———————————————————
———————————————————
1. Some documents emphasize "authority" over demons in contexts referring to commanding them or manipulating them for magical purposes (e.g., Test. Sol. 1:5). but Jesus and his disciples just silenced them and cast them out (e.g., Mk 1:22-27).
2. The tradition of the Twelve — which is older than any given list of the names themselves — is a nearly certain bedrock tradition going back to the historical Jesus (Sanders 1985: 11, 98-101; Witherington 1990: 126-27). (In contrast to the slight variations in the canonical lists, one may compare the forms in the Apostolic Church Orders and the Epistola Apostolorum — Lake 1979b: 41.) Most Jewish people expected an eschatological restoration of the lost tribes (e.g., Tob 13:6; 2 Macc 2:18; Ps. Sol. 8:28; Test. Benj. 9:2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:3; Gen. Rab. 98:9; Sanders 1985: 96-97; for their mythical place of exile, cf. 4 Ezra 13:40; Gen. Rab. 73:6; Pesiq. R. 31:10), though some dissent seems to have arisen (m. Sanh. 10:5; t. Sanh. 13:12).
3. Most scholars acknowledge this: e.g., Gundry 1982: 183; Smith 1951: 1; Cullmann 1956b: 15; idem 1953: 22n.24; F. F. Bruce 1972b: 93; Filson 1964: 52; Klausner 1979b: 284n.ll. The rabbis used qannaim more broadly than for Zealots only (cf. Salomonsen 1966).
4. The epithet must be significant in some respect because Simon alone receives it (Witherington 1990: 98); France thinks that, while the term did not connote a revolutionary this early, it might have already depicted the sort of zeal for God's rule that led to the later party (1985: 177), perhaps rooted in the model of Phinehas (Num 25:7-13; 1 Macc 2:23-27, 50; cf. Ps 106:28-31; 1QH 14.13-15).
5. Some go so far as to argue Peter's primacy in Matthew from this position in the list, comparing the position of the firstborn in OT genealogies (Salerno 1980); since this list is not a genealogy, one should not press nuances of the "firstborn," but the parallel is instructive in informing us
that the sequence is significant. In this case even Overman 1990b: 136-40 may read too much into"first" to think it suggests development of authority within the community (against which Matthew must work in 23:7-8). For Peter's title, see comment on 16:17-18.
6. Cullmann 1956b: 15; idem 1953: 22n.25 relates it to "Sicarius," hence a revolutionary, but this is too early for this title and he surely was not the son of a sicarius as well (Jn 6:71; 13:26; Witherington 1990: 98; Brown 1994: 1414-15); Filson 1964: 52 and others suggest "man of Kerioth," perhaps in southern Judea (Josh 15:25). After Brown 1994: 1413-16 surveys the major proposals and the evidence against them, he concludes that the specific meaning had probably been forgotten even by the time of the evangelists.
7. Simon was perhaps the most popular name of the period (Fitzmyer 1974: 105-12), requiring a distinguishing name to accompany it ("Peter," "son on Jonah," etc.). Although a Greek name, it functioned as the equivalent for the biblical and Jewish "Simeon" (Brown 1994: 915) and was common for Jews {CIJ 1:117, §165; 2:117, §890; 2:126, §905; CPJ 1:29; 3:191-92). Given the few extant traditions about most of the disciples, the production of two similarly named persons to harmonize divergent traditions (as in Diod. Sic. 4.4.1-5; Arrian Alex. 2.16.1-3; 4.28.2; Indica 5.13) is unlikely here.
8. Sanders 1993: 123-24 doubts that the disciples were as misunderstanding as the Second Gospel implies or as independent as this passage implies; otherwise it would be difficult to reconcile the two pictures. Yet even in Mark Jesus expects the disciples to exercise more faith, and it is only the especially difficult cases (like Mk 9:18-19, 28-29//Mt 17:16-20) that stump them. Disciples were sometimes known to fall short of their masters' faith (cf. 2 Kings 5:20; 6:15-17; the later story about Levi ben Sisi and two generations after him in p. Ta'an. 3:8, §2). Since Matthew does not report the results of their mission, it would actually be Mark (if either of them) who would be exaggerating their success (Mk 6:13; cf. Malina 1993: 131).
