———————————————————

———————————————————

———————————————————

1. If Mark uses this geographical reference to allude back to the Baptist's primary sphere of influence, he may portray the Pharisees as attempting to lure Jesus into condemning the sort of behavior in which Herodias had engaged (Mk 10:12; 6:17), thus leading Jesus to the same harm as his predecessor (Rhoads and Michie 1982: 87). This thesis questionably presupposes, however, that Mark's audience knew data about Herodias that he had failed to supply them.

2. Questions of lawfulness dominate (cf. 12:2; 20:15; 22:17; 27:6). The structure of the argument here seems to reflect that of what later became rabbinic debate (cf. Zimmerman 1962; Fjarstedt 1968). Just as Matthew's citation of Genesis here is more eclectic than Mark's (which is closer to the Septuagint — Stendahl 1968: 59), Matthew also presents an argument that better suits the Palestinian Jewish milieu (and may thus be closer to the way the questions were framed — cf. Keener 1991a: 38).

3. Many commentators note the influence of that first-century debate here (e.g., von Dobschutz 1995: 33; Filson 1960: 206; Argyle 1963: 51-52; Swidler 1976: 231n.225; Gundry 1982: 377; Ilan 1996: 142; Overman 1996: 82, 279; pace Meier 1979: 248-53; idem 1980: 215). For the development of divorce in later Jewish law into the modern period, see Brayer 1968: 18-22.

4. Also p. Sota 1:1, §2. The minimum standard of the more liberal Hillelites seems to have accorded more with general practice on this issue, as attested by Sirach (25:26), Philo (Spec. Leg. 3.30), and Josephus (Ant. 4.253; Life 415, 426; cf. Safrai 1974/76b: 790). although these writers may have been accommodating hellenistic practice (Gentile customs prevailed in many respects even among Jewish people near Palestine; see, e.g., CPJ 2:10-12, §144; Wasserstein 1989). The coexistence of parties with different views required legal toleration of the more lenient position, hence ultimately securing (along with later Hillelite dominance) the view's broader acceptance.

5. Heth and Wenham rightly suggest (1984: 129) that Jesus must have been stricter than the Shammaites because his disciples said, "Then it is better not to marry" (19:10). Jesus is stricter, however, merely because he called remarriage adultery; Shammaites could not invalidate Hillelite marriages.

6. Sigal 1986: 93 opines that Jesus interprets Deut 24:1 based on Mai 2:14-16; but Gen 2 is clearly the primary basis for Jesus' alternate reading. For various interpretations of Deut 24:1-4 (including LXX; Philo Spec. Leg. 3.30-31; Jos. Ant. 4.253), see Neudecker 1994.

7. The beginning indicates the creation narrative in Rom 1:20; 4 Ezra 4:30; Ps-Philo 1:1; 32:7; incant. text 20:11 -12; Test. Mos. 1:12-13; 12:4; 1 Enoch 69:18; cf. 4 Ezra 6:38; Pryke 1978: 39. As in Greek literature (e.g., Hesiod Theog. 452; Diog. Laert. 10.1.75), it refers to the primeval period in general, not always the moment of creation.

8. Many have thought that the Qumranites applied this passage to prohibiting divorce as well as polygamy (Schubert 1971: 27; Mueller 1980), but the Qumran texts themselves explicitly prohibit only polygamy here (Keener 1991a; 40-41; cf. Vermes 1974; Nineham 1977: 265; Yadin 1972). A few rabbis, who allowed polygamy but felt that it was not the ideal (cf. m. 'Abot 2:7; b. Yebam. 65a), also appealed to Genesis (ARN 2, §9B; on Jewish polygyny in general, see Ilan 1996: 85-88). In contrast to some other peoples (Diod. Sic. 2.58.1; 1.80.3; Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. 3.205, 213), Greeks and Romans mandated monogamy in their society (e.g., Gaius Inst. 1.63; Justinian Codex 9.18; Dion. Hal. 11.28.4), according to their customs (cf. Eurip. Androm. 465-93, 909); the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch reading (the "two" become one) probably supports this practice (Daube 1973: 81; cf. Bowman 1977: 311), and Matthew here concurs with Mark's use of the Greek version.

9. See further Keener 1992: 114-15; Ilan 1996: 125 on Jewish precedents for women drawn from the Eve story.

10. Jesus' "what God joined" would not be controversial; although the rabbis permitted divorce, they agreed that God arranged marriages (Lachs 1987: 326-27; see my comment on 1:1-17), as did many pagan thinkers (Boring 1995: 117 cites Muson. Ruf. Is Marriage a Handicap for the Pursuit of Philosophy?; SIG 3.1267). Some have connected Jesus' argument here concerning what God joined together to a traditional Jewish notion that the original human of Gen 1:26-27, being both male and female, was androgynous (Daube 1956: 343, 346; idem 1973: 72; ARN 37, §94 B; b. Ber. 61a; Gen. Rab. 8:1; 14:7), although this was only one tradition (cf. ARN 1 A; 8, §23B; Jub. 3:7). For asex-uality (not androgynity) in Philo, cf. Baer 1970: 16-35. Meeks 1974: 185 finds the idea of an androgynous progenitor of humanity common in antiquity (suggesting, less plausibly, its assumption in Gal 3:28); in Greek tradition, cf. Guthrie 1966: 101; in Gnosticism, "Eugnostos the Blessed" and "The Sophia of Jesus Christ" (NHL 216-17). Although it seems safe to say that neither Matthew nor Mark plays on this concept of an original androgynous man (the rabbis similarly appear more interested in laws concerning the rare situation of hermaphrodites — t. Bik. 2:7; Sifra V. D. Den. pq. 18.31.2.1; Sifra Neg. par. 5.138.1.1; b. Hag. 4a; Nid. 28b; p. Hag. 1:1, §§5-6; Yebam. 8:6, §3; Lev. Rab. 14:1; in Greek reports, cf., e.g., Diod. Sic. 32.10.2-12.3; Livy 27.11.4; 27.37.5-7; Ovid. Metam. 4.368-79), this reading of the Genesis passage they cite may have informed the understanding of some members of their original audiences. Even pagans, however, could think simply of a deity uniting woman and man in marriage (Isis aretalogy in Horsley 1981: 19-20); pagans also spoke of sexual "unions" (e.g., Alexandrian Erotic Fragment, col. 1; Arist. Pol. 1.2.2, 1253b; cf. 1.2.21, 1255b).

11. See, e.g., Rev 22:1-3; 4 Ezra 8:52-54; Test. Levi 18:10-12; Test. Dan 5:12; m. 'Abot 5:20; cf. 24:21; Russell 1964: 280-84; Arrington 1978: 77-81.

12. Snodgrass 1996: 118 argues that some texts mandated divorce to protect the wife (Ex 21:11; Deut 21:14) and others forbade it for the same reason (Deut 22:19, 29); Jesus thus agrees with the purpose in both.

13. Based on the citation of Scripture in CD 4.20-5.2, Sanders regards the tradition that Jesus cited the creation narrative in defense of his divorce position as likely (1985: 257). Multiple attestation makes Jesus' divorce saying in 5:32, 19:9 one of the most assuredly attested passages, although the precise history of its transmission may be debated; cf. (too recently for inclusion in Keener 1991a), e.g., R. Collins 1992; Keener 1994; Force 1993.

14. This is not to depict the law negatively (cf. 5:17) but to regard the concession as temporary (McConnell 1969: 60).

15. If one presses the divorce saying literally rather than as hyperbole, however, one could not see it as supporting women, since "the prohibition against remarriage must have been devastating" (Schnackenburg 1996: 253).

16. Some later rabbis also concluded that one unfortunate corollary of remarriage, whether after divorce or widowhood, could be that one might be tempted to compare one former's spouse in bed; there could be "four minds in one bed" (b. Pesah. 112ab, Soncino tr.). Although the Markan form that applies the saying to wives as well could be a subdued criticism of the hellenized Jewish aristocracy (e.g., the actions of Salome, Herod's sister; Herodias; cf. de Vaux 1961: 35; Lane 1974a: 358; Stein 1980: 237; idem 1979: 118n.9; Witherington 1984: 27) and there is support for its rare occurrence in other circles of Jewish Palestine (Stein 1980: 237), it probably represents Markan accommodation to hellenistic Jewish practice (cf., e.g.. Elephantine — de Vaux 1961: 35) or Roman custom (Moule 1965: 77; Hardy 1962: 88). (The solution of Herron 1982 — that Jesus refers to desertion rather than divorce here — is less probable textually and also culturally problematic, since leaving without divorce would have been even harder for the woman.)

17. Although the early church viewed Matthew's exception clause as original (Nembach 1970: 171) and some think it authentic from Jesus (Lehmann 1960: 266) or at least preredactional (Guelich 1982: 206-10), more scholars today regard it as Matthean redaction (e.g., Goulder 1974: 25, 39; Gundry 1982: 90; Stenger 1984; note that Paul is unaware of it), though many of us suspect it articulates the implications of the more general saying (e.g., Smalley 1977: 190; Garland 1993: 68). Still, Mark has surely adapted the whole controversy narrative (Mk 10:2-12) for a Gentile audience, and Matthew has re-Judaized it, probably on the basis of Jewish-Christian tradition (cf. Hurtado 1983: 153). (On the textual problem, cf. recently, e.g., Marucci 1990; Holmes 1990).

18. E.g., the wife's adultery exempted the husband from paying the ketubah (Safrai 1974/76b: 790); among Romans, she lost much of her dowry (O'Rourke 1971: 182). Cf. Quint. Inst. Or. 7.4.11; in older times, Plut. Romulus 22.3. Roman and Jewish law mandated divorce for infidelity (e.g., Paulus Opinions 2.26.1-17 in Lefkowitz and Fant 1982: 182; Gardner 1986: 89; cf. even Herm. 2.4.1).

19. As held by many interpreters, e.g., Augustine Tractate on John 9.2.2; Adulterous Marriages 2.9.8 (ACCS, 136-37); Hauck/Schulz 1968: 592; Keener 1991a: 31-33; Hill 1972: 125, 281; Schweizer 1975: 124; Christiaens 1983; Carson 1984b: 414, 417; France 1985: 123; Sigal 1986: 102; Luz 1989: 304-5; de la Serna 1989; Wiebe 1989; Blomberg 1990b; Stein 1992a: 195; Davies 1993: 132; Allison 1993a; Carter 1994: 64-65; more tentatively, Davies and Allison 1988: 529-31; idem 1997: 16. For even suspected infidelity as grounds for divorce in Islamic societies today, cf. Delaney 1987: 41. Matthew may use porneia instead of "adultery" for rhetorical variation, as in LXX Jer 3:8- 9 (Sigal 1986: 97). Because of its association with "playing the prostitute," porneia sometimes represents marital infidelity in the LXX (e.g., Jer 2:20; 3:2, 9; Ezek 16:15; Hos 2:2, 4, 6; Amos 7:17; Sir 23:23). For continual rather than momentary misconduct, cf. Leenhardt 1969; Schweizer 1975: 124.

20. Justinian Dig. 48.5.1.prol.; Gardner 1986: 131-32; Richlin 1981: 227; Safrai 1974/76b: 762; Bockmuehl 1989.

21. Considine 1956 proposes ecclesiastical annulments here based on rejecting Christ (Considine 1956); Fleming 1963 that Jesus' public view allowed an exception for adultery, but his more private comments later forbade even that; Sabatowich 1987 that one does not cause the unfaithful woman to become adulterous because she already is (this seems too self-evident and tautological to require Matthew to include an exception clause); Lehmann 1960: 265 that the exception is only for Jews.

22. Although Jewish people felt that God tolerated brother-sister marriages in an earlier period (Gen 20:12; p. Sanh. 5:1, §4), Lev 18:9, 11 and Deut 27:22 ruled out subsequent brother-sister marriages (Sifre Num. 90.1.1), except perhaps for Gentile slaves (p. Yebam. 11:2, §3). Jewish people harshly condemned all kinds of incest (Gen 19:30-38; 49:3-4; Jub. 16:8; 33:1-14; 41:23-26; Philo Spec. Leg. 3.19; Jos. Ant. 17.341; Test. Reub. 1:6-10; Gk. Ezra 4:24; Sifre Deut. 246.1.2; p. Ned. 2:1, §4; Ta'an. 4:5, §8; Deut. Rab. 2:21; cf. Ps-Phocyl. 179-81) and considered the Jewish standard stricter than Gentile practice (e.g., Sifra Qed. par. 4.206.1.2; p. Qidd. 1:1, §2; cf. Jos. Ant. 20.18).

23. Cf. also Lewis 1983: 43; Gardner 1986: 36. In Nubia, see Adams 1977: 260; elsewhere, cf. Radcliffe-Brown 1965: 50. Greeks allowed nonuterine, half-sibling unions (e.g., Ach. Tat. 1.3.1-2).

