^{page 214 note 1} ‘Matthäus 23’, Z.T.K. XLVIII (1951), 39f.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 2} ‘The Things that Defile (Mark vii. 14) and the Law in Matthew and Mark’, N. T.S. xv 1968/1969), 86 f.Google Scholar The rule of the priority of mercy over cult (Matt. xii. 7) applies to this case, because the disciples ‘were hungry’ and had to ‘eat’ (Matthean addition). Cf. also the insertion of verses 11, 12a and p. 220 n. 3 here.

^{page 214 note 3} ‘Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelium’, in: Bornkamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. J., Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium (1960), 29ff.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 4} Luke has inserted the former saying into the latter one. The change between singular and plural of the second person of the verb shows that this is a secondary development.

^{page 214 note 5} Cf. Schnackenburg, R., ‘Ihr seid das Salz der Erde, das Licht der Welt’, in: Mélanges E. Tisserant, I (1964), 365ff.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 1} Cf. Schweizer, E., ‘Matth. 5, 17–20—Anmerkungen zum Gesetzesverständnis des Matthäus’, in: Schweizer, E., Neotestamentica (1963), pp. 399–406.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 2} Robertson, A. T., A Grammar of the New Testament (1914), p. 976.Google Scholar Extrabiblical examples of a final έως: Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (1943), § 375,Google Scholar appendix; Liddell, and Scott, s.v.; Schwyzer, E., Griechische Grammatik (² 1959), pp. 650f.Google Scholar P^Pay118, 12 (second century A.D.) proves (against Mayser, E., Grammatik der griechischen Papyri, II/I (1926), p. 270)Google Scholar that the main clause may well be expressed in a present tense έως άν is not to be found earlier than Test. Iobi xxi. 2; xxii. 3 in a definitely final sense, but Matt. v. 26 probably implies a final meaning.

^{page 215 note 3} The parallel in Mark vi. 45 contains no Ου.

^{page 215 note 4} Carlston (see p. 214 n. 2), p. 80.

^{page 215 note 5} Ibid. p. 79.

^{page 215 note 6} History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (1968), pp. 54ff.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 1} Also, Walker, R., Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium (1967), pp. 116–18,Google Scholar stresses the radical concentration on the doctrine of the earthly Jesus. If Baltensweiler, H., ‘Die Ehebruchsklauseln bei Matthäus’, T.Z. xv (1959), 340 ff.Google Scholar were right in his thesis that the clauses in Matt. v. 32 and xix. 9 were directed against marriage with relatives as forbidden by the book of Leviticus (so that such wives should be divorced before baptism), the conservative legalism would be evident (similarly Blair, E. P., Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (1960), pp. 42 and 157ff.).Google Scholar In spite of Acts xv. 20 (= Lev. xvii. 10–16 and xviii. 6–18?) this remains questionable.

^{page 216 note 2} Walker, op. cit. pp. 134f. sees correctly that this is not directed against an explicit antinomianism; the false prophets, however, are described twice as the doers of ⋯νομλα, i.e. as Christians of an easy morality. Emphasis on charity also in Trilling, W., Das wahre Israel (1964), pp. 196ff.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 1} Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (1963), pp. 199f.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 2} ‘St Matthew's Gospel: Some Neglected Features’, in: Studia Evangelica, II, ed. Cross, F. L., T.U. LXXXVII (1964), 92–4.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 3} Davies, op. cit. pp. 199f.; also Barth (see p. 214 n. 3), p. 153.

^{page 217 note 4} Davies, op. cit. pp. 333 f.; Hummel, R., ‘Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judenturn im Matthäusevangelium’, B. ev. Th. XXXIII (1963), 65.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 5} Hummel,op. cit. pp. 65ff.; Barth (see p. 214 n. 3), p. 152.

^{page 217 note 6} Bornkamm (see p. 214 n. 3), p. 35 n. 1.

^{page 217 note 7} ‘∧ΟГΟΙ ΣΦωΝ’, in: Zeit und Geschichte (für Buttmann, R.), ed. Dinkler, E. (1964), pp. 85f.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 8} Stuhlmacher, P., Das paulinische Evangelium (1968), I, 241f.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 1} ‘Das christologische und ekklesiologische Anliegen von Mt. xxviii. 18–20’, in Studio Evangelica, II (see p. 217 n. 2), pp. 279f.Google Scholar Cf. also Kasting, H., Die Anfänge der urchristlichen Mission (1969), pp. 34–8Google Scholar (for the Matthean emphasis on μαθηΤε⋯Ειν, p. 36); Trilling (see p. 216 n. 2), pp. 49f.