9. Matthew's application for his own generation is often acknowledged; see, e.g., F. F. Bruce 1972a: 68; Morosco 1979; Beare 1981: 252; Edersheim: 295; Meier 1980: 102-3; Theissen 1991: 55; Bartnicki 1988; Doohan 1988; pace Schweitzer 1968: 361; Wilkinson 1974b. Meier 1980: 102 notes that Matthew also meshes Mark and Q material (the latter found in Lk 10:1-20).
10. Similarly, the Jewish aristocracy (Jos. Life 28-29) clearly used such agents (Jos. Life 65, 196-98), who commanded widespread respect (Life 72-73). Nevertheless, this background by itself would be too narrow to explain "apostleship" (contrast De Ridder 1971b: 124-26).
11. Pagans had also long observed the sancitity. hence inviolability, of heralds (e.g., Horn. II. 1.334; 7.274-82; 8.517; Eurip. Children of Heracles 272; Herodian 6.4.6), and demanded accuracy of them (e.g., Eurip. Children of Heracles 292-93). Letters of recommendation frequently identify the sender with one he recommended (Malherbe 1983; 102-3).
12. Schmithals 1969; 108 objects that the evidence for sending agents by twos (Mk 6:7; Lk 10:1: Acts 13) is late and rare; but while most rabbinic evidence is by its nature late, it is abundant (cf. p. Rosh Hash. 2:8, §4; quite abundantly, Liefeld 1967: 225-27; cf. Jeremias 1971: 235). He further neglects the historic model of paired heralds traversing a distance (e.g., Horn. II. 1.320; see Gordon 1965a: 110) as well as the frequent custom of disciples (Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 144; Safrai 1974/76a: 968). Matthew's arrangement of the disciples' names by twos may hint at Mark's pairs (Hill 1972: 183).
13. Some Jewish teachers viewed as agents Moses (Sifra Behuq. pq. 13.277.1.13-14; ARN 1 A, MSS), Aaron (Sifra Sav Mekhilta DeMiluim 98.9.6), the Old Testament prophets (Mek. Pisha 1.87; ARN 37, §95 B; as ambassadors, see ARN 34A), or, most generally, anyone who carried out God's will (Sifra Sav Mekhilta DeMiluim 98.9.5). Jewish teachers who saw the prophets as God's commissioned messengers were consistent with the portrait of prophets in their Scriptures; Israel's prophetic messenger formulas echo ancient Near Eastern royal messenger formulas such as, "Thus says the great king," often addressing Israel's vassal kings for the suzerain king Yahweh (Holladay 1970: 31-34; Rabe 1976: 127; cf. Judg 11:15; 2 Kings 18:19). OT perspectives on prophets inform the early Christian view of apostleship (Grudem 1982: 43-54), although they do not exhaust its meaning (cf. Hill 1979: 116-17); early Christianity clearly maintained the continuance of the prophetic office (Acts 11:27; 21:10; 1 Cor 12:28), while seeming to apply to apostles the special sort of position accorded only certain prophets in the OT (such as prophet-judges like Deborah and Samuel, and other leaders of prophetic schools like Elijah and Elisha).
14. Concern for the marginalized of Israel, as against the elite rulers, may also be implicit in Matthew's understanding of the "lost sheep"; see Levine 1988: 56.
15. Perhaps Matthew prepared for this saying in advance by using Jesus as a model in 4:15, which purposely locates him on a "way" near Gentiles. In the context of his whole Gospel, Mark's account of the sending of the Twelve (Mk 6:7-13) may also imply a universal commission; cf. Anthonysamy 1980.
16. Cynics typically wore rough robes (e.g., Epict. Disc. 3.22.10; cf. 4.8.12, 15) and carried only a bag and a staff (Epict. Disc. 3.22.10; Crates Ep. 16, 23, 33; Diog. Ep. 6, 7, 13, 19, 26, 30, 46; Diog. Laert. 6.1.13; 6.2.22-23, 33, 76; cf. Anacharsis Ep. 5). Many of these references also emphasize that Cynics let their beards grow long, but coins indicate that Palestinian Jews in this period generally already had beards, so this feature of Cynic lifestyle would not be relevant to mention. Liefeld 1967; 167-79 treats the distinctive cloaks of many philosophers and religious figures and notes that some kinds of philosophers — not just Cynics — traveled with only one.