24. Cf. Cohen 1966: 281; Gardner 1986: 35-37, 126-27; for the full horror among Greeks, see, e.g., Soph. Oed. Rex, with subsequent allusions (e.g., Epict. Disc. 1.24.16; Mart. Epig. 10.4.1; cf. Justin 1 Apol. 27). For rare exceptions, including philosophers and reports about Persians, see Herod. Hist. 3.31; Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. 1.152, 160; 3.205; Diog. Laert. 7.7.188; Philo Spec. Leg. 3.13; Tert. Apol. 9.16; Tatian 28; Theophilus 3.6; Beidelman 1971: 190. Claudius married his niece, but many regarded even this as shameful (Dio Cassius R.H. 61.31.6; Tac. Ann. 12.2; Suet. Claud. 39); exceptions were also made for deities (e.g., Burkert 1985: 178).

25. Graburn 1971: 324; Parsons 1971: 410; cf., e.g., Mbiti 1970: 179-80, 192; Evans-Pritchard 1951: 29-48; Firth 1963: 280-97. Incest invites punishment by deities or society (e.g., Wilson 1957: 134-35, 187; Evens 1983; Nukunya 1969: 68; Willner 1983: 152; Fortes 1950: 257; Needham 1971: 27).

26. See, e.g., Farber 1968: 59; Barth 1973: 6; Schapera 1950: 152, 156; cf. Gough 1973a: 433; Pitt-Rivers 94-95. Sometimes degrees of kinship also vary in amount of incest guilt (e.g., Elkins 1968: 171; Evens 1983: 126; Schlegel 1972: 12,69,76, 123-24); some cultures also provide rituals for removing incest guilt (e.g., Southall 1971: 159). A few cultures prohibit all first-cousin marriages (Farber 1968: 26-28, 31-32; for parallel cousins, Kuper 1950: 104), but most permit at least cross-cousin marriages (e.g., Mark 1967; Gough 1973b; Murphy and Kasdan 1967: 12). Some societies apply extended sibling terminology to forbidden cousins (e.g., Fields and Merrifield 1980: 27; Farber 1968: 94; on sibling terms, cf. further Goody 1970; Murdock 1968; Nerlove and Romney 1967; Faris 1969), but others apply sibling language to spouses (e.g., Song 4:9-12; 5:1; 8:1; ANET467-68; Haas 1969).

27. For this grammatical argument see Heth and Wenham 1984b: 117; G. Wenham 1984b; idem 1986; Hagner 1995: 549; Carter 1994: 66-68; cf. against this position Murray 1953: 39-43.

28. Cf. the interesting position in Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 121: remarriage is adultery, except in cases of unchastity, if one divorces in order to remarry; Young 1995: 115 defends the same position by citing m. Sota 5:1. In this case one would not even need to suppose much hyperbole, since desire for another had ended the marriage.

29. Heth and Wenham 1984b helpfully and skillfully summarize various positions, but while they repeatedly (and correctly) point out that none of the other views concurs with the infidelity interpretatio (which they characterize as the "Erasmian" and "evangelical" view), I would add that the other views also conflict with one another. Unless one gathers under one heading all interpretations harmonizing exception passages with general statements by minimizing the exception, all particular positions are minority positions, but the infidelity position probably claims more adherents than any other individual position. I believe that second- and third-century Christian writers, on whom Heth and Wenham heavily depend, reflect the rise of marital asceticism in the dominant culture and especially the church (cf. examples of the growth of asceticism coupled with misogyny, e.g., in Clark 1993), not the historical situation of the first century; the later view begins in Shepherd of Hermas, a document containing other similar tendencies (cf. my article on "Marriage, Divorce and Adultery" for InterVarsity Press's Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids, 712-17); patristic opinion against remarriage was "burdened by a less than enthusiastic view of marriage," and it is questionable whether "the later distinction between separation . . . and divorce . . . would have made much sense in Matthew's Jewish environment" (Davies and Allison 1997: 17). Luz argues that the Eastern Orthodox tradition allows remarriage in cases of adultery (1989: 308-9).

30. Following Blinzler, Tannehill suggests that Jesus originally uttered 19:12 in response to accusations about his remaining unmarried (1975: 137-38). Meier 1991a: 343 thinks that 19:12 was originally distinct from the divorce pericope, and that Matthew created 19:10-11 as a transition for it (see also R. Collins 1992: 119-20; cf. Vermes 1993: 145); but Wenham 1984a suggests that the tradition in Mt 19:11 may stand behind 1 Cor 7:7. Hilton and Marshal] 1988: 135 suggest that marriage was so standard that Jewish readers would infer Jesus' marriage, rather than his celibacy, from the silence. This burden of proof might normally obtain, yet if Jesus were married one might hope for some indications of provision for his wife in some of our texts (cf. Jn 19:26-27). For sound arguments that Jesus was after all celibate, see Meier 1991a: 332-45.

31. E.g., Gundry 1982: 377; Heth and Wenham 1984b: 88; R. Collins 1992: 127; cf. Cote 1986. By contrast, Davies and Allison 1997: 17 suggest that if one does link 19:10-12 with 19:9, it suggests freedom to remarry, because not all get the gift (19:12).

32. Nor is it fair to argue that Jesus would never affirm something his disciples said, except in 16:15-17 (Heth and Wenham 1984b: 61-62). That is also a Matthean insertion into Markan material; Matthew, less negative toward the disciples, omits some of Mark's disciples' foolish questions (Mt 24:l-2//Mk 13:1-2). Cf. partial affirmations of their words in 13:51-52; 17:24-27; Jesus sometimes accepts their premise as partly true and expounds on it (17:10-11) or radicalizes it (18:21-22).

33. In 1 Cor 7:6, Paul also distinguishes command and concession as the rabbis did. Paul was probably unfamiliar with this saying; he neither appeals to it to oppose remarriage — on the other view — or the option of celibacy, on mine. Some complain that Jesus would not utter invitations applicable only to some able to achieve the demand, but this goes against the evidence (e.g., Mt 13:52; 16:17-18, 28); besides, he nowhere else makes such demands to a group such as divorced people (the male members of which did not represent a recognizable group in his culture). They also try to argue that 13:11 and 19:11-12 are parallel (Heth and Wenham 1982: 59, 65), but the context appears to deny this.

34. Cf. particular condemnations and ridicule of the Galli, castrated priests of Cybele (Lucretius Nat. 2.614-15; Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.49.62; Hor. Sat. 1.2.120-21; Epict. Disc. 2.20.17, 19; Mart. Epig. 1.35.15; 3.24.13; Juv. Sat. 2.110-16; 6.514-16; Lucian Syrian Goddess 50-51; Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. 3.217; Heraclitus Ep. 9; cf. further Gasparro 1985; 26-28, 53; Vermaseren 1977: 96-101). Eunuchs grew more acceptable in the second through fourth centuries A.D. (Stevenson 1995; cf. the growing asceticism of late antiquity).

35. Cf. also Philo's idealistic depiction of the Therapeutae in Vit. Con. 68, 89. A few female skeletons suggest that some women lived in the Qumran community in at least one period (Harrison 1969: 28; Cross 1980: 97); perhaps these were wives of already-married men who were joining the community. Some scholars contend for a larger female presence at Qumran on the basis of references to marriage or descendants (Marx 1970; Hiibner 1971; cf. Baumgarten 1983); but these references might reflect the conditions of Essenes in the cities. Thiering 1974 grounds Qumran celibacy in the tradition of Israelite prophets; Buchanan 1963: 399-405 suggests that Qumran may have excluded women for purity considerations.

36. Roman society also emphasized marriage and childbearing (Propertius 4.11; Dion. Hal. 9.22.2; Dio Cassius R.H. 54.16.1, 7), though they attributed special power to the Vestal Virgins, the loss of whose virginity was held to warrant capital punishment (e.g., Dion. Hal. 2.67; 9.40.3-4; Dio Cassius R.H. 67.3.3-4; Plut. R.Q. 83, Mor. 284AC; 96, Mor. 286EF; Crassus 1.2; cf. Dion. Hal. 3.67.3); cf. Greek virgin priestesses (Paus. 2.33.2; 9.27.6); and deities in Orphic Hymns 32.7; 42.4 (emphasizing her asexual status). Virginity (both symbolic and literal) is positive in Philo (Boccaccini 1991: 205-12).

37. The present passage abbreviates Mk 10:13-16; school exercises regularly included abbreviating or expanding chreiae (Robbins 1988: 18-19). The application of this passage to infant baptism is suspicious (Meier 1980: 218); clear evidence for this practice is too late.

38. E.g., Diod. Sic. 4.64.1; 8.4.1; 19.2.3-5; Juv. Sat. 6.602-9; Mus. Ruf. Rel. 15B; P. Oxy. 744; B.G.U. 1210; ILS 1486; Paus. 2.26.4; Dixon 1988: 23; Lewis 1983; 54-55; Tarn 1974: 101-2.

39. The evidence cited is not substantial and suggests that the practice was rare. Laying on hands was standard for ordination (Acts 6:6; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6; p. Sanh. 1:2, § 13; Jeremias 1969: 235-36; Daube 1973: 207-40, passim; idem 1960: 56-59; cf. Hruby 1970; contrast Hoffman 1979), often on OT precedent (Num 27:18, 23; Deut 34:9; Sifre Deut. 357.17.1; cf. Daube 1973: 238-39). Hands were also laid on in sacrifices (e.g., m. Hag. 2:2-3). Some evidence does show, however, that the broader OT practice of blessing by laying on hands (Gen 48:14) continued in some subsequent Jewish prayers (lQapGen 20.22, 29; Jos. and Asen. 8:9; 21:6; Acts 13:3; Vermes 1973: 240n.35 cites 2 Kings 5:11 LXX; cf. Flusser 1957); this is what Daube calls the "gentle leaning" (see 1956: 343; cf. Jeremias 1971: 143).

40. Cf. Lindemann 1983. Jesus was not the only wisdom teacher to challenge this practice, however, unless p. Sanh. 10:1, §9 emphasizes only that Israelites as a whole were special to God (hence including the children; cf. also Lam. Rab. 1:5, §32).

41. The "kingdom" and "(eternal) life" here are interchangeable (19:17, 23-24), since Jewish people thought of the latter as the life of the coming age (see Ladd 1978a: 32; cf. also "saved" in 19:25; 1:21).

42. Cope 1976: 119 suggests that in 19:16-22 Matthew draws on Prov 3:35; 4:2, 4; 28:10; however valuable these texts may be in understanding the social picture of the young man, however, they hardly supply an obvious singular background.

43. More specifically than Mark's language (Gundry 1982: 388), this designation probably ranges the man between 24 and 40 years old (Meier 1980: 219).

44. Philo Mut. 7; m. Ber. 9:2; b. Ber. 45b, 46a, 48b. 49a, 59b, 60b; Pesah. 50a; p. Ta'an. 2:1, §10; 4:5, §10; Gen. Rab. 13:15; 57:2; cf. Abrahams 1924: 186; Marmorstein 1968b: 85-86; Ep. Diogn. 8; in Philo, Isaacs 1976: 30; in Platonism, Moore 1979: 249-53. Cf. the final benediction of the Eighteen Benedictions, if it is not later (Oesterley 1925: 61).

45. B. Ber. 5a; p. Rosh Hash. 3:8, §5; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Abrahams 1924: 186. The issue of the "ultimate good" may have originally been a Greek one. Stoics held that the soul's virtue is the only good (Diog. Laert. 7.1.30) or that God is good (Hierocles 49.24 in van der Horst 1975: 157). This did not, of course, preclude more general Greek uses of the term (Heraclitus Ep. 9, to Hermodorus), and the rabbis themselves on occasion applied it more generally (Abrahams 1924: 186). That Matthew means Torah here (Cope 1976: 114) is possible but questionable (leaning heavily on rabbinic sources; in addition, the circumlocution better fits God — Meier 1980: 219; cf. also Mt 20:15); that this was the original sense, which Mark and Luke then misinterpreted (Murray 1985, supposing Matthew's material earlier), is, however, unlikely. Even in Mark, however, "good" quickly becomes an ethical rather than a christological issue (so also Hilary of Poitiers On the Trinity 9.2; ACCS. 140).

46. Mark, who does not call him young, emphasizes that he did so "from his youth," perhaps meaning from his coming-of-age ritual in his early teens, when later Jewish tradition argued that a young man became responsible for keeping the commandments (Lane 1974a: 366).

47. The force of Jesus' words may be inferred from the desperate attempts of modern professed disciples to circumvent them, as noted eloquently by Bonhoeffer 1963: 88-91.

48. Boring 1995: 118 provides an illustration from Diog. Ep. 24 to Alexander, which invites the latter to follow Diogenes but recognizes that Alexander will not do so because of his addiction to his boyfriend.

49. Jesus may also suggest an Aramaic wordplay here between "camel" (gamal) and "acts of charity" (gemiluth; Blomberg 1992a: 299, following Derrett 1986). Camels are large; on regular journeys they can bear 400 pounds plus a rider, normally able to travel 28 miles a day or, if bearing only a rider and forced to do so only in extreme circumstances, can traverse as much as 100 miles in 13 hours (Rapske 1994: 7-8). Given the eschatological urgency that adapts the more traditional saying, Vermes 1993: 85 thinks the saying authentic (noting that even Bultmann 1968: 105 accepts it!)