^{page 218 note 2} Cf. also Baumbach, G., ‘Die Mission im Matthäusevangelium’, T.L.Z. XCII (1967), 889–93.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} Davies (see p. 217 n. I), p. 300, cf. P. 256.

^{page 219 note 2} Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit, F.R.L.A.N.T. LXXXII (1962), 137 n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 3} R.G.G.⁸ v, 634; cf. Bornkamm (see p. 214 n. 3), p. 36 n. I; idem, ‘Der Auferstandene und der Irdische’, in: Zeit und Geschichte (1964), p. 180.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 4} Held (see p. 214 n. 3), pp. 237f.

^{page 219 note 5} The healing of the two blind men in xx. 29–34 prepares the entry to Jerusalem and the Passion, the miracle in xii. 22–4, the discussion about Beelzebul. In the latter case ix. 32–4 speaks of a mute (cf. Luke xi. 14f.), not of a blind and mute man, as xii. 22 does.

^{page 220 note 1} Held (see p. 214 n. 3), pp. 239f. For the historical background cf. M. Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma (1968), pp. 82f.

^{page 220 note 2} Verse 21 shows that persecution is the destiny of prophets, cf. Hare, D. R. A., The Theme of Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St Matthew (1967), pp. 137–41;Google ScholarDupont, J., Les Béatitudes (1969), II, 317.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 3} Cf. Greeven, H., ‘Die Heilung des Gelähmten nach Matthäus’, Wort und Dienst, N.F. IV (1955), 70.Google Scholar On the other hand, Matt. xii. 5–8 omits Mark ii. 27, because it deals with a case of authority for legal decisions.

^{page 220 note 4} Cf. Duplacy, J., ‘La foi qui déplace les montagnes’, in: A Ia rencontre de Dieu (Mém. A. Gelin) (1961), pp. 273ff.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 5} It may be worth while mentioning the fact that the verb ‘to heal’ is preferred to ‘to cast out the demon’ in verses 16 and 18.

^{page 220 note 6} Das Verständnis der Mission im N.T. (1963), pp. 53f. Cf. below p. 229.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 1} Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (1961), pp. 15f., 259–65;Google Scholar cf. also Gärtner, B., ‘The Habakkuk Commentary and the Gospel of Matthew’, St. Th. VIII (1954), 1–24;Google ScholarGundry, R. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St Matthew's Gospel (1967), pp. 151–9;Google ScholarPerrin, N., ‘Mark xiv. 62: The End Product of a Christian Pesher Tradition?’, N.T.S. XII (1965/1966), 152ff.Google Scholar (for Zech. xii. 10 and Dan. vii. 13). W. Rothfuchs, ‘Die Erfüllungszitate des Matthäusevangeliums’, McDonald, ‘The Use of the Old Testament in St Matthew's Gospel’ and R. S. McConnell, ‘Law and Prophecy in Matthew's Gospel: the Authority and Use of the Old Testament in the Gospel of St Matthew’ have not yet been published. For Rothfuchs, cf. below p. 228.

The main reasons against a pre-Matthean collection of these quotations are: (a) The form of the text is different. In most cases it is a mixture of the Hebrew text (HT) and LXX. i. 23, however, is clearly LXX. xiii. 13—16 is complemented (over against the Marcan parallel) according to LXX (cf. also the first line of xiii. 25). ii. 15 is probably interpreted in the light of Num. xxiv. 7 f. LXX. (b) The citations ii. 15, 18; xxvii. 9 f. could not have been handed down without the stories in which they appear, (c) A mixture of HT and LXX is also to be found in other places in Matthew, e.g. in xxiv. 30, also xxvi. 31 (differently from Mark); xiii. 32 and v. 33–5 (addition to the antitheses), (d) Influence of HT is to be seen also in xxiv. 15 (beyond Mark's reference) and xi. 29; cf. x. 36 (Matt.? Q_?) and xvi. 27? (e) xxvii. 43 contains a phrase quoted from memory and influenced by LXX and its interpretation in Sap. ii. (f) Quotations from LXX appear in sentences which could be Matthean-redactional (ix. 13; xii. 7, 40; xxi. 16) or traditional (vi. 6). (g) In the background of xxvii. 9 there is a long history of tradition, in which both HT and LXX influenced the text in various stages (xxvi. 15; xxvii. 5 f.; Lindars 116 ff.); similarly in xxiv. 30 (Lindars 122 ff.; Perrin 152 ff.). (h) xiii. 32, too, is shaped by a long tradition, in which besides Psalm civ. 12 (HT?) Dan. iv. 12 LXX (Q.) and Ezek. xvii. 23; xxxi. 6 LXX (Mark) were also creative.