17. Mark very likely toned down the more radical formulation in Q (see Lk 10:4; Boring 1982: 145), yet even Mark is stricter than the Cynics, and the historical Jesus very likely was stricter (cf. Thompson 1985: 182). Pace Mack and Crossan, the likeliest direct point of contact with the Cynics in the Jesus tradition is a contrast, possibly even deliberate, rather than an analogy (e.g., Witherington 1994: 126).
18. Even Cynics carried staffs when traveling, as did beggars (e.g., Aristoph. Acharn. 448). Aside from aiding on steep paths, they provided protection against animals like snakes (Schweizer 1975: 239; Gundry 1982: 186) and especially "human attackers," perhaps suggesting that this saying implies pacifism in the face of attack (Davies and Allison 1991: 173, who note that this was more restrictive than the Essenes viewed it — Jos. War 2.125 — and so radical that Origen used it as an argument against taking the Bible literally — De princ. 4.3.3).
19. Still, those traveling on foot would probably have carried little besides what they "could carry with ease" (Llewelyn 1994: 88-89).
20. Hospitality implied a potential reciprocal obligation, to be fulfilled when the host himself might be in need; but because they brought a spiritual gift of far greater worth than the hospitality they sought, they fulfilled their reciprocal obligation immediately (cf. Crates Ep. 2; Rom 1:11); indeed, the initial burden of obligation lay primarily on the host (1 Cor 9:14; 1 Tim 5:18). Liefeld may be correct that Jewish people disliked the lower-class Greek philosophers' method of simply preaching on streets (a method including but not limited to Cynics); thus Jesus may have encouraged his disciples to work from homes when possible (cf. Acts 18:7; 20:20; Liefeld 1967: 208-9).
21. By extension Q's "food" of which laborers were worthy could easily become Luke's "wages," but Schwarz 1992 specifically finds behind both the same Aramaic term.
22. Many commentators find this background here: e.g., Manson 1979: 76; Gundry 1982: 190; Nineham 1977: 170; Lake and Cadbury 1979: 160; Anderson 1976: 164; Witherington 1990: 137; Hagner 1993: 273. On the uncleanness of pagan soil, see Jos. Apion 2.203; m. Ţohar. 4:5; Ohol. 18:6.
23. The act was purely symbolic; more prominent Roman roads were paved (Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 37).
24. For the expression "day of judgment," meaning the final judgment here and in 11:22, cf. also Jdt 16:17; 1 Enoch 10:6, 12; 84:4; 94:9; 96:8; 97:3; 98:8; 99:15; Jub. 24:30; 36:10; lQpHab 12.14; 13.2-3; 1QM 1.11; 7.5; 1 Jn 4:17; 4 Ezra 7:38; 2 Enoch 50:4, 5A; 51:3; Ps. Sol. 15:12; Test. Levi 1:1; cf. Test. Moses 1:18.
25. Later Jewish texts also employ Sodom as the epitome of immorality (e.g., Sir 16:8; Jub. 36:10; 3 Macc 2:5; t. Sanh. 13:8; Shab. 7:23; Sifra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.3; Sifre Deut. 43.3.5; b. Sanh. 109ab; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:2; Gen. Rab. 41:7; 50:5, 7; Song Rab. 8:9, §2; Test. Naph. 4:1; Asher 7:1; Benj. 9:1; cf. CIJ 1:417, §567; Katzoff 1987/88; Bodendorfer-Langer 1994); cf. 4Q180.2-4.8.2.7 (Sodom as a burnt offering) in Lange 1993.
