———————————————————

———————————————————

———————————————————

1. Manson 1979: 96 locates the chapter's backbone in M, though he recognizes the conflation of many sayings with Q; I would add the significance of Markan material located here in Mk 12:38-40 before the eschatological discourse (cf. Mt 23:5-6), though it might depend on Q. Matthew may have pulled together diverse sources; some think that the section as a unity stems from the church-synagogue conflicts after 70 (cf. Klein 1978: 68-69), especially since the rabbinate, which they see to be in view here, became far more significant in this period (Davies 1966b: 84-85). While its reapplication in a post-a.d. 70 setting is very probable, pre-70 parallels in Paul (there offered with more hellenistic style) argue that this material existed before 70 (see Dodd 1967: 63-65 for significant evidence for this Jewish-Christian tradition; by contrast, Goulder 1974: 164-65 goes too far, finding dependence on Rom 2 and 1 Thess 2:15-16).

2. Kingsbury 1995a: 179 rightly views the religious leaders as more central to Matthew's plot than the disciples are, because the plot focuses on conflict.

3.  Overman 1996: 13, 15 rightly emphasizes that elements of the scribes and Pharisees, already influential before 70, appear to have provided significant roles in the post-70 coalition of leadership. Matthew's audience has also already witnessed the judgment of 23:29-39, a judgment Matthew justifies by the woes of 23:13-30 (Garland 1979: 213).

4. See further Moore 1971: 2:193; Sandmel 1978b: 160-61; cf. Rubenstein 1963. For love as a motivation superior to fear, see also b. Sota 31a.

5. Davies 1993: 93 (on Mt 12:1-8) rightly notes that Matthew's flat depiction of the Pharisees is "dangerous only when people overlook its literary function and take it to be a true depiction of historical reality."

6. A foil for Jesus, the religious leaders also function "as a negative model for discipleship" (Bauer 1992: 366).

7. Meier 1980: 262 suggests that on the Matthean level the disciples represent the Jewish Christians and the crowds, the 'am haares, neither group being accepted by the Pharisees. In Brown and Meier 1983: 70, he notes that Matthew responds here to dangerous nascent "clericalism" in the Antioch church.

8. The function of Diaspora synagogue "scribes" (CIJ 1:12, §7; 1:18, §18; 1:21, §24; 1:70, §99; 1:84, §121; 1:85, §122; 1:88, §125; 1:100, §142; 1:103, §145; 1:104, §146; 1:106, §148; 1:107, §149; 1:130, §180; 1:158, §221; 1:161, §225; 1:250, §318; 1:275, §351; 1:326, §433; 1:337, §456; perhaps CIJ 1:27, §36; cf. CIJ 1:545, §22, but probably pagan) is unclear; they could be scholars (cf. "law-t[eacher]" in CIJ 1:140, §201; "the wise" in CIJ 1:519, §719), secretaries (as in usual Greek usage; see especially Leon 1960: 184-85), or something else (Ferguson 1987: 454-55; cf. CIJ 1:XCIIXCIV) — e.g., one could be nineteen years old (CIJ 1:196, §279) or, more incredibly (probably honorary),twelve (1:200, §284, but possibly non-Jewish).

9. For distinctions between legal scribes and more authoritative rabbis, Overman 1996: 205 cites m. Kelim 13:7; Or. 3:5; Sanh. 11:3; Tohar. 4:7; Yad. 3:2. For further documentation on scribalism, see also Keener 1991a: 23, 145-46; Scott 1995: 165-68. In the Tanach, Philo. Josephus, and the rabbis see Orton 1989: 39-61; in ben Sira, 65-75; in apocalyptic literature, 77-120; in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 121-33.

10. Bowker takes the term as generally pejorative and applied by the rabbis descended from the hakhamim to their opponents rather than themselves (1973: 15), but this is highly questionable(see Sanders 1985: 50). To confuse matters further, the rabbis did not limit their term perushim to pre-70 Pharisees (Rivkin 1969-70; idem 1978: 165; Sanders 1990: 154). They were not always haberim, despite significant overlap (Rivkin 1978: 175; Sanders 1985: 187), and often appear as hakhamim (scholars; Rivkin 1978: 138, 141); but though many Pharisees, attentive to the law's details, must have been scribes, Rivkin goes too far in identifying them always with the scholar class(1978: 177-79). I have sometimes accepted the identification of Pharisees with haberim, but even a Sadducee may appear as a haber (b. Nid. 33b).