50. See Filson 1960: 210; most fully, Bailey 1980: 166. Some commentators observe that Mark's term for the needle's "eye" can also mean a hole in a rock (Taylor 1952: 431), but the use with a needle is more specific.

51. As Metzger 1971: 169 comments on Lk 18:25, some late scribes changed "camel" to the similar-sounding "rope" "in an attempt to soften the rigor of the statement." Some early Christian interpreters claimed that the text meant only to use wealth rightly (Caesarius of Aries Sermons 153.2; Clem. Alex. Salvation of the Rich more accurately, Augustine comments (Sermon 133), "It is hard to be saved if we have them; it is impossible if we love them" (ACCS, 145).

52. Boring 1995: 118 compares Philo Mos. 1.31.174, which comments on the promise of God's salvation in Ex 14:13 and declares that what is impossible for humans is possible with God (cf. Mt 17:20; Lk 1:37).

53. It is unlikely that the sharing of "fields" addresses "radical peasant demands for land redistribution" (Oakman 1991: 172), even if many of Jesus' first hearers were peasants who would have longed for more land.

54. For an impoverished person's "wealth" through others' support, see, e.g., Socrates Ep.21-22. Jewish texts also speak of God's reward for righteousness exceeding by many times what the righteous have sacrificed (Sir 35:10-11); the Slavonic text of 3 Bar. 15:2 even speaks of a hundredfold reward in this life, via angels (perhaps based on the Gospels, perhaps related to Gen 26:12; cf. Mt 13:23). The suggestion that Jesus adjusts the traditional "exchange rate" of twofold in Test. Job 4:6-9 (Boring 1995: 119) makes too much of that single reference, which simply reflects Job 42:10.

55. Witherington 1990: 141-42 also suggests "judging" as in 1 Cor 6:3, however. He also notes (1990: 244) the "Son of Man's" judging function in 1 Enoch 46-62, which moves beyond

the imagery in Dan 7:10, 13-14. In early Jewish and Christian thought, the righteous will rule in the world to come (Rom 5:17; 1 Cor 6:2-3; Rev 1:6; 22:5; Wis 3:7-8; 5:16; Jub. 22:11-12; 32:19; 1QM 1.5; 12.16; Sifre Deut. 47.2.8), as in the beginning (Gen 1:26-28; Ps 8:5-8; Sir 17:2, 4; Wis 10:2).

56. "Inherit" (19:29) frequently appears in eschatological contexts (e.g., 5:5; 21:38; 25:34; Ezek 47:13; 1 Macc 2:57; Wis 3:14; 5:5; Rom 8:17; 1 Cor 6:9; Ps. Sol. 12:6; 4 Ezra 7:96; 1 Enoch 40:9; 2 Enoch 50:2; m. 'Abot 3:11; b. Qidd. 40b; p. Qidd. 1:7, §6; Ex. Rab. 2:6; 20:4), evoking anew exodus (e.g., Ex 32:13; Num 33:54; Deut 1:38; 12:10; 1 Macc 2:56; 1 lQTemple 51:15-16; see Hester 1968: 22-36). For an inheritance in heaven, cf. 1 Pet 1:4; 2 Enoch 55:2; cf. Col 1:5. The wicked "inherit" hell (m. 'Abot 1:5; Pesiq. R. 23/24:2; absent in Mt 25:41). As in the OT, Jewish texts continue to portray Israel as God's inheritance as well (Jub. 1:21; Ps. Sol. 14:5; cf. 1QM 12.12).

57. Cf. also the possibly noncyclical renewal in Pliny and Seneca (Downing 1995); or the seasonal

renewal in Longus 3.4. Apocalyptic texts often depicted the Endzeit in terms of the Urzeit (cf., e.g., Rev 22:1-3; 1QH 6.16-17; 4 Ezra 8:52-54; 9:5-6; Test. Levi 18:10-12; Test. Dan. 5:12; 2 Enoch 8:3; m. 'Abot 5:20; b. Tamid 32b; Tem. 16a; Yoma 87a; Song Rab. 4:12, §3; see further Rissi 1966:4; Arrington 1978: 77-81), a motif not entirely foreign to Roman readers, who had hoped for a restoration of the primeval Golden Age in the Augustan Pea Romana or other events (cf., e.g., Calpurnius Siculus 42-45; cf. Winslow 1971: 239).

58. See Manson 1979: 216; France 1985: 287; Sim 1993b; Hagner 1995: 565; for the resurrection," see Derrett 1984.

59. The rhyming kind meter suggests authenticity (see Jeremias 1971: 27; cf. Dalman 1929: 228); for a fuller defense of probable authenticity see Fortna 1990, who also contrasts the realism of 20:1-7 with the unthinkable, hence dramatic, conflict of 20:8-15.

60. Neusner 3:354; probably the story line is older than its occurrence in this Tannaitic commentary. Matthew's version appears to contradict this older parable deliberately (Smith 1951: 50-51),

flouting conventional values (Johnston 1977b: 633-35; cf. Young 1989: 262-66). Jeremias cites a fourth-century parable that he thinks is dependent on Jesus here (1972: 138-39); the parable speaks of laborers receiving equal wages for different tasks, but some (representing a diligent rabbi who died young) had worked harder (1972: 37; cf. Young 1989: 261-62; Vermes 1993: 105-6; Davies and Allison 1997: 70-71). Boring 1995: 120 cites Tanhuma Ki teze and Midr. Ps. 37:13. The proposed midrash here on Jer 31:31-32 (C6breces 1990) is less than obvious.

61. One rhetorically notable feature here is probable preference for beginning words with vowels in one sentence (20:3), with a special play on agora argous at the end.

62. R. Eleazar ben Arach, a disciple of Johanan ben Zakkai; the "Master of labor" probably serves a function analogous to the "Master of the House" (ba'al habeyth) who oversees labor in 2:15, attributed to R. Tarfon: for "hired laborers" as the righteous who would receive rewards, see, e.g., Gk. Ezra 1:14. Jesus uses a "householder" for God in 21:33 but for the hearer in 24:43; the roles of parable characters (limited by the roles visible in society) were usually adaptable.

63. This is not to attribute to Galilee the sort of slave-worked latifundia one found in Italy; see Goodman 1983: 33.

64. The popular allegorical interpretation in early Christian centuries, in which the "hours" represented the world's history, probably stemmed from Origen (Tevel 1992). The hours, however, are essential to the story line, without need for allegorization.

65. Jeremias 1972: 136n.21 thinks "stand" is used weakly; from modern village culture he supposes they sat and talked until hired. Malina 1993: 128 suggests that lower-status workers must wait to be asked, rather than seeking work.

66. See Jeremias 1972: 139; Horsley and Hanson 1985: 58-59; Applebaum 1974/76a: 657; Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 91-92.

67. Further, if some of those hired late had arrived late because they had traveled long distances, it was customary to pay them bonuses (as much as half the standard wage) if they still worked the whole day (Lewis 1983: 122); if any such matter is in view, the justice of the matter is even clearer. But since most Galileans had towns and villages in close proximity, and since the parable does not explain their lateness, this should not be assumed as part of the parable's meaning.

68. Similarly, when 18,000 workers were about to be laid off once the temple was finished, they immediately paid anyone who had worked even an hour (Jos. Ant. 20.219-20; Gundry 1982: 399; Young 1989: 259).

69. Those who had labored most of the day would have developed some sense of camaraderie among themselves; singing apparently was customary during the day-long reaping (see, e.g., Theocritus The Reapers in Greek Bucolic Poets. LCL 130-37; Select Papyri 1:64-67). The landowner probably provided food if this was the local custom (m. B. Mes. 7:1).

70. "Only" one hour is assumed, as in the undoubtedly underlying Semitic construction (Jeremias 1972: 39n.59).

71. Elliott 1992 focuses on the parable's attack on envy and gives background on types of communities where people believe in an "evil eye." Although both pertain to envy, however, one should distinguish between the more general sense of "stinginess" in this text and the magical danger of the "evil eye" in many cultures.

72. One could use such titles to imply the speaker's generosity and further shame the person addressed (e.g., Demosth. On the Crown 318). A hired worker was certainly never a "friend" (the different term philos) in its Greek sense of equality (Demosth. On the Crown 51). In aristocratic ethics, the poor should not expect favors but count them as "grace" (charis — Dion. Hal. 6.81.3).

73. Cf. the Sifra reference above. Derrett 1974 argues that the landowner paid each the standard minimum wage for laborers; the denarius averaged a day's wage in this period and region (Jeremias 1972; 136; Gundry 1982: 396; and Carson 1984b: 427 cite Pliny 33.3; Tac. Ann. 1.17; Tob 5:14). Especially by the second century, the demand for laborers during the harvest allowed day laborers to receive almost the wages of a skilled worker (Lewis 1983: 123; he finds three and a half drachmas in P. Oxy. 1049). But in the first century the average harvest wages in Egypt may have been a half drachma or lower (Lewis 1983: 208), and even with wages in Palestine likely being higher than in Egypt, the landowner has probably been generous to all the harvesters (cf. one farm where workers during a normal season were paid only two loaves of bread per day — Lewis 1983: 69). The parable does not mention any other fringe benefits, such as food and drink supplied to the workers (Goodman 1983: 39); but the silence might assume either that it was or was not provided.

74. The parable does not lack an "absolute standard of justice" (pace Scott 1989: 296-97; for the theme of divine impartiality in deuterocanonical literature, see Bassler 1982: 17-44) as much as it points to grace that exceeds justice. But Scott 1989: 296-97 is right that this parable subverts the standard mytheme in the earlier Jewish story line. Emphasizing the criterion of need rather than merit, Rodriguez 1988 favorably titles 20:1-16 "The Parable of the Affirmative Action Employer."

75. Cf. also appeals to prefects with special concern for women's powerlesness (e.g., P. Sakaon 36 in Horsley 1987: 132-33; cf. P. Oxy. 261.12-13); despite official laws some women pleaded cases before Roman magistrates (Simon 1990). Neither here nor in 27:56 does Matthew depend on Mark for his knowledge of Zebedee's wife; this suggests either another source — her mediatory function here does not seem theologically significant, at least beyond an immediate community that knew her — or perhaps first- or secondhand acquaintance with information from the sons of Zebedee, especially John (who outlived Acts 12:2). Although her introduction is too incidental for this to be Matthew's point, it may be of interest to us that the fishermen's departure to follow Jesus (4:21-22) had not alienated their mother (hence probably not their immediate family).

76. Cullmann 1956b: 17 compares this misunderstanding with the Zealot paradigm of the kingdom; but these disciples may have hoped to avoid even a final war!

77. Because early Christian tradition has John living into the late first century, in contrast to James, the prophecy in 20:23 seems not to arise after the event; hence it is likely authentic (Jeremias 1971: 243-44; Hill 1972: 288; Sanders 1985: 147; pace Theissen 1991: 197, who misses Gal 2:9).

78. For the center as the most important and the right hand as second, Lachs 1987: 337 cites m. Yoma 3:9; t. Sanh. 8:1; b. Yoma 37a; Midr. Ps. 18.

79. Ps 11:6; Is 51:17; Jer 25:15-17; 51:7; Hab 2:16; Zech 12:2; more in Gundry 1982: 402; for later Jewish references, see Lane 1974a: 380; cf., less relevantly but perhaps significant for more peripheral recent Gentile converts in Matthew's audience, Socrates' cup. e.g., in Sen. Dial. 1.3.12.

80. Although he implies Jesus' vicarious baptism in 3:6, 11, 14-15, Matthew omits Mark's less obvious picture of this baptism here, the same way Mark omits baptism in fire because he also omits the context that explains it; cf. Lk 12:49-50.

81. Ancient writers rarely view self-subordination to others as a prerequisite for authority, but are more apt to stress benevolent patriarchy; e.g., Diod. Sic. 27.16.2 (who often praises his protagonists' mercy) stresses that mercy is a paramount virtue for leadership. For the exaltation of the least, however, see Test. Jos. 17:8.

82. Mack 1988: 368-76 charges that the Gospel of Mark's "myth of innocent power" stands behind most of the existential troubles in the United States today (as well as behind Christian anti-Semitism). But Mark teaches disciples to abandon power rather than to seek it (Mk 10:42-45), contrary to Mack's counterreading; what Mack may dislike is the way the oppressed resonate with the way the theme of justice is expressed in apocalyptic vindication, but if so, the rest of his book fails to make his case adequately; pace Mack, Jesus was clearly eschatological.

83. The saying is Semitic and Jewish in its construction; for a defense of authenticity against the (in my view mostly subjective) objections against it, see Morris 1965: 29-33; Cullmann 1959: 65; Page 1980: 137-61; as Hill 1972: 289 observes, the objections to this position are not compelling. Bultmann 1958: 214 took Mk 10:45/Mt 20:28 as a hellenized form of Lk 22:27, but Jeremias 1965a: 46 correctly shows the reverse to be true (cf. Higgins 1964: 44).