26. Judgment for ignorantly rejecting, and blessings for unwittingly accepting, divine messengers occurs frequently in ancient literature, both Greco-Roman (Horn. Od. 1.105, 113-35; 17.484-87; Ovid Metam. 1.212-13; 2.698; 5.451-61; 6.26-27; 8.621-29; Paus. 3.16.2-3; cf. Acts 14:11-12; other examples of disguised deities approaching mortals abound, e.g., in Horn. It. 4.86-87, 121-24; 13.43-45, 69, 215-16, 356-57; 14.136; 16.715-20; 17.71-73, 322-26, 554-55, 582-83; 20.79-81; 21.284-86, 599-611; Od. 1.420; 2.267-68, 382-87, 399-401; 6.21-22; 7.19-20; 8.8, 193-94; Ovid Metam. 1.676; 14.765-71) and Jewish (e.g., Heb 13:2; cf. Gen 18; Tob 5:4-6, 12; 9:1-5; Philo Abr. 114; the shipwreck victim who turned out to be the king in Qoh. Rab. 11:1).
27. So much was persecution a guarantee for a true disciple (2 Tim 3:12) that the leaders of the apostolic church would probably have questioned the authenticity of the witness of those not experiencing any (cf., e.g., 5:11-12; Acts 5:41; 14:22; Gal 5:11; 1 Thess 3:3; Rev 1:9).
28. One may compare the peristasis catalogues, or hardship lists, in Greek philosophic literature and elsewhere (Fitzgerald 1988: 47-49; Hodgson 1983; cf. Jub. 23:13; 4 Macc 18:2-3; Test. Jos. 1:4-7; such catalogues may have roots or an analogy in the earlier Herculean labor tradition — Alexander 1993: 59-60; cf. Epict. Disc. 1.6.32-33), which apostles in the Greek world could adapt as a sign of perseverance and genuineness, both for themselves (1 Cor 4:9-13; 2 Cor 4:8-10) and for the church (Rom 8:33-39).
29. At least as early as the Neo-Assyrian Empire some used doves in treaties (Begg 1989a). They were, however, hardly heralds of "peace" in all texts; a dove (peleias), perhaps meaning the oracle at Dodona, stirred two nations to war (Aelian On Animals 11.27); elsewhere a dove could function as a decoy (Aelian Animals 13.17).
30. A later rabbi said that Israel was innocent like doves before God but shrewd like serpents before the nations (Song Rab. 2:14, §1); the tradition on which he draws may be later than Jesus. Some ancient Near Eastern cultures viewed serpents as prudent (Carson 1984b: 246), but standing alone the image would not be a pleasant one to Jewish hearers (Gen 3:1-2 LXX). If left to themselves, doves, conversely, could easily be deceived (Hos 7:11; Phaedrus 1.31; Vermes 1993: 90 also cites rabbinic interpretation). Cunning that one viewed as "wisdom" another might envision as deceit, as in traditions about Odysseus (Soph. Philoct. 54-55, 107-9, 119, 431, 1228).
31. Warning of beatings in the synagogue likely derives from the earliest stratum of Gospel tradition, when (or before) disciples remained in submission to the discipline of their synagogue communities (Anderson 1976: 293). This is the period when the Jesus tradition would have been transmitted most reliably. Matthew's own audience probably remains subject to this, however (Setzer 1994: 38).
32. Cf. t. Hag. 2:9; Sanh. 7:1. Diod. Sic. 40.3.5 supposes that Moses appointed priests to function as judges.
33. Biblical law prohibited more lashes than 40 (cf. also, e.g., 2 Cor 11:24; Jos. Ant. 4.238, 248; m. Kil. 8:3; Mak. 1:1-3; 3:3-5; b. Ketub. 33b; Num. Rab. 5:4; Deut. Rab. 2:18; superhuman beings sometimes received 60, as in b. B. Mes. 85a; Hag. 15a; but contrast 40 in b. Yoma 77a), but whereas Gentiles sometimes used 40 lashes (Petron. Sat. 105), they were not always so merciful, assigning even 100 stripes to slaves (Plato Laws 9.881C; Petron. Sat. 28; P. Hal. 1.188-89, 196-99). Later rabbis might allow fewer stripes if someone's physical constitution could not bear 39 (m. Mak. 3:11; p. Nazir 4:3, § 1), or in some cases monetary payment in lieu of the flogging (b. Ketub. 32ab).