11.  Smith 1978: 29, 50 is too skeptical. Even Sanders 1985: 312-13 probably explains away too much evidence (the Gospels, and some rabbinic and Josephus texts) about Pharisaic presence in the Sanhedrin, although he is almost certainly right to question their dominance vis-à-vis that of the priestly aristocracy.

12.  Wright 1992a: 212 suggests that the Pharisees wielded considerable populist support but that Josephus may exaggerate their political power to exonerate his own aristocratic class.

13. Certainly they sought political influence; Horsley 1995: 149-50 also contends that they functioned as a "retainer" class.

14. Thus some can portray Jesus himself as ideologically a pre-rabbinic Pharisee (Winter 1961: 133).

15.  Cf., e.g., Sanders 1993: 422-23; Kugel and Greer 1986: 66; Cohen 1987: 154-59, 227. The earliest Pharisaic layers of rabbinic texts consist of debates rather than rules, suggesting a society in which they participated but did not rule (Sanders 1993: 470-71). Not all agree that thePharisees were precursors of the rabbinic movement (e.g., Sigal 1986: 4); although Pharisaic idiosyncrasies may have most often prevailed, Horsley 1995: 95-97 may well be right that later rabbis inherited the mantle of the previous scribal movement as a whole. At least the rabbis inherited the mantle of the scribes' most prominent representatives; but in their eyes this apparently included some significant Pharisees, especially through the influence of Gamaliel II, son of Simon ben Gamaliel.

16.  One should note that even in Jesus' day, many people disobeyed laws widely recognized by the pious (Jos. Life 65); but synagogues were community centers, and later zodiacs there testify that populist piety (probably including local elders) often differed from the expectations of the legally educated intelligentsia.

17.  Ancients generally praised those who lived in accordance with their virtuous teachings(e.g., Diod. Sic. 9.9.1 ; Diog. Laert. 6.2.64; Herodian 1.2.4; Jos. Apion 2.169), a not uncommon demand (e.g., Epict. Disc. 1.25.11; 2.9.13; Demosth. 3d Olynthiac 14; 2d Philippic 1; Dion. Hal.7.33.3; 9.10.3; 9.47.4; 11.1.4; 11.58.3; Corn. Nep. Fr. 3.1; Sen. Ep. Lucil 20.2; Aul. Gel. 17.19;Jos. Apion 2.292); see further citations under Mt 7:24-27. Texts sometimes depicted the whole of behavior by pairing word and deed (e.g., Homeric Hymn 2, to Demeter, 65; Hesiod W.D. 710; Ap. Rhod. 3.81).

18.  Matthew's opponents, like those of Jesus, cite Moses for their authority (19:7; cf. 22:24); but this does not prevent Jesus or his Matthean followers from depending on Moses as well. Allison 1993b: 275 is correct that Matthew does not denigrate Moses but rather praises him by comparing patterns in his life with those of Jesus.

19.  Scholars regularly observe that later Palestinian synagogues often had a special chair for teaching (fitting rabbis' stone chairs known in some literary sources), which came to be known as a "chair of Moses" and thus symbolized the succession of teachers from Moses' day (e.g., Manson 1979: 228; Filson 1960: 243; Yamauchi 1972: 102; Avi-Yonah 1974/76a: 53; Ferguson 1987: 400; Newport 1990; Rahmani 1990; Young 1995: 185-86; especially Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:7; Song Rab. 1:3). In general, cathedrae — armchairs with backs — especially characterized the wealthy and leaders with high status (Safrai 1974/76b: 737). The evidence that the "seat of Moses" was already a literal seat in first-century synagogues, however, is contested (also Meier 1980: 262), as is the presence of many Pharisees in Galilean synagogues (Horsley 1995: 233-35); in any case Jesus applies the expression metaphorically here.