84. If this logion originally circulated in Aramaic, an argument against compatibility with the Septuagint text of Is 53 is not particularly relevant for Jesus' ministry. While it may be relevant for Mark, it need not be as relevant for Matthew, who frequently follows Mark's quotations verbatim but elsewhere employs mixed types.

85. Many scholars see Isaiah's servant in the saying (e.g., Taylor 1945: 14; Cullmann 1959: 64-65; Argyle 1963: 154; Higgins 1964: 43; Jeremias 1971: 292-93; Albright and Mann 1971: 243; Ridderbos 1974: 31; Moulder 1977: 127; Gundry 1982: 404; Betz 1991: 73; Hagner 1995: 582; Davies and Allison 1997: 95-97; with less conviction, Kummel 1957: 73; F. F. Bruce 1978: 29-30), though some, like Hill 1972: 289 and Witherington 1990: 254, find general language from the Isaian servant without Is 53:11-12. The Dead Sea Scrolls later apply "the many" of Isaiah and Daniel to themselves, "the elect" in a sectarian way (1QS 6.6-21; Albright and Mann 1971: 244; Gundry 1982: 404), but the rabbis retain Isaiah's use for the covenant community (Albright and Mann 1971: 245; cf. Lane 1974a: 384). Contrast Schedl 1981, who applies the title to the Gentiles; Greek texts can employ such phrases to designate the multitudes, as in, e.g., Epict. Disc. 1.3.4; 2.1.22; Marc. Aur. 11.23). If Is 53 is at all in view, the ransom would be to satisfy God's own anger (Is 53:10-12); but this may incorporate Is 43:3-4 (Witherington 1990: 254), which specifies "ransom" more clearly, where the price is that of redemption for liberation from captivity (Witherington 1990: 256 suggests "from Satan's grip").

86. See especially Morris 1965: 34; Gundry 1982: 404; Hagner 1995: 579-80: cf. Ladd 1974b: 187-88.

87. Heroic death, particularly in the military service of the state (Epameinondas 2, in Plutarch Sayings of Kings, Mor. 192C; inscriptions in Empire, ed. Sherk, p. 31, §15, p. 34, §19; Jos. War 1.43-44, 58; cf. Deut. Rab. 2:24), was an ideal in Greco-Roman literature, and this ideal extended to laying down one's life for another (Hengel 1981a: 9). One might be called upon to die for a friend (Epict. Disc. 2.7.3; Epicurus in Diog. Laert. Lives 10.120; Jn 15:13-15), and a sign of loyal friendship might be willingness to die together (Char. Chaer. 4.3.5; 7.1.7). But pace Mack 1988: 107, martyrology was not central to the Cynics, who endured torment but rarely martyrdom. In Epitome 22-23 and Sentences 406-7 Syriac Menander praises "friendship which continues to the house of death" (OTP 2:591, 604). In early Jewish literature, laying down one's life for another was not considered a norm, but it was nevertheless respected as heroic (Jacobs 1957; on Aqiba's martyrological perspective on love, see ibid., 43-44; Urbach 1979: 1:416-17, 443); "giving one's life" is also Jewish martyrological language (Stanton 1974: 35). 4 Maccabees may provide the closest extrabiblical parallels to atoning martyrdom (cf. Hill 1972: 289; Mack 1988: 105; Witherington 1990: 252).

88. Whether Matthew changes Mark (Mk 10:46) to make clear that the disciples were making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, hence eager to set up the kingdom, or the two Gospels refer, as some have thought, to different Jerichos in the same proximity (the new one and ruins of the old), the minor change is well within the freedom of ancient biographers and Matthew's own style (cf. Mt 21:12-22// Mk 11:12-25). On the doubling of characters, see 8:28 and the doublet in 9:27.

89. Begging was also common in temples (Jos. Apion 1.305; Acts 3:2; cf. Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 109).

90. Robbins 1973: 241-43 sees Mark here linking the "Son of God" and "Son of David" traditions; but whereas the latter Christology is explicit, the former must be inferred from patterns in the second Gospel. More importantly, Jesus' granting the blind men's request confirms the "Son of David" title they offer him, which, however, is later qualified by a greater title (Mk 12:35-37; Kingsbury 1983: 149-50).

91. A donkey could cost between two months' and two years' wages, depending on its age and condition, but most peasants who could save enough would buy one, as they were extremely important even in small-scale farming. If a farmer had two, however, he sometimes rented one out (Lewis 1983: 130).

92. If later texts reflect first-century custom here, Jerusalemites could regard Bethphage as an extension of Jerusalem (Lachs 1987: 344 cites m. Menah. 11:2; t. Menah. 11:1; cf. m. Menah. 7:3), and hence domicile paschal pilgrims there.

93. That Jesus would have prearranged the situation with the man without the disciples — who would have been his agents — knowing is unlikely (cf. 26:18). Jesus' foreknowledge is clearer in Mk 11:1-6, which parallels Mk 14:13-16 (see Robbins 1976: 23).

94. Lane (1974: 396) finds here a messianic allusion to Gen 49:10-11; while such midrashic allusions are always possible in the tradition, the degree of correspondence between the two texts does not seem adequate to have automatically suggested this allusion to even biblically literate hearers. Some writers have also suggested a possible "public pool of animals" for the Passover season (Gundry 1982: 407, following Derrett).

95. Cope 1976: 87; Goulder 1974: 22-23; cf., e.g., 3 Enoch 18:24; Sifre Deut. 313.1.4; p. Meg. 1:11, §4; Gen. Rab. 51:8; Pesiq. R. 5:3; Gal 3:16.

96. Gundry 1982: 407; Hagner 1995: 594 indicate that a colt would be taken from the mother only after it was broken. This custom makes sense, although some evidence cited in its favor (e.g., m. B. Bat. 5:3, even without the textual variant) is ambiguous. Unbroken animals were worth more (Horn. II. 10.293).

97. Soares Prabhu 1976: 159; Wenham 1977: 101, following Stendahl 1968: 200; cf. Gundry 1982: 409. Allison 1993b: 251 doubts that Matthew would have taken two animals from Zech 9:8 (the Hebrew has one and the LXX is ambiguous), but thinks that he may allude to Ex 4:20 LXX, which Matthew may have linked with Zech 9:9 via a common key word (252; on 249 he cites some Amoraic passages that link the two).

98. See m. Pesah. 5:7; 9:3; 10:5-7; t. Pisha 8:22; b. Pesah. 117a; cf. 26:30; cf. Moore 1971: 2:42; Jeremias 1966a: 255-56; Barclay 1959b: 42; Safrai 1974/76c: 809; Stendahl 1968: 65; at other feasts, e.g., m. Sukk. 3:10; 4:8; t. Sukk. 3:2; b. Shab. 21b, bar.; Sukk. 38b. On later unawareness of the Hallel here, see, e.g., Augustine Tractates on John 51.2; cf. Jerome Homilies 94.

99. Matthew's first clause may derive from Is 62:11 (France 1985: 298); conflation of texts was common practice. An ass was of lower status than a horse (Babrius 76.18-19); Pesiq. R. 36:1 provides the Messiah with a truly royal mount, namely, the four creatures of Ezek 1.

100. Duff 1992 suggests that Mark employs images from a Greco-Roman king's triumphal entry into a conquered city and Zechariah's images of a divine warrior, but employs them ironically, to show that Jesus is not a warrior-king. A second-century tradition associates the lowly king's entrance on an ass with the rebuilding of the temple (Gen. Rab. 56:2); this could suggest intense irony in Jesus' entry and his following protest in the temple, but the Jewish tradition probably postdates A.D. 70.

101. Galilee was not far as in the Diaspora (only about a three days' journey), and the most pious Galilean pilgrims undoubtedly traveled to feasts frequently the way the Gospels depict (Jos. War 2.232; Freyne 1988: 181), even if many did not make all three annual pilgrimage festivals (see arguments in Horsley 1995: 144-46).

102. Although not explicitly mentioning palms, Matthew makes branches more explicit than in Mark, the new language being "more suitable to royalty" (Gundry 1982: 410). Because the branches are thrown down rather than waved, an allusion to the feast of tabernacles is unlikely here (Wilkinson 1978: 116; Lev 23:40); but if the palms are historical rather than part of Johannine symbolism (in favor of the latter, see Schnackenburg 1980: 2:374), they may well have been from Jericho (cf. Deut 34:3; Judg 1:16; 3:13; Jos. Ant. 9.7; 14.54; Pliny N.H. 5.15.70), hence few in number (cf. Hurtado 1983: 173). Many non-Greeks used branches and wreaths as symbols of peace or alliance (Polyb. R.R.E. 3.52).

103. 1 Macc 13:51; 2 Macc 10:7; Rev 7:9; Cullmann 1956b: 38; Stauffer 1960: 110; cf. Pesiq. R. 51:8; Westcott 1950: 179; F. F. Bruce 1980b: 8. Triumphal arrivals were a frequent picture in both Jewish and Greco-Roman texts, usually applying to military triumphs (see Davies and Allison 1997: 112).

104. Cf. also Plut. Cato the Younger 12 in Boring 1995: 123; Yalq. Ex. 168 in Lachs 1987: 344. For other honorific uses, one might compare b. Ketub. 66b; Lam. Rab. 1:16 (Lachs 1987: 344).

105. E.g., m. Meg. 1:3; Oakman 1991: 152-53 cites Hesiod W.D. 225-47; Freyne 1988: 146-47 cites Jos. Life 177-78, 390-92; see further Finley 1973: 123-49; Applebaum 1974/76a: 663-64; MacMullen 1974: 15, 30-32.

106. This tells against the thesis that the temple cleansing occurred at the feast of tabernacles six months before this Passover (Sanders 1968: 287; Manson 1979; 78); his enemies would not have allowed him to live this long.

107. This is not to say, with Hamilton 1964, that Jesus' act in the temple would have recalled royal appropriation of funds; see the critique by Witherington 1990: 113-14. The mishnaic claim of execution without trial for violating the temple (m. Sanh. 9:6; Segal 1989a) might have been wishful thinking (cf. Acts 21:31); perhaps more likely, Jesus' act in the outer court may have been marginal enough to "violation" to require a hearing. He did not enter a prohibited precinct (a profanation punishable also elsewhere; see, e.g., Hesiod Astron. Fr. 3).

108. Later reports amplified and exaggerated the number of pigeons sold there (p. Ta'an. 4:5, §13), but the true numbers must have been enormous nonetheless (e.g., Sanders 1992: 88). Later tradition reports that money changers counted coins on a stool and separated them with a pin, probably to avoid handling them (m. B. Mes. 2:4; Kelim 12:5; Goodman 1983: 58).

109. Sanders is, of course, correct that ordinary persons did not normally sacrifice them (1992: 88); but if we suppose that such animals were ever used during this season, there is no reason that a small number of them would not have been kept in a restricted area of the outer court where the priests would have easier access to them (a large number would have required much fodder, as he points out). Sanders cites ancient sources that testify to the temple's quietness (1992: 87), but such reports could at best be propaganda during festivals.

110. E.g., Test. Levi 14:1; t. Menah. 13:21; b. Pesah. 57:1; Avigad 1983a: 71; but cf. Sanders 1993: 324, 336.

111. See Goodman 1983: 57; Sanders 1992: 63-65; cf. Finley 1973: 167; Neusner 1987.

112. Undoubtedly some would unofficially seek profit if it were possible, but were the practice widespread enough to be known, later rabbis had no reason to suppress knowledge of this practice (instead they differed as to the use of the kollubos surcharge — see Lachs 1987: 347). Yet some evidence suggests that people could be overcharged for sacrifices (m. Ker. 1:7). Further, later rabbis — whose ideological ancestors were probably Pharisees — felt that God would bless only sellers of Torah scrolls who acted out of devotion to God, not those who acted for profit (t. Bik. 2:15) — implying that the latter did exist. Some religious local families may also have dominated or even monopolized some Jerusalem markets (see Engle 1977: 121-22). But Abrahams 1917: 87 insists that whatever abuses Jesus may have found were not the rule, and he is probably correct; successors of the Pharisees would not have passed up an opportunity to critique a predominantly Sadducean system (cf. more generally Sanders 1992: 90-91 if the aristocracy's practices were widely known). Temples were used as banks (e.g., Juv. Sat. 14.261-62; Taylor 1979: 254; Cary and Haarhoff 1946: 126; Koester 1982: 1:90; Yamauchi 1980: 107-8), including the Jerusalem temple (2 Macc 3:6-7; 4 Macc 4:3-7; Goodman 1983: 58; Pesiq. R. 10:1) yet few complaints were directed against the Jerusalem hierarchy's abuse of funds, despite anger against Pilate's action (Jos. War 2.175). Most temples tried to keep sacrifices cheap as well to keep people coming (Sanders 1992: 90).