^{page 221 note 2} ‘Der Gottessohn im matthäischen Evangelienprolog’, Biblica XLVIII (1967), 398ff.Google Scholar Also Strecker (see p. 219 n. 2), p. 50 speaks of redactional introduction formulas, although he presupposes a collection of quotations from which Matthew draws his examples.

^{page 221 note 3} ‘Quis et unde? An Analysis of Mt. 1–2’, in Judentum-Urchristentum-Kirche (for J. Jeremias), ed. Eltester, W. (1960), pp. 94–105.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 4} Possibly Matthew is not aware of this; he might consider the quoted phrase (stemming probably from Judges xiii. 7; xvi. 17: Schweizer, E., Neotestamentica (1963), pp. 51–5;Google ScholarSanders, J. A., ‘ŅАΖωΡАιΟσ, in Mt. 2. 23’, J.B.L. LXXXIV (1965), 169ff.)Google Scholar an Old Testament text.

^{page 221 note 5} Cf. here p. 229.

^{page 222 note 1} ‘Eine alttestamentliche Ausführungsformel im Matthäusevangelium’, B.Z. x (1966), 220–45 and xi (1967), 79–95.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 2} Cf. also Psalm viii. 3 in xxi. 16 describing the praise of God by the ‘little ones’, who represent, in the view of Matthew, the church of the disciples of Jesus.

^{page 222 note 3} Lindars (see p. 221 n. I), pp. 181 ff. Cf. Ringger, J., Begegnung der Christen (² 1960), pp. 271Google Scholar ff. for the use of this image in Hermas.

^{page 223 note 1} Verses 37–8 ff. έρλ (έν) δ⋯⋯νόμαδι (μον), 41–2 ηνα Τ⋯ν μικρ⋯ν Το⋯Των, 42–3 ff. όκανδαλíο⋯, 48–9 ρ⋯ρ, 49–50 άλλοφοεδαλ/άλας.

^{page 223 note 2} Luke x. 16 might have, at the most, a material influence, if any. Formal parallels to Luke x stop with Matt. x. 16.

^{page 223 note 3} For the transition from a participle to a ôς ⋯ν-clause cf. Matt. v. 32 and xx. 38 f.

^{page 223 note 4} The style is assimilated to verses 40 and 42.

^{page 223 note 5} As, in the view of Matthew, the pious men of the Old Testament: xiii. 17. iii. 15 also is redactional and typical of Matthew.

^{page 223 note 6} Matthew would probably not have omitted this pericope because of the two sayings in x. 40 and 42, since he does not usually avoid doublets.

^{page 224 note 1} Walker (see p. 216 n. 1), p. 135, against Barth (see p. 214 n. 3), p. 69, who refers to vii. 15 ff. as the closing ‘bracket’.

^{page 224 note 2} Пροοéξενε άПó, a Septuagintism (Sparks, H. F. D., ‘The Semitisms of St Luke's Gospel’, J. T.S. XLIV, 1943, 134)Google Scholar four times in Matthew against the Marcan ρλéПεδε άПρ in Luke three times (of which two contain éανδοις as in LXX); only Matt. xvi. 6 = Luke xii. I are based on the same Marcan passage. It is also Matthew who formulates the details of the image of the heretics as wolves, which in itself is traditional (Acts xx. 28 f., cf. Strack-Billerbeck I, 465 f., also Horace, Od. IV. 4. 50 and Gen. xlix. 27; Soph. iii. 3; Ezek. xxii. 27; Hab. i. 8; John x. 12; Did. xvi. 3; Ign. Phitad. II. 1 f., further on the images of the people of God as a flock in the Old and New Testament). ένδνμα is to be found once in Q, six times (probably always in redactional passages) in Matthew.

