^{page 448 note 3} The construction in groups of threes (cf. the three rhetorical questions under consideration) is characteristic of Luke's style, according to van Unnik, ‘Die Motivierung der Feindesliebe in Luk. vi. 32–35’, Nov. Test. wit (1966), 288.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 4} Van Unnik, Ibid. p. 296.

^{page 448 note 5} Van Unnik, Ibid. pp. 290 if., notes a comparable passage in Sirach xii. I and comments that it was not limited to an exclusively Greek-oriented context.

^{page 449 note 1} Lührmann, D. ‘Liebet euere Feinde’, Z.Th.K. LXIX (1972), 214fGoogle Scholar. Cf. Strecker, G., ‘Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt’, N.T.S. XVII (1970–1), 255–75.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 2} Lührmann, , op. cit.,Google Scholar has noted that οıκτρμων is synonymous with έλεήμων in the Psalms. The redactional character of τeacgr;λεıος is all but a foregone conclusion, see Dupont, , Béatitudes, pp. 153 fGoogle Scholar. n. 2.

^{page 449 note 3} Taylor, V., ‘The Original Order of Q’ in New Testament Essays: Studies in Honor of T. W. Manson (Manchester, 1962), p. 266Google Scholar; Brown, J. P., ‘The form of “Q” known to Matthew’, N.T.S. VIII (1961–1962), 27.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 4} See Schürmann, , Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien (Düsseldorf, 1968), p. 115Google Scholar =‘Sprachliche Reminiszenzen an abgeänderte oder ausgelassene Bestandteile der Spruchsammlung im Lukas- und Matthäusevangelium’, N.T.S. VI (1959–1960), 197.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 1} Did. i. 3e = Luke vi. 27 f.; Did. i. 4C combines Luke vi. 29b and Matt. v. 40; Did. i. 3d – ποıα λάπ λάπıς cf. Luke vi. 32–4.

^{page 450 note 2} Davies, , Setting, p. 388Google Scholar, notes that the άλλά υμĩν λέγω τοĩς άκουουσıν of Luke vi. 27 suggests an earlier parallel to the Antitheses of Matt. v. 21 if. ‘… in a source behind Q’. Dupont, , Béatitudes, pp. 189 f.Google Scholar, however, has observed the Lukan redactional character of this introductory phrase. By picking up those ‘who came to hear Jesus’ of vv. 17 f., this introductory phrase serves as the indispensable transitional contrast to the Woes of vv. 24–6. Nevertheless, in view of the similarity of context and content of this phrase with Matthew, Dupont would also see it as an ‘echo’ of the antithetical premises found in Matthew, (p. 190Google Scholar). Whereas it may be a strange coincidence of context and content, is it so unlikely that one must see here an ‘echo’? The Lukan use of πλήν άλλά (vv. 24–7) and the pronominal construction of υμĩν λέγω are clearly Lukan (so Dupont, , pp. 189 f.Google Scholar). Those ‘who hear’ might well have been added stylistically to pick up vv. 17 f. and set the stage for vv. 47–9 which focus on not only ‘hearing’ but also ‘doing’ his ‘words’. The similarity of context has been dealt with above.

^{page 450 note 3} Dibelius, M., Der Brief Jakobus: Kommentar, Meyer (Göttingen, 11th ed. 1964), p. 298Google Scholar; Strecker, G., Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: F.R.A.N.T. LXXXII (Göttingen, 2nd ed. 1966), pp. 133 f.Google Scholar; Wrege, , Weg, p. 72.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 4} Strecker, , Weg, p. 133Google Scholar; Klostermann, E., Das Matthäusevangelium, HNT (Tübingen, 2nd ed. 1927), p. 42Google Scholar, hinted at this long ago.

^{page 451 note 1} Manson, , Sayings, p. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 2} The much debated difference between the Matthean formula and that of James is not material to the present discussion.