113. For the eschatological temple, cf., e.g., Tob 13:10; 14:5; 1 Enoch 90:28-29; 91:13, Eth.; Sib. Or. 3.657-60, 702, 772-74; 1 lQTemple cols. 30-45 (which depicts a temple much larger than the current Herodian one — Broshi 1987); most extensively, Sanders 1985: 77-90, who emphasizes (86-87) that precise expectations varied. Many expected God to build the sanctuary, however (e.g., Jub. 1:17; 2 Bar. 4:3; 32:4), to the extent that the language is intended literally (cf. Test. Mos. 2:4, which applies this image to the first sanctuary; the fourteenth benediction in Oesterley 1925: 65). After the temple's destruction most Palestinian Jews certainly longed for an imminent new one; cf. coins in Carmon 1973: 81, 178; the fourteenth benediction of the Amida; t. Rosh Hash. 2:9; Shab. 1:13; synagogue mosaics as late as the sixth century (Dequeker 1986). Worship may even have continued on the site between 70 and 135 (Clark 1960), and synagogue architecture apparently attempted to symbolize the temple as well (Friedman 1983).

114. For the temple as the community, cf. 1QS 5.5-6; 8.5, 8-9; 9.6; perhaps CD 2.10, 13; 3.19. See, e.g., Flusser 1988: 37-39, 44; Gartner 1965: 16-46 (who also cites 4QpIsa d, fr. 1; lQpHab 12.Iff.); Driver 1965: 539; F. F. Bruce 1969: 76; Wilcox 1969: 93-94; Sanders 1985: 376-77; though cf. Caquot 1992. The Temple Scroll even structures the new temple after Israel's camp in the wilderness (cf. Yadin 1984: 42). The same concept may appear in a more individualized form in Philo Praem. 123; cf. Herm. Vis. 3 (especially if the tower may be identified with the temple by way of 1 Enoch 89:49-50). Gartner 1965: 30-42 argues for it also in 4QFlor, but this has been seriously challenged (McNicol 1977; Schwartz 1979).

115. But cf. Nehemiah's cleansing in Neh 13:4-9, 12-13 (Witherington 1990: 115) and arguments for the view that Jesus historically sought merely the temple's purification in Evans 1989.

116. If the high priest profited from the temple tax (perhaps, though far from certainly, the Terumah and tithe in m. Sheqal. 3:1) and later "the so-called shops of the House of Annas," he may have profited from other business dealings as well (Witherington 1990: 110).

117. That Mark cites the LXX should not surprise us (as he usually does), nor would it be impossible, if Jesus wished the crowds from afar to understand or directed his words against the priestly aristocracy, for Jesus himself to have cited a Greek version (though we should probably not think of him having examined various versions and practiced text criticism the way later rabbis did). Although "robbers" in the temple might prefigure the "brigands" Who possessed it during the Judean-Roman war (cf. Mt 24:15), the saying no more presupposes that event as past (pace Harvey) than does Jeremiah's statement that it quotes.

118. Some prefer the Johannine tradition, in which they find an allusion to Zech 14:21 (Jn 2:16; Witherington 1990: 114). On the whole, I would prefer Mark to John (the latter seems to extrapolate the tradition considerably where we can examine his method), though it is also possible that both traditions preserve historical substance even at this point.

119. Falk ingeniously but fallaciously argues that Jesus defended Gentiles from Shammaite halakah dominant in the temple (1985: 152), and that the Tosefta's lament that the temple was destroyed for hatred of Gentiles condemns the Shammaite attack on Jesus (1985: 128-29). Likewise, one cannot extrapolate from sectarian documents at Qumran (on which cf. Blidstein 1974) that the Jerusalem temple excluded proselytes (Baumgarten 1982).

120. Like later rabbis, Matthew could have quoted part of a verse and expected his audience to infer its context (e.g., p. Ber. 2:8; Qidd. 4:1, §2); but his deletion from Mark is undoubtedly intentional.

121. Likewise ancients who expected deities to protect those who took refuge in their temples did not expect such protection for temple robbers who fled there (Diod. Sic. 16.58.6).

122. Cf. Herzog 1992: 820; Hanson and Oakman 1998: 155; contrast Buchanan 1959, who thinks Mark may have applied "brigands" literally during the Judean revolt (cf. Borg 1984: 174). Although emphasizing some other texts (particularly 16:14; 17:1-8), cf. Knowles 1993 for Jesus-Jeremiah parallels in Matthew (although Knowles's "rejected-prophet motif' could as easily evoke Moses); the connection in 21:13 is the best (cf. Zucker 1990: 297-98).

123. Recognized by many scholars, e.g., Harvey 1982: 131-32; Aune 1983: 136; Catchpole 1984: 334; Sanders 1985: 70.

124. Prophets often provided symbolic actions as signs of impending judgment (e.g., Is 20:3; Jer 13:10-11; 19:10; Ezek 12:3; 24:17-21; Hos 1:2; cf. Aune 1983: 100); the pointedness of their deeds exceeds the mere shock tactics of many Cynic attacks on convention (cf. Meeks 1986: 54-55 for examples of the latter). We find dubious the anachronistic suggestions that Jesus opposed sacrifice (cf. 5:23; 8:4; Acts 21:26) or that the story prefigures the new sacrifice of the Eucharist (cf. Neusner 1987), a probably post-first-century conception.

125. E.g., m. Ker. 1:7; ARN 38A; b. Pesah. 26a; Liefeld 1967; 191-92, following especially Buchler 1913-14; Safrai 1974/76d: 905; Vermes 1993: 76-77.

126. lQSa 2.8-9; 1QM 7.4-6; 12.7-9; Plut. R.Q. 73, Mor. 281C; BCH1A11A in Grant 1953: 7; Soph. Philoct. 1032-33.

127. I say "apparently" because direct Sadducean evidence is lacking; the other lines of evidence, however, overwhelmingly suggest that this was the practice (as commentators generally accept — Meier 1980: 235; Gundry 1982: 413). Because Jesus was not forcibly evicted for this practice and because Mark omits healings in Jerusalem, Manson doubts the authenticity of the paragraph (1979: 221). The priestly aristocracy had reason to challenge Jesus only indirectly at this point, however (cf. 26:4-5), and Mark, having reported healings throughout his Gospel, is now focused on the passion narrative. That Matthew has an independent tradition is possible though unproved; given the enmity of Judean leadership (cf. ch. 23), Matthew in either case has occasion to record such flouting of temple tradition, with which he was undoubtedly familiar.

128. Because the object of praise is God himself rather than any mortal (Ps 8:4), the citation could imply a claim to more than humanity (France 1985: 302-3).

129. Gundry 1982: 414-15, who agrees that Matthew has children in his tradition, thinks that Matthew cites Ps 8:3 because it speaks of the "Lord's name" like Ps 118:26 cited in 21:9; but that phrase being common, and Matthew not citing the line from Ps 8 relevant for the midrashic connection, the gezerah shewah probably falters here. Gundry 1975: 200 also argues that because only Jesus in the NT uses anaginoskein in the interrogative (12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:31; Mk 2:25; 12:10, 26; Lk 6:3; 10:26), the saying is probably authentic (one conversely inclined could respond, however, that it could imitate Jesus' style).

130. As in Mark, his stay in Bethany provides the setting for his passing a fig tree while approaching Jerusalem the next morning; but Mark has Jesus' attack on the temple that day, not before Jesus spends the night in Bethany. Probably Mark inserts Jesus' attack into a preexisting narrative about the fig tree to connect the examples of judgment (Bultmann 1968: 218); Matthew may revert to it due to tradition or to simplify the connections in the narrative (cf. 12:46-50, which in Matthew follows conflict with the Pharisees over their Beelzebul charge, but in Mark forms the closing half of a narrative about Jesus' family framing the Beelzebul controversy). But because only the Passover meal must be eaten within Jerusalem, Jesus probably lodged with others in Bethany, possibly the family of Lazarus (Jn 11:1; 12:1; on paschal lodgings, see Sanders 1992: 129).

131. Matthew may do so on the basis of prior tradition (as I elsewhere argue that he "re-Judaizes" Mark), if Mark "divided up the original story into two parts using his sandwich technique" to address the act of judgment in the temple (cf., e.g., Witherington 1990: 174).

132. One need not hypothesize that Mark has used a story unrelated to Passion Week, hence originally during the season for figs (Hunzinger 1971: 756); in the context of Jesus' teaching on fruit in the Q tradition, an acted parable makes sense, and the early figs (though barely edible) were on the trees even before the leaves. The proposal that Jesus expected the messianic era with its material abundance to begin on his entrance into Jerusalem (Hiers 1968) seems unlikely.

133. The view that Matthew here pronounces judgment on the Roman Empire rather than Israel (cf. Ellul 1992) finds little support in the text. Gregory the Great (Letters 39, to Eulogius; ACCS, 158) applies the image to the "synagogue," with leaves of the law without the fruit of works; but the same principle might also apply to much of Christendom.

134. "Plucked up" (21:21) represents the same Greek term as appears in the promise of the Jerusalem establishment's overthrow in 21:43, which may be special Matthean material borrowing the term (not frequent in Gospel tradition) from this pericope. Although this verbal parallel would not necessarily carry much weight, the close proximity of the parallel in the sequence of the narrative may suggest that it is intentional. Those unwilling to yield their fruit in this context (21:34-35) also plainly refer to the rebellious Jerusalem leadership.

135. Cf. b. Ta'an. 24a, where one calls forth early fruit on a fig tree, but merits judgment rather than praise for interfering with nature; or "a distant parallel" in b. B. Mes. 59b; Bultmann 1968: 235. (At any rate, magical commands, as implied in p. Ber. 13d cited in Alexander 1980: 58, do not fit the narrative illustrations of the Gospels.) Judaism regarded curses as potentially efficacious (e.g., Test. Jud. 11:3-5; b. Ta'an. 23b; Gen. Rab. 74:4; Pesiq. R. 3:4), though normally only if warranted (Prov 26:2). For a thorough examination of Mark's application of faith in Mk 11:23, much of which is relevant both to discussion of Jesus' historical message and to Matthew's use of Mark here, see Dowd 1988.

136. So also Nineham 1977: 305; Jeremias 1971: 161; cf. Test. Sol. 23:1, possibly derivative.

137. Some later teachers reportedly commanded objects to uproot to validate their halakah, though others rejected the arguments (p. Mo'ed Qat. 3:1, §6). Later haggadah also occasionally extols a much earlier character who allegedly could command or curse and it would happen (ARN 25A; b. Ta'an. 23b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:16; Gen. Rab. 74:4; Qoh. Rab. 10:8, §1; Pesiq. R. 3:4).

138. The Temple Mount (Hooker 1983: 84) fits the literary context in Matthew and Mark but probably would have been less obvious geographically to Jesus' original disciples; though see comment below on Zech 4:6-9

139. Matthew rearranges Mark's wording into a chiastic pattern in 21:24 (Gundry 1982: 420).

140. Their failure to "know" need not recall the thoroughgoing agnosticism of some members of the Skeptic school, but it could invite the same sort of criticisms; cf., e.g., Epic. Disc. 1.5.

141. Bultmann 1968: 201, citing the late Ex. Rab. 27/88a; Johnston 1977b: 635, citing an allegedly earlier tradition in Deut. Rab. 7:4. Scott 1989: 83-84 cites Ex. Rab. on Ex 27 (following Strack-Billerbeck 2:865). Cf. the father's inviting love for his prodigal son Israel in Deut. Rab. 2:24.

142. The story line contrasting two brothers would, as Philo points out, derive ultimately from the Genesis narratives (Every Good Man Is Free 57); see Gen 4:1-12; 21:3-10; 25:22-34; 27:1-41; 37:2-28.

143. Here on a family-owned or -tilled plot of land, probably a common arrangement; see Horsley 1995: 203-4.

144. "I" (ego) reflects the Septuagintal, "Behold, [it is] I," indicating consent (Hagner 1995: "tax gatherers and prostitutes"117 are good (cf. 9:9; 18:17; cf. 19:17);118 it is that the religious people were worse, were treasonous (22:5-10). Jesus provides a question after a parable (as in Is 5:3-4; Mt 21:40; see Bultmann 1968: 183 for parables ending in questions).

145. Gibson 1981 suggests that Roman soldiers' use of prostitutes also led to the perception

that Judean prostitutes collaborated with the Romans as the tax gatherers did. On Roman soldiers and

marriage, see comment on 8:5-13.

146. Scott 1989: 84-85 contends that the refusing son shamed his father by publicly refusing

to obey him, though he later privately obeyed, whereas the other son publicly honored him but privately

shamed him. Scott's insight is helpful in showing that neither son has done completely right, but it may nevertheless read too much into the parable; the text provides no evidence that the refusal was public.

147. Cf. also the references to zenuth in 1QS 4.10; CD 4.17; 8.5; if intended more broadly, they certainly imply assumed condemnation of the narrower sense. In later texts, e.g., Ex. Rab. 43:7; Num. Rab. 9:24; 20:7. Taylor 1997: 119-22 thinks the term in Mt 21 denotes anyone sexually immoral, taking the common broader application of the Hebrew term.

148. Roman tax law penalized those who adopted foundlings, hence encouraging the raising of such discarded infants as slaves instead (Lewis 1983: 54, 58).