34. This punishment may have been rarer in Diaspora courts (cf. p. Mak. 1:8, §1). It could apply to technical blasphemy (cursing with God's name, Pesiq. R. 22:6), breaking ritual law (t. Tem. 1:1), including violating festivals (p. Besa 5:2, § 11; cf. m. Pesaḥ. 7:11), or breaking a Nazirite vow (m. Nazir 4:3), but one could be beaten for more questionable infractions (as Akiba presumably was in Sifra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.3; but the punishment is not corporal in the parallel in Sifre Deut. 1.3.2), including questionable teaching (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3; Gen. Rab. 7:2; Num. Rab. 19:3, 19; Qoh. Rab. 7:23, §4; Pesiq. R. 14:9). At least Hillelite Pharisees may have supported the later custom of making certain the person was warned before flogging him (p. Ter. 7:1) and being conservative on the offenses for which flogging was appropriate (b. Pesaḥ. 24b). The flogging could be repeated more than once if necessary, in extreme cases (b. Ker. 15a; Pesaḥ. 24a).
35. Davies and Allison 1991: 183 note reports of floggings in synagogues (23:24; Acts 22:19; Euseb. H.E. 5.16) but suggest that, if rabbinic reports are relevant here, the language may be used loosely (perhaps instrumentally) for discipline at the order of synagogue officials, since it took place outside the synagogue building proper (citing m. Mak. 3:12 on the reasonable assumption that the person was not bound to a pillar and whipped inside).
36. Schweitzer made this verse central to his eccentric construct of Jesus' eschatology; his interpretation fails to "reckon with the composite character of the chapter" (Ladd 1974: 200; cf. Glasson 1963b: 99). Schweitzer came to this view before critically evaluating the Gospel sources, then continued to endorse it (see Perrin 1963: 32-33). Bultmann, by contrast, saw part of it as a spurious addition in view of the Matthean community's sufferings, ignoring the Mishna parallel (Albright and Mann 1971: 125). Nevertheless, the verse could be authentic and even stem from Q; Luke would probably have dropped the verse (Theissen 1991: 55), though its alleged confidence regarding the Jewish mission (Theissen's argument for pre-Matthean earliness in 1991: 55-56) may also misread the verse, given m. Soţa 9:15. The interpretations of Jeremias (1958: 20) and Sabourin (1977) fail to interpret the saying properly in the context of the Jesus tradition as a whole.
37. Smith 1951: 153 cites a parallel in Sifra in which God and Israel are the master and servants in this saying; if Jesus' saying depends on the one later recorded in Sifra this passage presents Jesus' deity, but the fact and direction of dependence are unclear (cf. also the later Pesiq. R. 36:2, which applies it to God and the Messiah).
38. Because bilingual readers could render "Beelzebul" as "head of the household" (10:25; cf. MacLaurin 1978; Jeremias 1971: 7; Meier 1980: 111; Hagner 1993: 282), Jesus' lecture here may involve a wordplay, as was common in ancient instruction. His accusers played on the pagan Baal-Zebub, originally a local form of the Baal cult in Ekron (2 Kings 1:2). Stein 1997 thinks Beelzebub here represents the demonized Baal, not the devil per se; proposed associations with "flies" might also link the term with evil (b. Ber. 61a).
39. I assume an allusion here to the end time due to the context and the sense in Mark, although the saying in its Matthean context could refer merely to making Jesus' words known (cf. 11:25; Mk 4:22; Lk 8:17; 12:2; for varied applications cf. Jeremias 1972: 221n.66; Gundry 1982: 196). Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 90 argue that Jesus' audience would have heard the words positively, given villagers' suspicion of secrecy. For the revelation of what is hidden, see 1 Enoch 63:3; Mt 6:4; 11:25; 13:35, 44; Rom 2:16; 1 Cor 4:5; 1 Tim 5:24; for earlier deeds later coming to light, cf. Diod. Sic. 14.1.1-2.