20.  France 1985: 324 reads the "binding" here in terms of prohibitive legislation in 16:19;18:18; if so, the image of "tying" burdens to a person does double duty, a rhetorical strategy not uncharacteristic of Jesus.

21.  See further Liefeld 1967: 180; Lane 1974a: 439-40; Hurtado 1983; 197; Goodman 1983: 77; cf. Carson 1984b: 483 on 23:27-28. Cf. also, e.g., the white garments of the Therapeutae in their worship times (Philo Cont. 66), and special garments holy only for the festival for which they are provided (Demosth. Against Meidias 16), or Pythagoreans offering sacrifice while wearing only simple

white garments (Diod. Sic. 10.9.6). Citing Jn 19:23-24, Liefeld 1967: 181 doubts that Jesus wore a philosopher's pallium.

22.  Whereas Deut 6:8-9 may have intended them figuratively, they are attested literally at Qumran, Wadi Murabba'at, and, e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.213; Mek. Pisha 17.106ff.. Laut. 1:150ff.; Gen. Rab.43:9; cf. Ep. Arist. 158; Sandmel 1978b: 151; Finegan 1969: 225; Vermes 1959.

23.  Shammaites may have prescribed longer fringes than Hillelites (France 1985: 325), attesting some division of opinion among Jesus' contemporaries on the matter. The tallith of a scholar may have been particularly long (b. B. Bat. 57b; Lachs 1987: 367).

24.  Horsley 1995: 233-35 doubts the Pharisees' frequent presence in Galilean synagogues, but concurs that when they visited they undoubtedly ranked high socially, being part of the educated elite (234). Local, often hereditary leaders (the village equivalent of municipal aristocracies) undoubtedly dominated (233).

25.  The Therapeutae reportedly sat in order of their tenure in the community (Philo Cont. 66-69). In Jewish society the younger had to respect the elder (Jos. Apion 2.206; Ant. 3.47; applied to the sages in Sifra Qed. pq. 7.204.3.1; p. 'Abod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Hor. 3:5, §3; Lev. Rab. 11:8), and prominent local leaders tended to be those who were aged, as both literary texts (Jos. Life 266; Ep. Arist. 32, 39; Acts 14:23) and inscriptions (CIJ 1:294, §378; 1:426, §581; 1:432, §595; 1:433, §597; 2:9, §739; 2:45, §790; 2:46, §792; 2:53, §801; 2:76-77, §828a; 2:77, §828b; 2:79, §829; 2:137, §931; cf. CIJ 1: lxxxvi-lxxxvii; Mitten 1966: 65) testify, as do the LXX (e.g.. Josh 24:1; Judg 8:14, 16; 11:5-11; 21:16; Ruth 4:2-11; 2 Chron 34:29; Jer 26:17; Jdt 6:16; 7:23-24; 13:12; 1 Macc 1:26; 7:33; 11:23; 12:35; 13:36; 14:20, 28; 2 Macc 13:13; 14:37) and evidence from the Greek world (e.g., Arist. Pol. 2.7.5, 1272a; Diod. Sic. 21.18.1; Dion. Hal. 8.15.1). Roman society also demanded giving way to one's elder (Cato Collection of Distichs 10; Dion. Hal. 7.47.1).

26.  Cf. m. 'Abot 5:15; on order in speaking out, cf. 1 Cor 14:29-30; Jos. War 2.132; IQS 6.9-10.

27.  Later rabbis even compared rabbinic authority to that of kings (Gen. Rab. 94:9) and the "seat of Moses" to a royal throne (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:7). But whereas rabbis, like some Greek philosophers (cf. Tiede 1972: 55), may have thought they merited such recognition, much of the populace may have disagreed; archaeology attests "unorthodox" practices even in the rabbinic period. They commanded much respect, but not everyone understood or heeded their views.

28.  Amoraim warned of deadly judgment for offending rabbis (cf. b. B. Qam. 117a; B. Mes. 84a; 'Erub. 63a; Tem. 16a) and promised eternal reward especially to sages (b. Ber. 34b; Sanh. 99a; Lev. Rab. 3:7). For the high honors accorded rabbis, cf. also Aberbach 1966-67, followed by Carson 1984b: 474, with appropriate qualifications for the earlier period.