149. The phrase means that John "brought the right way" (Jeremias 1971: 46; the interpretation

of Kraeling 1951: 81 is, therefore, unnecessary); Gundry 1982: 423 also shows the commonness of the phrase in Palestinian Judaism (Prov 8:20; 12:28; 16:31; Jub. 23:20-21, 26; 25:15; 1 Enoch 92:3; 99:10; cf. b. 'Abot 6:4, bar.). Cf. also Qumran's "way" for the community (1QS 9.17-18, 21; CD 1.13; Zon 1963; Thiering 1981: 65-66; cf. Acts 9:2 and McCasland 1958; Fitzmyer 1966: 240; in later Arab culture, Bishop 1958: 107-8). Finding numerous Mattheanisms, Gundry thinks Matthew composed 21:28-32 from the material in Lk 15:11-32 plus Mt 20:1-16; 21:23-27 (1982: 422); but the story line of Lk 15:11-32 alone is close, and if it does reflect the same story (some of Jesus' other parables recycle related story lines), we should keep in mind that Lk 15 is quite Lukan (cf. the redactional linkage of the three parables) just as this is quite Matthean, suggesting that each has developed the story and not Matthew alone. Although "kingdom of God" could be Matthean (Gundry 1982: 423-24), such rarely Matthean language may indicate prior tradition in this passage.

150. The absence of this allusion in Gos. Thorn. 65 could indicate that the original Jesus tradition

lacked this detail, but the Gospel of Thomas may as easily have omitted it — its original point certainly would not fit Thomas's redactional Tendenz, whereas Mark had little reason to invent an allusion that was too subtle for most of his own readers to catch (see also Snodgrass 1983; Gundry 1982: 425; Carson 1984b: 452, following Snodgrass 1975, for doubts that the Gospel of Thomas preserves the original form). Still, the basic triadic outline of Thomas's parable vindicated Dodd's defense of this form (1961: 100), and Matthew has expanded Mark (cf. Goulder 1974: 61).

151. On the care of vineyards, including irrigation, see more fully Hepper 1992: 96-97; for"digging" (21:33) cf. Babrius 2.1-2 (vineyard trenches); on the danger of animals, see, e.g., Babrius 11.1; 19; Song 2:15; robbers, CPJ §21, 1:157-58; Virg. Priapea 3.19. People planted vineyards both on hilly and level ground (Virg. Georg. 2.273-87; for ideal sites, see Columella Trees 4.1-5); some parts of the Empire boasted massive vineyard plantations (see P. Cairo Zen. 59736, c. 250 B.C.).

152. Young 1989: 298-301 compares Sifre Deut. 312, in which a king finally expelled wicked tenants from his field after his own son was born; and especially Seder Eliyahu 30/28 (a passage with an early second-century attribution), in which a wicked guardian killed his son (301), depicting God's identification with his people in anthropomorphic terms (304). I suspect that the latter parallel, lacking both tenants and vineyard, is too distant, but Young is right to compare the shock value in the two illustrations (303).

153. Klausner 1979b: 181; Edersheim 524-25; Anderson 1976: 272; on tenants leasing plots of land, see Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 68, who cite Varro Agric. 1.17.2-3; Columella Agric. 1.7; Pliny Ep. 3.19; 9.37. For examples of tenant farmers elsewhere, e.g., CIL 8.25902 (Empire, ed. Sherk, 250-51); Deissmann 1978: 33. Grain legally belonged to the landowner until the lessees had paid their rent (Lewis 1983: 123). (Meier 1980: 243 thinks that the landowner here demands all the produce in this parable, mirroring the absolute demands of God's reign; but "his fruit" simply means the portion the tenants had contracted to deliver to him.) Despite Matthew's eschatological uses for harvest imagery (3:10-12; 13:39) and "drawn near" (4:17), "proper time" (21:41) need not be eschatological (cf. 24:45), probably referring to harvest in early summer (cf. Jos. Apion 1.79).

154. Johnston 1977b: 594 points out that in rabbinic parables, the landlord always represents God, although the sharecropping tenants variously represent Israel (ARN 16:3A) or groups of the righteous (the patriarchs, tithe payers — Sifre Deut. 312; Ex. Rab. 41:1), or people who should learn Torah (some of whom do and some do not — Deut. Rab. 7:4). Servants in rabbinic parables are more ad hoc: they could represent Israel, Israel's pious, Israel's poor, or Israel's prayerful, but also Gentiles, Egypt, and other referents (Johnston 1977b: 590).

155. Judean rulers before A.D. 66 did need to give attention to the problems afflicting the peasant population, however; see more fully Goodman 1987: 51-75.

156. The killing may allude in the narrative world especially to the Baptist (cf. Petersen 1978: 69); many see in the two sendings the former and latter prophets (cf. Scott 1989: 241). Young 1989: 288 prefers the Lukan and Gospel of Thomas versions, thinking Matthew's (and Mark's) killings represent a later allegorical stage; but Mark is probably our earliest form.

157. Stoning suited blasphemers (Jos. Ant. 4.202), and Gundry thinks the stoning (cf. also 23:37) follows killing here to imply execution as false prophets (1982: 426; cf. Lev 20:2, 27; 24:14- 16, 23; Deut 13:10; 17:1-5; contrast m. Sanh. 11:1). It is true that criminals who died prior to execution or while under the ban would be posthumously stoned symbolically (m. 'Ed. 5:6; b. Ber. 19a; p. Mo'ed Qat. 3:1, §9; cf. Lucian Syrian Goddess 52, probably unrelated), presumably on some views to atone for unforgiven sins, whether of the nation (cf. Jub. 30:14-17; 33:13; 41:26) or the individual (m. Sanh. 6:2-3; cf. Ps-Philo 25:7; 27:15). Nevertheless, execution by stoning occurred for other offenses (e.g., Ex 19:13; Num 15:32-26; Deut 21:21; 22:21, 24; Josh 7:25; m. Sanh. 6:4) and here may simply underline the indignity their killers sought to render (cf. Jub. 4:31). Death by stoning was a legal penalty (Sifre Deut. 220.1.2), but stone-throwing also often reflects an enraged mob (e.g., Dion. Hal. 8.59.1; 9.48.2; Paus. 2.23.2; 8.23.7; Jos. Ant. 3.21; Life 303; Jn 8:59; Acts 7:58-59).

158. For accounts of landholders' use of violence to expand their holdings (the basis for the wealth of the hereditary wealthy), see especially MacMullen 1974: 6-12. They might send slaves or tenants to seize the property of weaker people (MacMullen 1974: 7). Later rabbis did emphasize treating vineyard tenants fairly (b. Ber. 5b).

159. Eustathius, Paraphrase of Dionysius Periegetes in Geographi Graeci Minores 2, p. 253, lines 8-10, in Sherk 1988: 37; cf. Lk 21:24.

160. This is entirely aside from how peasants in general viewed landowners in general (Oakman 1992: 119); this landowner is so benevolent by contrast to most that in an ancient context he may have appeared favorably.

161. Because "beloved" probably represents "only" (see comment on 3:17), it heightens the story's pathos and suspense; most families had several children, but this father has only one heir (Young 1995: 217-18).

162. "Come, let us kill him" (21:38) reflects Gen 37:20 LXX, hence an allusion to the envy of Joseph's brothers against the one "sent" by their father (Gen 37:13-14), who became their deliverer (cf. Acts 7:9). Matthew probably reverses Mark's sequence to correspond with Jesus' crucifixion outside

the city. In the earliest form of the parable, perhaps the tenants threw the corpse out to avoid the risk of ritually defiling the harvest (cf. Lev 11:37-38), which would point to extreme hypocrisy regarding the lighter and weightier matters of Torah (23:23-24; 27:4-6).

163. Cf. 21:28-31, above. "Son" usually represents Israel in rabbinic parables (Johnston 1977b: 587; see, e.g., also Ex. Rab. 15:30; Lev. Rab. 2:5; 10:3; Num. Rab. 16:7; Deut. Rab. 7:9; 10:4; Lam. Rab. 1:17, §52; 2; Song Rab. 2:16, § 1; 5:16, §3), a natural usage (cf., e.g.. Ex. 4:22-23; Hos. 11:1; Is. 1:2; Jer. 3:19-22; Sir. 4:10; Pss. Sol. 13:9; 17:27-30; 18:4; Jub. 1:24-25); but even in rabbinic parables, special servants within Israel are sometimes intended (e.g., Moses in Sifre Deut. 29.4.1; cf. a rabbi in p. Mo'ed Qat. 3:1, §6). Stern 1991: 192-95, who doubts that Jesus would have foreseen his death (contrast our comment on 16:21), suggests that the son is John the Baptist, whose death at best foreshadows that of Jesus. But in the context of Jesus' ministry (especially the recent entry and act in the temple) a selfreference is most likely even before interpretation in Christian tradition (cf. also Hagner 1995: 619).

164. Gundry 1982:427 and Young 1989: 282-83 cite their right of possession if both landowner and son are dead; Meier 1980: 243 and Lachs 1987: 355 note that Jewish law handed land over to the tenants if a proselyte landowner died without an heir (b. Qidd. 17b; on circumstances for inheriting what was deemed ownerless property, see Jeremias 1972: 75; idem 1969: 328). Normally a successor inherits (cf. Dion. Hal. 3.1.4). But the tenants' appeal to any inheritance laws is absurd in view of their illegal behavior, and neither in Matthew nor Mark do the tenants seek to gain legal possession of the vineyard.

165. Meier 1980: 244 argues that because their response quotes "a Greek play on words, seen in Sophocles' Ajax and repeated by Josephus," this tells against Matthew's Jewish training. Against this we must observe that (1) the respondents include the Sadducean aristocrats (21:23-27, 31-32), who undoubtedly had a good hellenistic education (just like Josephus!); (2) manuals of Greek quotations were easily available to those who read and wrote Greek (e.g., Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 121- 22); and finally (3), exaggerated though it may be. the tradition that Gamaliel insisted on teaching Greek as well as Jewish knowledge, as well as plenty of Greek allusions in later Hebrew and Aramaic rabbinic literature (e.g., Pesiq. R. 20:4; Lieberman 1962; Hengel 1974a; Sevenster 1968: 38-61; Manns 1979) and widespread evidence of knowledge of Greek literature and ideas (cf. Goodman 1983: 72-73; Rahmani 1978a; also, e.g., Ep. Arist. 121-22; Jos. War 1.353; 2.155-58; Ant. 1.222; Apion 1.255; Artapanus inEuseb. P.E. 9.27.3; Sib. Or. 1.232: 2.15, 19, 337-38; 3.22, 110-13, 121-55, 401-32, 551-54, 588, 814; 5.7-9; 8.43-47; 2 Bar. 10:8; Apoc. Mos. 37:3; Test. Job 51:2/1), considerably weakens the force of the argument.

166. Although Vermes 1993: 104 characteristically rejects the citation as anti-Jewish church polemic (the saying itself is hardly anti-Jewish), various factors argue strongly for authenticity: Jewish parables typically included a scripture citation (so Stern 1991: 197 on this parable, though many of Jesus' parables lack such allusions); the citation appears in all three Synoptics plus Thomas (Young 1989: 293-94); Jesus draws his citation from the festal liturgy; "stone" may provide a Semitic play on words here with the "son" earlier in the parable (Gundry 1982: 429, following Black); "Have you not read?" is unique to Jesus in the NT (Gundry 1975: 200); and the collection of stone sayings in a variety of disparate early Christian texts supports a common authoritative source for diverse early Christian groups (Acts 4:11; Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:6-8; cf. Lk 19:38, 40, 44). Early Christians naturally accommodated the quotation to the LXX (Perrin 1963: 132), although Jesus undoubtedly addressed the Jerusalem aristocracy in Greek. Jesus may read habonim ("builders") as if from bun, "understand," rather than from bnh, "build," and hence apply it to the scribes (Stern 1991: 196); Young 1995: 219 suggests a play among "sons" (banim), "builders" (bonim), and "stones" (abanim). (An allusion back to the tower's "builders" in 21:33 is unlikely because the tower lacks a significant role except to establish the setting.)

167. Cf. McKelvey 1962; Kelly 1981: 94-95 for the former; Gundry 1982: 429; Jeremias 1964a: 792-93 for the latter. For early Jewish haggadah on the temple cornerstone, see, e.g., Sifra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.9.

168. 1QS 8.5, 8-9; 9.6; CD 2.10, 13; Gartner 1965: 16-46; Flusser 1988: 37-39; Wilcox 1969: 93-94. That image probably does not appear, however, in 4QFlor (McNicol 1977; Schwartz 1979).

169. A later rabbinic tradition plausibly explains the rejected cornerstone as David, repudiated by Saul (Hilton and Marshall 1988: 60; Young 1995: 219).

170. Some interpreters, e.g., Stern 1991: 191, consider his interpretation anti-Jewish; I would argue that it reflects the same sort of hostility Jewish Essenes reflect against the Jerusalem establishment (and apostate Israel who followed them) in the Dead Sea Scrolls; see further comment on the sermon in ch. 23.