40. Greeks and Romans often distinguished soul and body (e.g., Arist. N.E. 1.12.6, 1102a; Soul 1.5, 411b; Sail. Catil. 1.2, 7; Diog. Laert. Lives 3.63; Heraclitus Ep. 9, to Hermodorus; Crates Ep. 3; Epict. Disc. 1.25.21; Diog. Ep. 39, to Monimus; Plut. Plat. Q. 3.1, Mor. 1002B; Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. 1.79: Marc. Aur. Med. 6.32; Greek Anth. 7.109; cf. Long 1974: 171; la Croce 1981; Isaacs 1976: 15), even at times in animals (Arist. Pol. 1.2.10, 1254a), and generally believed in the soul's immortality (Herod. Hist. 2.123; Porphyry Life of Pyth. 19; Plato Phaedo 64CE, 80DE; Phaedrus 245C; Rep. 10.611BC; Laws 8.828D; Cic. Tusc. Disp. 1.8.18-24; De Senect. 20.78; Diog. Laert. Lives 6.1.5; 8.1.14, 28; 8.5.83; Dion. Hal. 8.62.1; Plut. Divine Vengeance 17, Mor. 560B; Sen. Dial. 6.26.7; 12.11.7; Ep. Lucil. 57.9; Apul. Metam. 11.6; Plot. Ennead 4.7-8; 7.12, 14; cf. Egyptian Book of Dead, spell 20, T.l.2-3; 30, P-l; 31a, P-l; 35a, P-l; 53, P-l; 79, P-l, S-2; 124; 177, P-l; PGM 4.646-48. 748-49; Nilsson 1957: 116-32; Lodge 1928: 394-409; Patterson 1965), with notable exceptions (e.g., Diog. Laert. 10.124-25; Lucretius Afar. 3.417-829; cf. Bels 1982). Many Greeks even saw the body as a tomb (soma-sema), e.g., Plato Cratylus 400BC; Phaedo 64-67; Plut. Isis 5, 28, Mor. 353A, 362B; Epict. Disc. 1.9.11-12; 3.13.17; 4.7.15; Fr. 26; Marc. Aur. Med. 3.7; 4:5, 41; 6.28; 11.3; Plot. Ennead 1.7.3.20-21; Patterson 1965: 20-21; Guthrie 1966: 154-58; cf. also hellenistic Jewish and Christian authors, e.g., Philo Som. 1.138-39; Virt. 67; Jos. War 2.155; 4 Ezra 7:96; Ep. Diogn. 6; Nock 1964b: 263; Hagner 1971: 85. Contrary to most commentators, most extant early Jewish writers also distinguished body and soul (e.g., Wis 9:15; 2 Macc 7:37; 14:38; Ep. Arist. 139; 236; Jos. Apion 2.203; 1 Enoch 22:7; 102:5; Test. Job 20:3; Test. Sim. 2:5; 4:8; Naph. 2:2-3; Asher 2:6; 4 Ezra 7:78; Apoc. Ezek. 1-2; Ps-Philo 3:10; t. Sanh. 13:2, 4; Sifre Deut. 306.28.3; b. Ber. 10a; 60b; Yoma 20b, bar.; Gen. Rab. 14:3, 9; Lev. Rab. 4:8; 34:3; Deut. Rab. 2:37; Qoh. Rab. 6:6-7, §1; Pesiq. R. 31:2; cf. Urbach 1979: 1:218-22, 248-49; Gundry 1976: 87-109) and usually seem to have regarded the latter as immortal, at least for the righteous (Sir 9:12; Jos. War 1.84; 2.154-55, 163; 7.341-48; An?. 17.354; 18.14, 18; Philo Air. 258\Mos. 2.288; Test. Abr. 1.24-25A; 4, 9B; Ps-Phocyl. 108; Apoc. Mos. 13:6; 32:4; 33:2; Jos. and Asen. 27:10; Wolfson 1968: 395-413), albeit with exceptions (1 Macc 2:63; Jos. Ant. 18.16). The departure of the soul meant the body's death (Bar 2:17; Wis 16:14; Qoh. Rab. 5:10, §2; James 2:26; cf. Lucretius Nat. 3.121-23, 323-49).