29.  On the importance of appropriate recognition of others' status (lack of which constitutes childishness) in the Middle East, see Eickelman 1989: 236. Although one should greet a superior in the knowledge of Torah first, some texts do praise the humility of scholars (like Johanan ben Zakkai) who greeted others first (b. Ber. 17a; Lachs 1987: 367).

30.  For some early use attested on ossuary inscriptions, see Stanton 1989a: 185; cf. CIJ 2:337, §1410; for later Diaspora attestation, CIJ 1:438-39, §611; 2:7, §736. Some suggest that Matthew's antipathy toward the term reflects discomfort with the growing use of the term in the proto-rabbinic movement (Overman 1996: 322).

31. Rightly noting the rareness of the title, Carson 1984b: 475, following Kohler 1900-1901; Hagner 1995: 661. Blomberg 1992a: 342 sees "father" as reserved especially for the patriarchs of the past (hence, e.g., the tractate 'Abot; Acts 3:13, 25; 5:30; Rom 9:5; 11:28; Moses with Israel in Pesiq. R. 21:6); one might apply it to all esteemed ancestors (Gal 1:14; 1 Cor 10:1; Heb 1:1; Jos. Am. 13.297, 408). France 1985: 325-26 suggests that it may have functioned for very prominent rabbis.Most likely, as I suggest here, it could apply to all elders (Acts 7:2; 22:1; l T i m 5 : l ; 1 Jn2:13;4Bar.5:28; Hom. II. 24.507), some of whom might be dear teachers (1 Cor 4:15; 1 Tim 1:2). One should compare the honorary title "father of a synagogue" {ClJ l:xcv-xcvi; 1:66, §93; 1:250-51, §319;1:360, §494; 1:372, §§508-9; 1:373, §510; 1:393, §533; 1:397, §535; 1:398, §537; 1:462, §645;1:463, §646; 1:505, §694; 1:520, §720; 2:9, §739). The title was perhaps "purely an honorary one,probably involving no active duties" (Leon 1960: 186).

32. Cf. "father of the Jews" in 2 Macc. 14:37; "fathers of the world" for the first-century schools of Hillel and Shammai (Gen. Rab. 12:14); and the use of "fathers" for Roman senators (Plut.R.Q. 58, Mor. 278D; Lucan C.W. 3.109; Corn. Nep. 23 [Hannibal], 12.2; Livy 1.8.7; 1.26.5; 2.1.10- 11; 2.23.14; 2.24.2; 2.27.3; 2.32.12; 2.34.12; 2.35.3; 2.41.4; 2.48.8; 2.60.3; 3.13.7; 3.16.1; 3.21.1, 3, 4; 3.51.11; 3.52.6; 3.63.8; 4.1.4; 4.2.13; 4.60.1, 3; Sail. Catil. 6.6; 31.7; 51.1, 4, 7, 12, 15, 37, 41; 52.2.7, 35; Jug. 14.1,3, 12, 13, 18.25; 24.2; Speech of Philippus 1, 17; Letter of Gnaeus Pompeim 1, 6; Letter to Caesar 11.1; Invective against Marcus Tullius 1 ; Cie. Invective against Sallustius Crispus 1.1, 2, 3; 2.5; 4.12; 5.14; 6.16; 8.22), other societal leaders or benefactors (Dion. Hal. 12.1.8; Paus. 8.48.5-6; 8.51.7), older mentors (Hom. II. 9.607, employing a different term; Od. 1.308), and leaders in the Mithraic cult (Burkert, Cults. 42). Merely being older men, however, was sufficient grounds for showing them respect: see, e.g., 1 Pet. 5:5; t. Meg. 3:24; 'Abod. Zar. 1:19; 4 Bar. 5:20; Ps-Phocyl. 220-22; Syr. Men. Sent. 11-14, 76-93 (but cf. 170-72); Hom. II. 1.259; 23.616-23; Aul. Gel. 2.15; Diod. Sic. 1.1.4; 2.58.6; Lycurgus 14 in Plut. Sayings of Spartans, Mor. 227F; Pythagoras in Diog. Laert. Lives 8.1.22-23.