^{page 224 note 3} Dupont, J., Les Béatitudes (² 1958), I, 98–103,Google Scholar considers the Lucan connection of xiii. 23–7 (= Matt. vii. 13 f. and 22 f.) original. Thus it would be Matthew who inserted both sayings at their respective places and combined them with his attack against the false prophets. The changes in verse 22 are, therefore, probably also due to his redaction. Verse 21 is rooted in the tradition, as Luke vi. 46 shows, but has been altered by Matthew (Strecker (see p. 219 n. 2), p. 160).

^{page 224 note 4} Cf. Böcher, O., ‘Wölfe in Schafpelzen’, T.Z. XXIV (1968), 405 f.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 5} Pace Walker (see p.216 n. I), p. 136.

^{page 224 note 6} Verse 16 refers to verse 15, and verse 20, taking up verse 16 a, connects this warning against the false prophets with the verdict of verses 21-3.

^{page 225 note 1} Luke vi. 43 is taken up by Matt. xiii. 33a, b, not by vii. 17, as is proved by the singular καρρóν and the same adjectives in both places. Luke vi. is equivalent to Matt. xii. 33c, while vii. 20 is formulated differently. Luke vi. 45 finally is to be found in Matt. xii. 346–35, whereas it is missing in chapter vii. Only the parable of the thorns and thistles in Matt. vii. 16 is based on Luke vi. 44b.

^{page 225 note 2} Verse 16 a, cf. also αὐτо⋯ς in verse 20.

^{page 225 note 3} Cf. the plural ‘fruits’ and the supplement άλαφóν for καλóν or ρονηρν for οαρρóν (over against Luke vi. 43 f., repeated also in Matt. xii. 33 and in the Gospel of Thomas). ‘Aλατóν and ρονρóν appear also in Luke vi. 45 = Matt. xii. 35, though.

^{page 225 note 4} Luke vi. 45; Matt. xii. 34–6; Gospel of Thomas 45.

^{page 225 note 5} Did. xi. 7–12 (also Hermas, , Mand. xi. 7–16);Google Scholar I Cor. xii. 1–3 and I John iv. 2; Pseudo-Corinthians 3ff.; Pseudo-Clem., Hom. II, 6–11.

^{page 225 note 6} Matt. vii. 21 is probably the original wording (Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheilstitel (² 1964), p. 97;Google Scholar Strecker (see p. 219 n. 2), p. 160). The acclamation κύρλε in verse 22 is very unlikely to go back to a word of Jesus himsell though; it might be taken up from verse 21 (in a pre-Matthean stage?). The sentence of the judge in verse 23 appears in Luke xiii. 27 in a quite different context, although also referring to the Last Judgment.

^{page 225 note 7} So Wrege, H. T., Die Überlieferungsgeschichie der Bergpredigt (1968), p. 148.Google Scholar Otherwise it is very difficult to establish the priority of this or that form. Justin shows, in both passages, Apol. I. 16. ii and Dial. LXXVI. 5, influence of the Matthean and the Lucan form (Wrege, pp. 148 f.). 'Aνομλας might possibly be the prior form to the Lucan άδικλας (Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synopiischen Tradition (² 1931), p. 122 n. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 1} Cf. Hahn (see p. 225 n. 6), pp. 96 f. and the alterations in Luke xxiii. 24–6, by which the Jews become the executioners of Jesus (only in verse 36 do we hear, for the first time, of Roman soldiers ‘coming up’).