171. Stanton 1993: 331 finds in this Matthean redaction "perhaps the clearest indication" of Matthew's separation from Judaism. But "nation" probably recalls Ex 19:6, and strict Jewish groups that characterized themselves as "righteous remnants" within Israel (e.g., Qumran) could also view themselves as heirs of the identity of the biblical covenant community. In this period ethnos applies

to guilds, associations, social classes or other groups, and even orders of priests; urban Greeks used the term for rural Greeks, the LXX for Gentiles, and Greeks for non-Greeks (Saldarini 1994: 59-60). Matthew implies not rejection of Israel but of dependence on any specific group membership, be it synagogue or church (Levine 1988: 193-239).

172. Both biblical (Ex 32:10; Num 14:12) and later Jewish (Ladd 1974b: 114) sources allowed that God could "replace" his people, but no one expected that he would do so (cf., e.g., the late parable in Lev. Rab. 27:6), least of all in the centuries since Israel had renounced idolatry. But by focusing on the wicked leaders (so also Saldarini 1994: 60-62), Matthew's comments, while implying judgment on Israel as a whole, are not as final as some later Christian theology shaped by the anti- Judaism of late Roman antiquity. The idea that Matthew's community has decisively rejected Israel in such words reads second-century theology into Matthew (with Saldarini 1994: 6).

173. 1 include 21:44 as part of the original text, but it is possible that it was imported from Lk 20:18. The direct textual evidence for its omission is weak and may stem from the difficulty of interpreting the verse as it stands.

174. Seating by rank was not, however, merely a Greek and Roman custom (e.g., Plut. Table- Talk 1.3, Mor. 619B-F; Lucian De Mercede conductis 15; Diog. Laert. Lives 2.73; 6.2.34), but far more widespread (e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.61), being a Palestinian Jewish custom as well (e.g., 1QS 7.20; Lev. Rab. 1:5; 5:4). Matthew had no cultural reason to delete it nor Luke to add it. Some also recommended inviting the virtuous or wise (Ep. Arist. 286) rather than merely those of one's social status. Although most served guests according to rank, evoking displeasure among the slighted (Theissen 1982: 156-58; Friedlander 1965: 1:208; MacMullen 1974: 111; cf. Mart. Epig. 3.49; 4.85; 12.28; Juv. Sat. 4.24-25, 37-48, 146-58; Plut. Table-Talk 1.2.3, Mor. 616E; Pliny Ep. 2.6), some preferred equal treatment among them (Plut. Table-Talk 1.2.5, Mor. 618A; Agesilaus 1 in Plut. Sayings of Spartans, Mor. 208BC; cf. Athenaeus Deipn. 1.12c).

175. Like other Jewish teachers, Jesus historically drew on the familiar image of wedding feasts (9:15; cf. 8:11; Mk 2:19-20; Lk 12:36), and not solely in Matthean material (25:10). In some cases parables simply depict a king (e.g., b. Sukk. 55b; Gen. Rab. 9:10; Song Rab. 8:14, §1) or other important person (b. Sukk. 29a, bar.; Epict. Disc. 2.4.8) throwing a banquet for dependents. Many rabbinic parables that depict God as king also depict Israel as his son or daughter (e.g., Sifre Num. 86.1.1; Sifre Deut. 40.6.1; 43.8.1; 45.1.2; 306.4.1; 306.7.1; 352.7.1, 4). If Matthew and Luke have adapted the same parable, Luke may historicize an eschatological banquet by his symposium context (cf. Wilson 1973: 34); later rabbis could, however, also apply present banqueting with a scholar to feasting on God's presence (b. Ber. 64a).

176. The banquet is especially prominent in rabbinic literature; see, e.g., m. 'Abot 3:16; 4:16 t. Ber. 6:21; b. B. Bat. 74b-75a; Ber. 34b; Gen. Rab. 51:8; 62:2; Ex. Rab. 45:6; 50:5; Lev. Rab. 11:2; 13:3; Num. Rab. 13:2; 21:21; Pesiq. R. 41:5; 48:3; Marmorstein 1968a: 46, 59, 120, 135). The meal in lQSa 2.17-21 may be eschatological and messianic (Priest 1963; Witherington 1990: 75-76), but the matter is disputed (Smith 1958-59: 224).

177. Though Tasker 1961: 208 questions Jesus' identification of the legions with God's armies, biblical prophets did not scruple about portraying Assyrians or Babylonians in these terms; see further below.

178. E.g., Josh 6:24; 8:28; 11:11, 13; 1 Sam 30:1, 3, 14; 1 Kings 9:16; 2 Kings 25:9; 2 Chron 36:19; Neh 1:3; 2:17; 4:2; Ps 74:7-8; Is 1:7; 64:11; Jer 38:23; 39:8; 46:19; 52:13; Amos 1:7, 10, 12; 1 Macc 7:35; 2 Macc 12:6; Paus. 8.27.16; Arrian Alex. 3.18.11-12; Corn. Nep. 2 (Themistocles), 4.1- 2; cf. Jos. War 6.252-53, probably playing down Titus's role. Cf. also suicides in 1 Kings 16:18; Diod. Sic. 16.45.4-5.

179. Scott 1989: 169; Rohrbaugh 1991: 139-41, pace Crossan; cf. also Epict. Disc. 2.4.8; Lam. Rab. 4:2, §2; Jeremias 1972: 176.

180. Social custom, rather than an allegory of God sending first the prophets, then Jesus and the apostles (so Manson 1979: 225), or more reasonably John, then Jesus (Sanders 1985: 227), dictates the detail.

181. The term for "mistreating" them (cf. similarly beatings in Acts 14:5; 1 Thess 2:2) further implies public humiliation (cf. Best 1977: 90; F. F. Bruce 1982: 25), of the sort that called for vengeance when possible (cf. Dion. Hal. 10.35.3); thus they explicitly shamed the king by shaming his messengers (cf. 2 Sam 10:4-6). Lk 18:32 applies the term to the passion.

182. The treachery was not without historical parallel (Diod. Sic. 30.4.1; Livy 21.10.9; Appian R.H. 6.8.43; 6.9.52; 6.10.60; Corn. Nep. 1 [Miltiades], 4.1). Rulers typically slew those who revolted, though often enslaving some (Arrian Alex. 3.25.7), especially women and children (often after conquest, as, e.g., in Ovid Metam. 13.497; Appian R.H. 3.6.1).

183. In rabbinic parables, military metaphors most frequently depict God as the king and military leader (Johnston 1977b: 593). The depiction of destruction is "topical," including what one expects in any city's destruction; the first temple had been burned (Jos. Apion 1.132, 145); and, to be precise, Josephus reports only the temple being burned in 70 (Blomberg 1992a: 327). Nevertheless, many view this verse as a post-70 comment on Jerusalem's destruction (e.g., Theissen 1991; 271-72); one may note that the prophecy of the temple's burning in Jos. Ant. 4.313 is an ex eventu wording of a more general threat. Those who deny that the author could depict God as doing something that historically Titus carried out miss the character of parables; rabbis chose the Roman emperor to symbolize God after the Jewish monarchy ceased (Stern 1991: 94).

184. Scott 1989: 172 notes that the host loses honor by inviting those of much lower social status (though for gifts or invitations to the pious poor, see Tob 2:2; Jn 13:29). It is true that he loses some honor, but not as much as he would lose if the food spoiled. Besides, after 22:7, in Matthew's version these poor are the only people left besides the king!

185. Commentators frequently compare this story about Bar Ma'yan with the story in Mt 22:2-10 (e.g., Vermes 1993: 113).

186. On the streets and lanes, cf. Rohrbaugh 1991:144 (on Lk 14:21). Such imagery is not unnatural, but could it allude to Jesus' ministry on the "highways" (20:30)? Manns 1988 may be right to find a reversal of the Jewish tradition that God offered Torah to Israel only after the Gentiles rejected it; whether it alludes to this specific tradition, certainly the parable announces the reversal of the historic divine order.

187. A king invited servants to a banquet without announcing the date; the wise waited at the gate, while the foolish kept working; thus the latter, with soiled clothes, ended up having to watch the wise honored with seats at the banquets and themselves relegated to the side. In the latest version of the story, the white garment explicitly represents allegiance to Torah (Jeremias 1972: 188n.71). Attributed to the pre-70 rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, the story appears in later collections (b. Shab. 153a; possibly from Judah ha-Nasi — Qoh. Rab. 9:8, §1; the parable is cited by Jeremias 1972: 188; Bonsirven 1964: 167; Albright and Mann 1971: 270).

188. See in A. B. Bruce 1979: 272; Gundry 1982: 439.

189. See, e.g., Jeremias 1972: 187-88; Davies and Allison 1997: 204 (citing most early Christian commentators, such as Origen Horn. Exod. 11.7; Chrysostom Horn. Matt. 69.2; Isaac the Syrian Asc. Horn. 2, 76); cf. Meier 1980: 248; Gundry 1982: 439; France 1985: 313. Entering a temple in a dirty garment was thought to merit punishment (Llewelyn 1998: 173, §16). One may compare Qumran rules on clean clothes for entering a house of worship (CD 11.22) and for the Sabbath (CD 11.3-4); cf. Jos. War 2.129-31 on their attire for morning worship. Cf. Jos. War 2.1; Ant. 11.327 for the use of white robes in the temple (cf. comment on 28:2-3). Yet even many villagers in Egypt had a set of special clothes, distinct from their work clothes, for special occasions (Lewis 1983: 69); cf. Diod. Sic. 10.9.6 on the Pythagorean use of "white and clean" garments.

190. That the feast was prepared suggests that the man should have declined if he did not have a clean garment prepared (or should have cleaned it very quickly); but Matthew is more interested in the story's moral than its realism. The story's point at any rate breaks from the bonds of its narrative world in 22:13.

191 So Jeremias 1972: 188; Albright and Mann 1971: 269; Fenton 1977: 350.

192. Judas is merely a case in point ("friend" in 22:12; 26:50; cf. 20:13); this need not directly allude to Judas, however (pace Crips 1957).

193. The image of binding and casting into darkness the wicked resembles the fate of wicked angels in 1 Enoch (though this might recollect the language generally rather than function as a specific allusion to the text, as Sim 1992 suspects); cf. comment on 8:12.

194. Dalman cites a late parallel to the saying (1929: 228), but it is not particularly close; Davies and Allison 1997: 206 cite Plato Phaed. 69C as well as sayings that suggest the salvation of few (4 Ezra 8:1, 3; 2 Bar. 44:15; b. Menah. 29b). Nevertheless, the three-beat rhythm suggests that the saying originated with an Aramaic-speaking teacher, probably Jesus (see Jeremias 1971: 25; Dalman 1929: 228). This militates against van Tilborg's view that Matthew created the saying by combining features of 22:1-10 and 22:11-13 (1972b: 63).

195. Although the evidence cited by Stauffer for watching, catching, and arresting those suspected of subverting the law (1960) reflects rabbinic anachronism of their own practices, it nevertheless suits the general legal process of the period (cf. the Roman use of delatores — O'Neal 1978; Hemer 1986: 67).

196. Daube also suggests that the rabbinic style reflects Greek influence (1973: 161-63). Jewish and Greek rhetorical conventions here are not mutually exclusive.

197. Although many follow Josephus's distinction between the two (Jos. War 2.118; see also, e.g., Davies 1967a: 18-19; Polish 1970), the revolutionary movement seemed to agree with much of the Pharisees' populist theology (Jos. Ant. 18.23; cf. Simon 1967: 44; Sanders 1993: 13-14, 408-10), perhaps as part of common Judaism (cf. Horsley and Hanson 1985: xv).

198. Although Hoehner 1972: 331-42 holds the Herodians to be a religious rather than apolitical group (identifying them with the Boethusians), Smallwood 1976: 164 contends that the Herodians hoped "for the restoration of Herodian rule in Judaea." Overman 1996: 179-80 thinks that they viewed Herod Agrippa I in quasimessianic terms. On the formation of the -ian suffix (a Latinism) for the Herodians, cf. Lake and Cadbury 1979: 130; Aune 1987: 140-41; Acts 11:28.

199. Not only Gentile rhetoricians (e.g., Quint. 4.1.16; Char. Chaer. 5.7.1) but also rabbis were aware of this technique (Sifre Deut. 343.1.2); one may expect it from Jerusalem aristocrats (cf. Acts 24:2).

200. Ancient literature regularly condemns this vice: e.g., Isoc. Demon. 30, Or. 1; Cic. De Amicitia 25.94-26.99; De Officiis 1.26.91; Horace Epodes 1.16.25-39; Dion. Hal. 1.6.5; Epict. Disc. 1.12; 1.9.20, 26; 3.24.45; 4.6.33; 4.7.24; Plut. Educ. 17, Mor. 13B; How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend 1-37, Mor. 48E-74E; Juv. Sat. 3.86-87; 4.65-72; Marc. Aur. Med. 1.9; 1.16.4; Diog. Laert. 6.1.4; 6.2.51; 6.5.92; Athenaeus 6.236E, 248F; Ps-Phocyl. 91; 1 Thess 2:5.