33. E.g., 2 Kings 2:12; 4 Bar. 2:4, 6, 8; 5:5; t. Sanh. 7:9; Sifre Deut. 34.3.1-3, 5; Sifre Deut. 305.3.4; b. Pesah. 112a; Shab. 25b; 31a; Pesiq. R. 51:1; Lucretius Nat. 3.9; Epict. Disc. 3.22.82; Nock 1964a: 30; Gerhardsson 1979: 17; cf. Jn 13:33; 1 Cor 4:15; 3 Jn 4. Othertexts make analogies between fathers and teachers (e.g., t. B. Qam. 9:11).

34. Such wisdom language often occurs in the testamentary genre (even in Proverbs, following models of the Egyptian royal courts) and hence requires such language (e.g., Ahiqar 96, saying 14a; Sir 2:1; 1 Macc 2:50, 64; Jub. 21:21; 1 Enoch 79:1; 83:1; 91:3-4; 92:1; Test. Job 1:6; 5:1; 6:1; Test. Reub. 1:3; Test. Naph. 4:1; Did. 5; Pesiq. R. 21:6).

35. Vermes 1993: 158 doubts that Jesus would polemicize against this rabbinic use of "Abba" because fellow charismatic sages like Abba Hilkiah used the name; but were all charismatics agreed on every point?

36. Meier, a Catholic scholar, notes Jesus' prohibition of the title "father" and questions the use of ecclesiastical titles that arose even in Matthew's church in Syria a few decades after his Gospel (Meier 1980: 265); but while Protestants may determine "pecking order" by different means, most Protestant churches offer analogous temptations for personal advancement. Christendom has come a long way from the teachings of Jesus. Matthew probably supports a generally egalitarian approach (18:17-18; 23:8-12) or specifically charismatic authority (10:41-42; 23:34), but he may address a community in which structures have been developing (see Stanton 1993: 103-4 for relevant sociological theory). To what degree the hierarchical system was already developing in the Matthean community (e.g., Overman 1990b: 123) is difficult to determine from the text.

37. For the authenticity of the saying behind Mt 23:12 (focusing on Lk 14:11; cf. Lk 18:14; Jas 1:9; 4:10) and for more parallels, see Jeremias 1972: 107. God's exaltation of the humble may have been a familiar warning of the wisdom tradition (cf. Ahiqar 149, saying 60; Syr. Men. Sent. 116-17; Diog. Laert. 1.69); by the late first century teachers were reportedly claiming that one became exalted over (i.e., proficient in) Torah by humbling oneself before it (as well as the reverse — Gen. Rab. 81:2; cf. ARN 1 IA; 22, §46B); Hillel reportedly claimed that his humiliation was his exaltation and the reverse, citing Prov 25:7 (Ex. Rab. 45:5), if this is authentic rather than borrowed. For eschatological inversion, see also Wis 5:3; 1 Enoch 46:5-6; 104:2; IQM 14.10-11, 14-15; 4 Ezra 6:20-24; 2 Bar. 83:5; Test. Jud. 25:4; Sib. Or. 3.350-55; ARN 5: 9; 28A; Sifra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.8; Sifre Deut. 307.3.2; b. Pesah. 50a; p. Sanh. 6:6, §2; Gen. Rab. 21:1; Lev. Rab. 13:3; 36:2; in Jesus' sayings, cf. Jeremias 1972: 221-22; for the sayings in Luke, Tannehill 1986: 109-10.

38. Perhaps, if Pauline tradition interprets this Jesus tradition and does so accurately, he also suggests that their behavior discourages others from following Israel's God (cf. Rom 2:17-24; Mt 23:15).

39. "Devouring widows' houses" may refer to sponging off others' hospitality (Lane 1974a: 440-41), or it may refer to exploiting legal loopholes to their own advantage. Because widows might lack powerful legal advocates, their property was more easily seized by persons of status (e.g., the deceased husband's employer who is excused from even showing up for court in P. Sakaon 36; cf. P. Ryl. 2.114 in Horsley 1983: 20). Jewish hearers would in any case regard it as a terrible crime (e.g., Ps 146:9; Prov 15:25; Is 10:2; 2 Macc 3:10-13; Bonsirven 1964: 96). Jewish law demanded favorable treatment for widows, but some scholars probably did take advantage of them (cf. Pesah. 49b, bar.; Abrahams 1917: 79-81), just as some Christian ministers today have been known to abuse their position. Derrett 1973: 57 suggests that the text addresses trustees spending widows' assets as "expenses." Matthew likewise omits Mark's account of the widow's mite (Mk 12:41-44), perhaps to sustain the section including both chs. 23 and 24-25 as a single discourse addressing judgment on the religious establishment.