41. Pace Vermes 1993: 86-87, the logion was not "distorted in the process of transmission" (based on divergence from the rabbinic lesson); God's sovereignty is assumed in the saying.
42. In its Matthean context, the line may mean that no sparrow nor disciple may suffer apart from God's plan, just as Jesus died according to God's purposes (16:21; 26:39; Cook 1988).
43. Although I think this interpretation more likely, one should also note Allison 1990, who thinks the text alludes to God in his omniscience counting hairs (Ps 40:12; 69:4), hence knowing rather than protecting. Allusion to a single hair figuratively represented what was tiny (cf. Pub. Syr. 186).
44. Jews were influenced by pagan ideas of Fate and Fortune (e.g., inscription in Carmon 1973: 100, 216; Gersht 1984; Sib. Or. 1.40. 294; 3.502,513, 517, 571-72; 5.215,227, 230, 245, 324;II.221; Ep. Arist. 201), though most undoubtedly viewed these as identical with or executioners of God's purposes (see, e.g., Wis 19:4; Ep. Arist. 17, 195, 197, 210, 227, 231, 237-39, 243, 244, 246, 248, 251, 252, 255, 256, 266-72, 274, 276, 278, 282, 287, 290; Sib. Or. 1.304; 3 Macc 4:21; Ps-Philo 13:6; Test. Moses 12:4; Test. Job 37). For Josephus's historiography, see, e.g., War 2.162-65; 6.84, 268; Ant. 8.409, 419; 13.172-73; 18.13, 54; Bilde 1979; Martin 1981; Attridge 1986: 327; on Philo, see Winston 1976: 14-15.
45. From the classical period (e.g., Demosth. Or. 60, Funeral Speech 2\\4th Philippic 38; Answer to Philip's Letter 15; On the Crown 289; Isoc. Demon. 29, Or. 1; Panegyricus 26, Or. 4) on (e.g., ILS 1980 in Sherk 1988: 238; CIL 6.32323.90-92 in ibid. 21; Mart. Epig. 4.73; 7.47; Juv. Sat. 9.135-36; 12.63-65; Plut. Poetry 6, Mor. 23DE; Dio Chrys. 64th Disc. 8), the view that Fate or Fortune was sovereign prevailed. Some philosophers probably influenced the growth of this idea, though others contended for free will (cf., e.g., comments in Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus 134 in Grant 1953: 160; Lucretius Nat. 1.455-58; Cic. De Fato; Topica 15.59; Sen. Dial. 6.16.5; 7.23.2; Ep. Lucil. 54.7; Epict. Disc. 1.6; 1.12.25; 3.17; Plut. On Fate, Mor. 568B-74F; Chance, Mor. 97C-100A; Quint. 5.7.35; Marc. Aur. Med. 2.3; 4.2; 12.1.1; Diog. Laert. 1.35; 7.1.149; 9.1.7; 9.7.45; 10.144.16; Philost. V.A. 8.31; Plot. 3.1.10; in Stoicism in particular, see Murray 1915: 40-41; Long 1974: 163-70), but eastern astrology probably had a larger influence on the masses. The deities sometimes exercised more autonomy, especially in the earlier period (Paus. 8.37.1), but Fate often reigned even over gods (e.g., Herod. Hist. 1.91; Sen. Dial. 1.5.8; Jos. Apion 2.245); as Fate's dominance grew, many appealed to deities that they believed could free them from it (Horsley 1981: 20; Isis aretalogy in Grant 1953: 133; PGM 4.662-73; Apul. Metam. 11.6, 15). Burial inscriptions repeatedly emphasize the inevitability of Fate (e.g., Horsley 1987: 20-21, 25, 33-34; CIL 2.4313 in Sherk 1988: 168; CIL 11.1421 in ibid., 34; cf. Quint. 6.preface 1-2; Sen. Apocol. 3).
46. The prophecy of Rev 3:5 reflects the original Jesus tradition rather than the reverse; for Aramaisms in the Gospel saying, see Burkitt 1910: 19-20. Whereas Abrahams (1924: 192) doubts the Jewish use of periphrasis parallel to "angels/God" in Mt 10:32-33//Lk 12:8 (cf. Mt 18:14 with Lk 15:10), McNamara (1972: 95) thinks it common.