201. Although Jesus answers prudently, he essentially does support taxes to Rome (he simply makes it clear that they do the same). He stood in the prophetic tradition, which appeared traitorous to nationalists (e.g., Jer 26:8-9; 27:6-22; 29:4-9; Ezek 8-9).

202. See Avi-Yonah 1974/76a: 59-60; cf. Smallwood 1976: 95; Sanders 1985: 242-44

203. Jews did so only in times of revolt (Avi-Yonah 1974/76a: 60).

204. Some thus think that the pre-Markan tradition points to the issue of iconic idolatry thatJudaism debated back then (Finney 1993; on 642-43 he notes that Sepphoris, near Nazareth, was aniconic). Horsley 1995: 120-21 believes that the emperor cult remained a live issue even in predominantly Jewish cities in Palestine (citing, with varying degrees of relevance, Jos. War 1.400,407,648- 55; 2.169-74, 197; Ant. 17.149-67; 18.28, 36-38). At the least, the issue of emperor worship informs nationalists' discomfort with the coin and the tax paid with it.

205. Jeremias thinks that Jesus' teaching from the coin in Mk 12:13-17 is probably authentic in view of its echo in Rom 13:7 (1971: 228-29; cf. also F. F. Bruce 1984: 263).

206. Derrett proposes that Jesus was claiming that tithes and the temple tax took precedence over monetary obligations to Caesar (1970: 338); this hardly seems to be the point of the present passage, however; cf. 17:27. A protest against the imperial cult is more probable (Deissmann 1978: 252; Lane 1974a: 424); Herod the Great had constructed temples for Caesar in some of Palestine's Gentile cities (Schiirer 1961: 139), a matter of which the Herodians might not wish to be reminded publicly. Later Christians found much of import in this passage (e.g., Justin 1 Apol. 17), but it fits the issues of Jewish Palestine too well (including hatred of the tax) to be a creation of the Gentile church.

207. Gundry 1982: 443 even suggests that the text may imply that "what is God's" is what is stamped with God's image — namely, human beings (humans in God's image are thus portrayed here as God's coinage — so Augustine Sermons on New Testament Lessons 43; Tractates on John 40.9; cf. Tert. On Idolatry 15; ACCS. 167-68); see more fully Owen-Ball 1993, investigating the rabbinic style of rhetoric here.

208. Jesus may thus have divided the Pharisees and Herodians if the latter were carrying the coin (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 137); but, as noted above, everyone needed it at least to pay their taxes. Lachs 1987: 359 does, however, cite a tradition that R. Nahum b. Simlai was so holy because"he never looked upon the form on a coin" (b. Pesah. 104a).

209. It was customary to insult (particularly with insults like "fool") one's accusers, opponents,or even rhetorical interlocuters if one had the status to get away with it; see, e.g., Demosth. On the Crown 209-10; Epict. Disc. 2.16.13; 3.13.17; 3.22.85; Mart. Epig. 10.100.1; Philo Cher. 75; Sifre Deut. 309.1.1; 309.2.1; see further comment on 5:22. Warnings against such speech (5:22; Epict. Disc. 1.18.10) were far rarer than the speech itself.

210. On widow inheritance, see Gluckman 1950; 183; Radcliffe-Brown 1950: 26, 64; Fortes 1950: 271; Farber 1968: 74, 91; Gough 1973b: 627. In a custom similar to the practice behind Gen 16, some South African tribes require the relatives of a barren woman to supply her sister to provide her children (Radcliffe-Brown 1950: 64).

211. Some societies lack the levirate (e.g., Nukunya 1969: 96-97, 116), and incest regulations sometimes prevent it (Schapera 1950: 153); in some cases it leads to permissive sexuality with inlaws (Stephens 1963: 20).

212. Cf. Safrai 1974/76b: 789; Wegner 1988: 99-112; Ilan 1996: 153-57; perhaps Jos. Ant. 13.320.

213. In view of the allusion to Tobit, all "had" her may mean that they married her but could not consummate the marriage (Tob 3:7-8); but more likely "have" carries its frequent euphemistic sense in sexual contexts in this period, confronting Jesus with multiple consummated unions (1 Cor 7:2; cf. Tob 8:7).

214. 1 Enoch 51:4-5 may also announce that the righteous will become angels, but note the variations in translation (Knibb 1979: 136 vs. Isaac 1976: 37).

215. Test. Abr. 4, 6 A; ARN 1A; b. Yoma 75b; Gen. Rab. 2:2; 48:11, 14; Ex. Rab. 32:4; Lev. Rab. 34:8; cf. Harrington 1972: 170; Goodman 1986. Greeks (whose deities subsisted on nectar and ambrosia) described as mortals those who ate grain (Horn. II. 13.322).

216. 1 Enoch 15:6-7; ARN 37A; Gen. Rab. 8:11; 14:3; also Moore 1971: 1:405-6; fallen angels, however, did (Jub. 10:5; b. Hag. 16a, bar.); good angels lack the evil impulse (Lev. Rab. 26:5). Based on Ps 104:4, many Jewish people held angels to consist of fire (1 Enoch 17:1; 2 Enoch 20:1; 29:3; 4 Ezra 8:22; Pesiq. R. 16:2; Bonsirven 1964: 34; cf. 1 Enoch 14:11-15; Test. Sol. 1:10; 9:4; Cic. De Re Publ. 6.15.15; Marc. Aur. Med. 4.21). On humanity's mixed character, cf. Philo Creation 146.

217. Although God can destroy them, as in b. Sanh. 38b in Moore 1971: 1:406 or with evil angels, e.g., in Num. Rab. 18:22. Thus I refer above specifically to the Enoch tradition; see comment on 8:30-32.

218. Hill 1972: 305 compares 1QH 3.21ff.; 6.13; 1 Enoch 104.4ff" where the righteous are like angels. Sib. Or. 2.328 is probably Christian redaction; the Apocalypse of Zosimus may be Christian as well, but if it is Jewish its teaching about the soul emerging genderless at death (see McNeil 1981) owes more to Greek philosophy (cf. Baer 1970) than Jesus would appeal to, and perhaps even to the hellenistically educated Jerusalem aristocracy. Yet other ideas, such as that of Moses purging food from his body to become like angels and receive revelations (ARN 1 A), or those who guard the Sabbath being holy like the angels (Jub. 2:28; cf. 15:27), may support the idea of an angel-like future (Acts 12:15; 23:8; Acts of Paul 3:5; Prayer of Joseph 19; theoi in Ps-Phocyl. 104). Some Tannaim even adapted Middle Platonic thought to speak of humans who follow the soul being like angels since it, as opposed to the body, is heavenly (Sifre Deut. 306.28.2; cf. 4 Macc 7:18-19).

219. Bultmann 1968: 26 doubts the tradition's authenticity in Mark because of its supposed rabbinic character; but surely Jesus and the earliest Palestinian tradition that followed him would have more in common with Jewish teachers than Mark would. Many reports of Pharisaic debates with Sadducees and Boethusians are Tannaitic (e.g., m. Yad. 4:7; t. Sukk. 3:1), though their form is stereotypical, and some are clearly inauthentic.

220. Although his view may be anachronistic, Finkelstein even thinks the Pharisees directed the resurrection benediction against the Sadducees (1972: 266-67). The benediction became quite important (e.g., Gen. Rab. 39:11).

221. The "great" commandment means the "greatest"; Matthew employs "great" as a superlative as in 5:19, following the Koine usage growing more common in his day; Meier 1980: 256 suggests that it is a Semitism. Later rabbis often discussed the question of the "greatest" commandment; see Hagner 1995: 646.

222. The Ten Commandments were heavily stressed on a popular level (Vermes 1959); many rabbis settled on specific commands, such as the prohibition of idolatry (b. Qidd. 40a; p. Ned. 3:9, §3), as particularly heavy.

223. Bonsirven 1964: 29; Smith 1951: 174; for a later example, Montefiore andLoewe 1974: 111.

224. For the idiom "heart and soul" signifying "entirely," cf., e.g., Jub. 1:15-16; 16:25; 19:31; 36:24; also 1QS 1.2 if reconstructed accurately.

225. The closest common analogy in Greek ethics may simply be regarding a friend as oneself (e.g., Horn. II. 18.81-82; Diog. Laert. 7.1.124; 7.23; Diod. Sic. 17.37.6; cf. 1 Sam 18:1, 3) or noting that friends share all things in common (e.g., 1 Macc. 12:23; Plut. How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend 24, Mor. 65AB; Diog. Laert. 7.1.124-25; Mart. Epig. 2.43.1-16). Cic. De Amicitia 21.81 felt that self-love characterized all creatures who died before

226. The context of Lev 19:18 applies it to foreigners as well as Israelites (19:33-34; cf. also Lk 10:27; Test. Iss. 7:6; perhaps Jub. 7:20; 20:2; 36:4; m. 'Abot 1:12), although not all interpreters applied the principle thus (ARN 16A; such a theme is absent in Greek literature — Boer 1979: 62- 72); some sectarians seem to have applied it especially among themselves (CD 6.20-21: Jos. War 2.119; cf. Jn 13:34-35); more fully on traditional Jewish interpretations of Lev 19:18, see Neudecker 1992; for love of neighbor in Essene circles, see Södig 1995. One most easily practiced this love with one's most intimate friends (1 Sam 18:1; Test. Sim. 4:6-7). More distant Greek parallels (e.g., Diog. Laert. Lives 8.10 in Thom 1994: 111) are not particularly helpful in this instance, since Jesus here directly depends on Torah.

227. Cf. similarly Egyptian piety as reported by Diod. Sic. 1.77.2: the supreme offenses were impiety toward gods and sin against mortals.

228. In Mark the scribe repeats the same words and Jesus appreciates the answer — though the scribe is quoting Jesus. The unnaturalness of the construction may support the Lukan tradition in which the scribe answers directly as being the earlier form (Lk 10:26-27, though some think that this is an artificial link for the Samaritan parable; Vermes 1993: 109); but because it in any case reflects Jesus' own view as well, the scribe might have known it from prior teaching.

229. On epitomes, see comment on 7:12. Plutarch thought that all other morals depended on the two basic ones epitomized in the two inscriptions at Delphi (Plut. Letter to Apollonius 28. Mor. 116CD); the LCL translation assimilates the wording to Jesus' statement more than the Greek warrants, but the two are conceptually parallel as examples of epitomization. In Jewish legal logic, what summarizes other commandments would also permit one to derive the other commandments from it by means of extrapolation (Gundry 1982: 450, citing m. Hag. 1:8).

230. So, e.g., Gundry 1975: 200; Witherington 1990: 190; pace Weeden 1971: 133. Witherington 1990: 190-91 responds to arguments against authenticity, noting that the play on words works in Aramaic as well as in Greek (amar marya le mari; but is a play on words central in the passage anyway?); there is no clear indication that "Son of God" displaces "Son of David" here (noting the antinomy above); and this is not the only place where Jesus takes the initiative (Mk 8:27-30//Mt 16:13-20) or speaks allusively (cf. Mt ll:5-6//Lk 7:22-23).

231. Whether some Jewish people were interpreting Ps 110 messianically before Jesus is debated (Longenecker 1975: 73 argues that some were), but Jesus' specific application of the psalm here is new in any case, both by allowing "Lord" to bear a meaning much higher than a Davidic king, and by applying it to himself by implication.

232. E.g., 4 Ezra 14:22; Sifra V. D. Den. par. 1.1.3.3; 5.10.1.1; Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim 94.5.12; Behuq. pq. 6.267.1.1; Sifre Deut. 355.17.1.1; a Davidic psalm in Lev. Rab. 5:5; cf. Foerster 1962: 117.

233. Gundry 1975: 214 finds Jesus assuming the role of Yahweh in his teaching, citing examples in Mt 10:32-33; 11:5, 10, 28, 29; 13:41; 16:27; 17:11; 24:31; 25:31, although not all require this interpretation (some, e.g., 11:29, are more naturally susceptible to other interpretations). The NT picture of Jesus' "Lordship" goes back to OT pictures of Yahweh, at perhaps the earliest stage using Ps 110:1; cf. further Marshall 1990: 97-111. Witherington 1990: 276 concurs with Brown 1985 that while Jesus would not have expressed his self-identity in explicit terms of deity (which in a Jewish context would have identified him as the Father), he would have been comfortable even with the Johannine exposition of his identity had he confronted it.

234. Probably against Christian polemic, later rabbis applied Ps 110:1 to Abraham (e.g., b. Ned. 32b; Midr. Ps. 110); cf. Justin's polemic against an application to Hezekiah (Dial. 32; perhaps confused with Is 7:14?; cf. Williams 1930: 175; cf. b. Sanh. 94a). Loader 1978 suggests that Christians first applied the passage to Jesus' resurrection, and only later and under hellenistic influence applied "lord" ristologically; but it is difficult to think that Christians would fail to notice immediately the title of the exalted one in the text, especially since it is more obvious than any connection to a resurrection (without a gezerah shewah connection to Ps 16:8-11 — Acts 2:25-28; cf. Acts 13:33, 35).

↑ Back to top