40. While Jos. Ant. 20.34-48, which Carson cites, does describe a stricter and probably Pharisaic teacher tightening the requirements after an earlier proselytizer (much like Paul's opponents in Galatia), Josephus does not suggest that Eleazar seeks to convert the king to Pharisaism per se.Josephus himself — at least when writing for a Gentile audience — opposed forced conversions ( L i f e 113, 150), in contrast to some of his contemporaries (Life 149), but presumably agreed that circumcision was appropriate to conversion where feasible (Ex 12:44, 48; Jdt 14:10; Jos. Ant. 20.44; Test. Levi 6:3, 6-7; t. 'Abod. Zar. 3:12; Ber. 6:13; b. Shab. 135a; Ex. Rab. 30:12), just as it was required for those born in Israel (Gen 17:10-14; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2; Sir 44:20; cf. Jub. 15:11-14, 25-27, 33-34), a matter on which most Jews refused to compromise (2 Macc 6:10; 4 Macc 4:25; Jos. Ant. 12.256), with the rarest exceptions (b. Pesah. 69a). The rabbinic tradition often extols circumcision: e.g., m. Ned. 3:9; t. Ned. 2:5-7; b. 'Erub. 19a; Ned. 32a; Shebu. 13a; Gen. Rab. 11:6; 46:3; Ex. Rab. 5:8; 17:3; 19:5; 38:8; Lev. Rab. 21:6; 31:4; Pesiq. R. 13:8; 23:4; 29/30A:3; 52:4.

41. Cf. Georgi 1986: 83-164, albeit severely overstated; see Boccaccini 1991: 252-56. Jewish proselytism is probably not in view in Horace (cf. Nolland 1979).

42. Certainly rabbinic Judaism continued to emphasize proselytism (e.g., b. Sanh. 99b; Gen. Rab. 47:10; 98:5; Num. Rab. 8:4; Qoh. Rab. 7:8, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:6; see Bamberger 1968: 19-24, 222-30; Urbach 1979: 1:549-54; cf. Goodman 1989, who suggests that Christian successes spurred Jewish efforts) until the Roman government, controlled by Christians and perpetuating previous precedents, suppressed them (cf. also earlier barriers erected by the revolts, e.g., Applebaum 1979: 343; Gager 1975: 137). In later texts proselytism is associated with such figures as Hillel (e.g., b. Shab. 31a; perhaps m. 'Abot 1:12), and Abraham (e.g., Gen. Rab. 39:14; 48:8; Pesiq. R. 43:6); the latter was said to bring Gentiles "under the wings of the Presence" (e.g., Pesiq. R. 14:2) and to "create" them anew (e.g., Gen. Rab. 39:14; 84:8).

43. The case for Jewish "missions" has admittedly been overstated by its adherents at times, but Jewish concern for Gentile conversions has been widely recognized (e.g., Bamberger 1968: 267-73; Moore 1971: 1:323-24; Leon 1960: 250-56; Schoeps 1961b: 220ff.; Blauw 1962: 57; Jeremias 1958: 11, 16; De Ridder 1971a: 120; Daniel 1979: 63; Cohen 1983). Other philosophies also sought converts in the fertile soil of the Empire (see, e.g., Culpepper 1975: 117).

44. Interestingly, some Gentiles interested in Judaism also adopted some Jewish practices plainly originally adopted from paganism; see Safrai 1974/76a: 745.