^{page 451 note 3} Bultmann, , Tradition, p. 135Google Scholar; Kilpatrick, G. D., The Origins of the Gospel According to St Matthew (Oxford, 1946), pp. 19–20Google Scholar; Davies, , Setting, p. 240Google Scholar; Montefiore, C. G., The Synoptic Gospels (London, 2nd ed. 1927), II, 68.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 4} ‘Heaven and earth’ as a binding oath is explicitly rejected in Sh^ebuoth, iv. 13 (Billerbeck, 1, 333) ‘Jerusalem’ by itself is not binding, N^edarim, i. 3 cf. Tosephta N^edarim, i. 2, 3 (see Fiebig, P., Jesu, Bergpredigt (Göttingen, 1924), p. 65Google Scholar). ‘Altar’ and ‘Temple’ occur in the same context and their validity, like ‘Jerusalem’, depends on the way one prefaces the ‘oath’ with relation to the object. ‘By your head’ is discussed in Sanhedrin iii. 2 with most holding it to be binding, but Rabbi Meir (e. 150) holding it as not binding. These are all discussed in the context of ‘promissory’ oaths.

^{page 451 note 5} Note the difference between vv. 34b–35 and v. 36 in form and syntax. Although treated above as a unit, they reflect a complex of traditions (especially seen in the change from the plural to the singular) with v. 36 added to vv. 34b–35.

^{page 451 note 6} A principle used by the scribes themselves as a test for genuine or spurious oaths (Sh^ebuoth, iv. 13). See Billerbeck, 1, 332 f.

^{page 451 note 7} In this way the accent not only remains on the main clause of v. 34a, but it also explains the function of μήτε…μήτε to denote an elaboration rather than exposition of the main thought. Functioning more like μηδέ…μηδέ it would then read, ‘Do not swear at all, not even by heaven …’ So Billerbeck, 1, 328 f., and Blass-Debrunner, , Grammar, 445, 1.Google Scholar

^{page 452 note 1} Matt. xxiii. 20–2 is the second of two distinct units (vv. 16–19, 20–2). The first unit (vv. 16–19) may well stem from the polemics between Jesus and his opponents over the binding character of certain oaths ( Bultmann, , Tradition pp. 133 f., 147Google Scholar). This unit is then expanded by three statements (vv. 20–2) parallel in construction, which appear to be deliberately arranged in ascending order. Since vv. 20–2 are elaborations of vv. 16–19, they could hardly have had an independent traditional setting. Yet whereas the argument of the first unit (vv. 16–18) was based on rational consistency (e.g. was not the Temple and altar of more importance than the corresponding gold or offering, since the one made the other sacred?), the second unit (vv. 20–2) placed the objects in direct relation with God. Therefore, one is essentially swearing by God.

^{page 452 note 2} Note the familiar paraenetic form of the Haustafeln: address, v. 12 a; exhortation, v. 12 ab cf. Matt. V. 34 f., 37a; and ground for concern, v. 12c.

^{page 452 note 3} Consequently, some like Manson, , Sayings, p. 158Google Scholar and Davies, , Setting, p. 240Google Scholar have considered U. 33 b to be secondary in an abortive attempt to clarify v. 33a.

^{page 452 note 4} Although the actual use of the divine name is missing in v. 33a, a genuine oath by definition always involved God as a witness, even when his name was not cited, so Billerbeck, 1, 330 ff. When substitutes were used, as was the practice in the first century, they had to refer clearly to God or else they were not binding (Billerbeck, 1, 332 f.).

^{page 452 note 5} Davies, , Setting, p. 240Google Scholar, following Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1942), p. 117Google Scholar, considers this exchange of terms to be a product of the popular confusion between the two terms. Davies, himself, argues against a sharp distinction between ‘oaths’ and ‘vows’ on the basis of Josephus and the Essenes, op. cit. p. 242.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 1} Danby, H., The Mishnah (Oxford, 1933), p. 411Google Scholar (Sh^ebuoth, iii. I). Fiebig, Bergpredigt, p. 63, labels these oaths as ‘assertorisch’ and ‘promissorisch’. The labels help in distinguishing what was clearly recognized in Judaism as two types of oaths.