^{page 226 note 2} Schweizer, Cf. E., ‘Das Evangelium nach Markus’, N.T.D. I (² 1968), 27.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 3} ‘Sätze heiligen Rechtes im Neuen Testament’, N.T.S. I (1954/1955), 248 ff.Google Scholar, also in: Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (1964), II, 69 ff.Google Scholar Georg-Christoph Kähler, student at the Theological Faculty of Jena University, has, in an unpublished paper in August 1969 (‘Das Matthausevangelium als Rekonstruktionsbasis für die “Anfänge christlicher Theologie”?’ [cf. Käsemann, op. cit. pp. 82 ff.= Z.T.K. LVII (1960), 162Google Scholar ff.]), attacked Käsemann's position. He points to the formal parallels in proverbial exhortations of the Wisdom literature, for instance: ‘God's punishment equals (man's deed)’ – ‘Whoever is too quick with an oath, meets a quick death’ – ‘Whoever insults women in the presence of another person, will be insulted by them at his own burial’ (Schmid, H. H., Wesen und Geschichte der Weisheit (1966), Qu. 2c, 27b, pp. 203, 220);Google Scholar Prov. viii. 35a; x. 9a; xvii. 13; xix. 16a; xxi. 21 (if not corrected); xxii. 8; xxvi. 27b LXX; Tob. xiii. 6; Sap. vi. 10a; Test. Seb. v. 3; viii. 1, 3. In these examples different patterns should certainly be distinguished, for instance: (1) whoever gains x, gains y; (2) whoever behaves ℵ (adverb), behaves λ (adverb); (3) whoever practises ℵ, will find ℵ; (4) whoever acts ℵ (noun or adverb), will be given à (noun or adverb); (5) whoever ℵ (verb), will be ℵ (verb) by God (or: God will ℵ him). However, the references given by Kähler show that the pattern of these sentences is rooted in sapiental exhortation and has influenced statements of the ius talionis in a secondary way only, that immanent and eschatological punishments are blending into each other, and that the idea of an eschatological judgment is also found in paraenetic contexts (and against Käsemann, p. 75, not simply as a secondary development). Kähler is right in emphasizing that the pattern of a ‘Satz heiigen Rechtes’ in itself does not prove the existence of early Christian prophets; it could also stem from sapiental exhortation. None the less, the Pauline letters and the Apocalypse prove that Christian prophets used this pattern in order to stress the severe judgment on Doomsday (cf. I Cor. iii. 17 etc.: ‘…will destroy…’; Mark viii. 38: ‘Son of man’; Matt. v. 19: ‘Kingdom of heaven’), whereas the parallels are usually used in a positive way. This shows that the pattern has been ‘apocalypticized’, and it is only to be discussed (with Kähler) how far this goes back to early Christians prophets, how far to Matthew's redaction.

^{page 227 note 1} The Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew (² 1950), p. 126.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 2} For Matt. x. 5 f., 23 Schürmann, cf. H., ‘Mt. 10, 5–6 und die Vorgeschichte des synoptischen Aussendungsberichtes’, in: Neutestamentliche Aufsätze (für J. Schmid) (1963), pp. 270 ff.Google Scholar, and idem, ‘Zur Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von Mt. 10, 23’, B.Z. III (1959), 82 ff. For Matt. xxviii. 18–20 cf. Vögtle, , Studia Evangelica, II, (see p. 218 n. I.), pp. 234 f.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 3} Die Kirche des Matthäus (1929), p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 1} This means, at least in the understanding of Matthew, probably more than forgiving or non-forgiving (cf. Emerton, J. A., ‘Binding and Loosing—Forgiving and Retaining’, J. T.S. XIII (1962), 325–31).Google Scholar Authority of doctrine and authority of discipline cannot be strictly distinguished, though.

^{page 228 note 2} Walker (see p.216 n. I), p. 118.

^{page 228 note 3} Very similarly Schiatter, , Die Kirche des Matthäus, pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 4} Schweizer, E., Notestameniica (1963), pp. 404 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 1} Köster, H.,‘ιņωΜАΊ △ΊАɸОРОΊ’, Z.T.K. (1968), 169–72, 183–90,Google Scholar and particularly Kretschmar, G., ‘Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Ursprung frühchristlicher Askese’, Z.T.K. LXI (1964), 32–49;Google Scholar for Matthew cf. also pp. 53–61. Cf. also Quispel, G., Makarios, das Thomasevangelium und das Lied von der Perle (1967), especially pp. 6, 21 f., 7, 47, 110.Google Scholar This church differs from that under Pauline influence by its understanding of a life in charity and even asceticism as a fulfilment of God's commandment, not as a ‘gift’ (I Cor. xii. 31; vii. 7) and from Jewish-Christian groups by its openness to the Gentile world and its non-interest in relatives of the earthly Jesus.