45. Chilton 1994: 118-19 thinks that 23:23-24 reflect Matthew's own social situation, but may include early tradition.

46. E.g., t. Dem. 3:9: ARN 41 A; p. Ma'as. 5:1; Borg 1987: 89; cf. Neusner 1984: 27; McNamara 1983: 203). Tax gatherers appear on the other end of the moral spectrum as making tithes more difficult (e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 4:2). Among Romans, a tithe to Hercules was common in cases of exceptional luck (Tert. Apol 14.1, where LCL p. 73 n. d cites also Cie. De Nat. Deor. 3.36.88; Macrob. Sat. 3.12.2; Plaut. Truculentus 2.7.11); in Eleusis, see Mylonas 1961: 244.

47. Hepper 1992: 132 notes that cummin and dill were used both as spices and as medicinal herbs. Both are annual plants, the former reaching approximately 40 cms. (1 foot 4 inches) and the latter approximately 60 cms. (2 feet) in height.

48. Hepper 1992: 132-33 argues that the text refers to the horsemint (M longifolia; the traditional spearmint entered this region only later), "a perennial with creeping underground stems, its fragrant lance-shaped leaves borne on the erect stem which is four-cornered and about 60 cm (2 ft) high."

49. Falk 1985: 150-51 regards Jesus' words here as anti-Shammaite (citing m. Ma'as. 4:5-6). By the second century rabbis exempted "rue" (Lk 11:42) from the requirement to tithe, suggesting that Matthew may preserve the more original wording here (m. Sheb. 9:1; McNamara 1983: 204; Gundry 1982: 463, who usually favors Luke). This saying undoubtedly goes back to an original Aramaic saying of Jesus; Luke's "rue" (Lk 11:42) translates an Aramaic word that resembles the Aramaic term for "dill" (Argyle 1963: 175; Borg 1984: 100). "Cummin" is a Semitic term (Smith 1951: 7).

50. Kaiser 1975: 184 thinks 23:23 refers particularly to Mic 6:8. Allusions to this text appear in IQS 5.4 and probably 4.5, end.

51. Contrast the Roman belief that only the "ritual prescriptions" of their law were divinely inspired, a distinction not made by Jewish people and perhaps not by Greeks either (Cohen 1966: 1:28-29)

52. See comment on 5:19; cf. Jas 2:10-11; m. 'Abot 4:2; Sifra Qed. pq. 8.205.2.6; Sifra Behar. par. 5.255.1.10; Sifre Deut. 96.3.2; ARN 35, §77B. (Some regarded the laws of purity, menstruation, and bird offerings as essentials of Torah — ARN 27A.)

53. Schweizer 1975: 441; Gundry 1982: 464; Lachs 1987: 370 (citing b. Hul. 67a; cf. Shab. 20a) also claim that the Pharisees strained everything "through a cloth." While this practice probably occurred, it appears unclear how widespread it was.

54. Cf. b. Ber. 51a; Sanders 1990: 39; but cf. also the skepticism here of Maccoby 1982.

55. Neusner 1976: 495 thinks that the Gospel writers after 70 did not understand the original application. Yet while Matthew probably writes after 70, his own learning in the law probably predates 70 considerably, and he may have known earlier Pharisaic views; more likely, Jesus intended his saying metaphorically, as Matthew infers.

56. By contrast, Gundry 1982: 466 suggests an original play on words by Jesus himself.

57. Sanders 1990: 34, 232; cf. CD 12.15-17 (wood, stone, nails, or dust in a room); for later exceptions, probably following the purported cleansing of Tiberias (on which see, e.g., Levine 1978), cf., e.g., b. Bek. 29b; Ber. 19b; B. Mes. 114b. In "cases of doubt" (e.g., SifraTaz. pq. 1.123.1.6), as in Lk 10:30-32, the priest and Levite might well avoid the possible corpse (cf. Borg 1984: 104-5; Sanders 1990: 41-42), in practice if not in theory (cf. ARN HA); though cf. p. Nazir 7:1, §§7, 15; Abrahams 1917: 110.