^{page 453 note 2} Danby, , Mishnah, p. 264 nGoogle Scholar. 1; Fiebig, , Bergpredigt, p. 66Google Scholar; Lieberman, , op. cit. p. 117Google Scholar. This distinction is supported by the fact that the same formula might be valid as an oath but not as a vow, cf. Lieberman, Ibid. pp. 128 if.

^{page 453 note 3} Kilpatrick, , op. cit. pp. 19 f.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 4} The δέ, consequently, would be continuative rather than adversative. Cf. similar usage in Matt. i. 2–16; v. 21, 31, 37; vi. 16; xxiii. 4 et al.

^{page 453 note 5} See p. 451 n. 4 above.

^{page 454 note 1} Strecker, Weg, p. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 2} A conclusion which Manson has already anticipated, Sayings, p. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 3} Guelich, R., ‘Matt. v. 22: its meaning and integrity’, Z.N.W. LXIV (1973), 39 ff.Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., T.D.N. T. VI, 975Google Scholar; Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Matthäus (Stuttgart, 6th ed., 1963), p. 169Google Scholar. K. Berger has recently argued that the construction of έτοχος with the dative is a strictly Greek legal construction. This would then mean that the verse comm from a Greek rather than Aramaic context, –Zu den sogenannten Sätzen Heiligen Rechts’, N.T.S. XVII (1970), 35–8Google Scholar. Whereas ένοχος does reflect a Greek construction, such a conclusion regarding the Sitz im Leben would only be valid if there were no corresponding Aramaic construction. Jeremias and Schlatter have both cited Aramaic constructions corresponding to v. 22. Jeremias cites such a usage in the Targums (Jonathan, Onkelos and Jerusalem) for Num. xxxv. 21 ( op. cit. VI, 1975Google Scholar n. 15).

^{page 455 note 1} Billerbeck, 1, 253; Dalman, G., Jesus-Jeschua (E.T. London, 1929), pp. 70 f.Google Scholar; Schlechter, S., ‘Some Rabbinic Parallels to the New Testament’, J.Q.R. XII (1900), 427 f.Google Scholar; Abrahams, , Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (Cambridge, 1917), 1, 16 f.Google Scholar; Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 56–62Google Scholar; Smith, M., Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels: J.B.L. Mono-graph Series VI (Philadelphia, 1961), 154et al.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 2} ‘Ich aber sage euch’, in Der Ruf Jesu and die Antwort der Gemeinde: Festschrift for J. Jeremias (Göttingen, 1970), pp. 191–200.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 3} See Ibid. pp. 191–3 for examples and literature.

^{page 455 note 4} Ibid. pp. 193 if. Also Dalman, , op. cit. pp. 68 f.Google Scholar; Smith, M., op. cit. pp. 27–30.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 5} Lohse, , op. cit. pp. 196 fGoogle Scholar. For parallels regarding anger and lust see Braun, , op. cit. II, 5 n. 2Google Scholar; p. 85 n. 2.⁶Lohse, , op. cit. p. 198.Google Scholar

^{page 456 note 1} Suggs, Wisdom, p. 127Google Scholar; S.N.T.S. working paper, p. 14.

^{page 456 note 2} Suggs' working paper for S.N.T.S., p. 14.

^{page 457 note 1} Rothfuchs, W., Die Erfüllungszitate des Matthäus-Evangeliums: B.W.A.N.T. VIII (Stuttgart, 1969), pp. 128–133Google Scholar and Gundry, R. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St Matthew's Gospel: Supplements to Novum Testamentum XVIII(Leiden, 1967), pp. 193–204.Google Scholar