47. Garland 1993: 118 cites Jewish traditions in which the Messiah would establish peace (Is 9:5-7; m. 'Ed. 8:7). The logion is surely authentic; to "cast peace" in the Lukan parallel is also Semitic (Witherington 1990: 121), and "I came" bears marks of authenticity (Semitisms, Qumran parallels — Witherington 1990: 120; Hill 1979: 66-67). Lk 12:51 renders the graphic Semitic idiom in less dramatic Greek ("division").
48. Matthew Black associates the "sword" with the final war against Belial in the Scrolls (1984: 287-94), but because it was standard metonymy for violence and war in Jewish literature (e.g., Gen 27:40; Ex 5:3; Jer 14:12; 15:2; 39:18; 41:2; 42:16-17; Ezek 5:2, 12, 17; 6:3, 8, 11-12; Mic 5:6; 6:14; Nah 2:13; Hag 2:22; Rom 8:35; Rev 6:4; 1 Enoch 14:6; 88:2; 90:19; 91:11-12; Jub. 5:9; 9:15; 20:6; 22:8; 23:22; CD 1.4; 1QM 11.11-12; 12.11-12; 15.3; 16.1; lQpHab6.10; 4QpNah 2.5; 2 Bar. 27:3-5; Sib. Or. 3.316, 689; Test. Jud. 23:3; t. B. Qam. 7:6; Sukk. 2:6), the sense need not be so narrow (cf. Tannehill 1975: 141-44, noting also the metaphorical and hyperbolic components of the image). Davies and Allison 1991: 218 list texts in which the sword represents eschatological judgment or suffering (including, e.g., Jub. 9:15; 1 Enoch 90:19; 91:11-12; 4QPsDan Aa; Ps. Sol. 15:7); for other examples, see Witherington 1990: 122.
49. This saying may be attested in a different form among so-called agapha (Jeremias 1964c: 76). Other passages in the Gospel tradition show that Jesus was not antifamily (5:32; 15:4-6; 19:9), but some ancient teachers may have been. Many Stoics, while upholding household codes, also despised relatives who did not share their philosophy (Diog. Laert. 7.1.33; Epict. Disc. 3.3.5; 3.15.11); Hesiod W.D. 182-85, 188-89 viewed children's ingratitude as a sign of the end time.
50. Hill 1972: 194, tentatively following McNeile 1915: 147, suggests that Jesus may have been hinting that he was not the messianic herald Elijah; one must evaluate this interpretation based on its cohesiveness with the rest of the Jesus tradition since the saying may, but need not, be read thus.
51. In Pauline tradition this initial determination becomes itself a death to one's own right to make selfish choices (e.g., Rom 6:3-4; cf. Col 3:3, 5).
52. This repeats the more general shaliah principle, which appears in this chapter (see comment on 10:5), but is most obvious here, with Jesus as God's agent and the disciples as his followers (with Witherington 1990: 136, 143; Davies and Allison 1991: 226-27).
53. Some later teachers said that you should reckon the good you hear from a child as if you had heard it from an adult; from an adult, as if from a sage; from Moses, as if from God (p. Sanh. 10:1, §9). Jesus expresses greater respect for one whose status is that of a child. The Ethiopic Jewish work Te'ezaza Sanbat, in which God declares that those who honor his Sabbath honor him and who reject his Sabbath reject him, is probably later (pace Boring 1995: 113).
54. Davies and Allison 1991: 229 suggest that "little ones" derives from depictions of the oppressed righteous in apocalyptic circles (citing Zech 13:7; 1 Enoch 62:11; 2 Bar. 48:19; the first reference derives from a context significant in early Christian apologetic — cf. comment on Mt 26:31, including eschatological use in the DSS). Vermes 1993: 162n.l2 compares Qumran's "simple" ones (lQpHab 12.4; 1QH 2.9).
55. Others suggest that the text applies especially to harboring persecuted church leaders and disciples (Gundry 1982: 201-2). Some hold that "little ones" in Matthew refers especially to the least honored disciples rather than all disciples in general (cf. Agourides 1984).