58. Luke's form of the saying is thus probably closer to the original wording (Gundry 1982:466; Borg 1984: 113-14), although Jesus may originally have alluded to the way first-century Jews treated the exterior of the very common limestone ossuaries to beautify them (Lachs 1975; cf. whitewash to mourn the temple's destruction, b. Yoma 66b; "whitening" by cleaning and restoring a temple's whiteness in Livy 40.51.3). Jesus may also have intended a play on words between the terms for tomb (qeber) and inward part (qereb; Abrahams 1924: 30, citing similar puns in Ps 5 and Jer 5:16). A wordplay also unites this part of Jesus' diatribe: they build tombs (23:29) and they are tombs (23:27).

59. Greek could use the cognate terms for savage, anarchic behavior (e.g., Diod. Sic. 4.70.3; 33.14.1; 34/35.12.1; 36.6.1; 36.11.1) or unjust treatment (Dion. Hal. 8.4.2; licentius in Corn. Nep. 10 [Dion], 7.1), and anti-Judaic traditions even applied the label to Israel's customs (Diod. Sic. 34.35.3).

60. This was a charge sectarian communities regularly leveled against those outside (Overman 1990b: 17-18), including Qumran (IQpHab 7.1-5; Overman 1990b: 24-25), 1 Enoch 99:10-12, and Psalms of Solomon (Overman 1990b: 26-27). In 2 Baruch the law reveals who is wicked (41:3; 51:4; 54:14; Overman 1990b: 27), as does 4 Ezra (9:36-37; Overman 1990b: 27-28). Josephus regards the Pharisees as the law's most accurate interpreters (War 1.110; 2.162; Life 191; Ant. 17.41; cf. Acts 22:3; 26:5), further suggesting that this was a focus of debate within post-70 Judaism (Overman 1990b: 68-71). In calling his opponents "lawless," "Matthew has adopted . . . 'the language of sectarianism' " standard among his contemporaries (Overman 1990b: 98). The Greeks also opined that lawlessness merited vengeance from the gods (e.g., Ps-Demosth. Or. 59, Against Neaera 126).

61. The "tombs" of 23:29 may appear here by means of a verbal link with 23:27 (early Christians undoubtedly linked Jesus' sayings as Jewish interpreters linked biblical texts). Veneration of holy persons' and ancestral tombs is an ancient practice in the Middle East (Diod. Sic. 17.17.3; Dion. Hal. 8.24.6; 11.10.1; Argyle 1963: 176; Hill 1972: 313), and tombs of famous persons were, like temples, tourist attractions (Paus. 2.7.2; 8.41.1), but Judean care for prophets' tombs seems to have flourished particularly around Jesus' time (Jeremias 1971: 146n.2; Schweizer 1975: 442-43). Herod's and Hyrcanus's detractors accused them of violating David's tomb (near Jerusalem; Neh 3:16; ARN 35A; t. Β. Bat. 1:11; cf. Acts 2:29; see Jos. Ant. 7.392-94; 13.249; 16.179-84; War 1.61), whereas others reported only his monument for David (Jos. Ant. 16.183-84); notable monuments for others who were deceased also appear in this period (Ant. 18.108; 20.95; Carmon 1973: 120, 252, §255). Because Matthew elsewhere (10:41) links "prophets" and "righteous," as here, Hill 1965 thinks it applied especially to teachers; but it may simply refer to the "rest of the righteous" besides prophets, or link the two terms as applicable to all the righteous as prophetic witnesses.

62. Although Jesus' style here is more like that of the OT prophets, irony and satire were of course a broader ancient technique (e.g., Plato, Sophist; Cie. De Oratore 2.58.236; 2.61.251; Dio Chrys. 31st Disc. 9-10; Marc. Aur. Med. 2.6; Ach. Tat. 6.12.1; Jos. Apion 1.295; 1 Cor 4:8-10). On satire in Jesus' anti-Pharisee polemic, see, e.g., Boonstra 1980.

63. The Q saying (23:37-39//Lk 13:34-35) may foretell the temple's "abandonment rather than its destruction" (Theissen 1991: 220), but the Matthean application is clear.

64. Jewish tradition continued to affirm that God punished Israel only after warning them in advance (Amos 3:7-8; Sifra Behuq. pq. 5.266.1.1).

65. In favor of Matthew's being earlier is the poor fit of the saying in Luke, which in context reads as if Jesus climaxes this succession of divine representatives (including "apostles"). But Luke rarely emphasizes wisdom Christology, sees Jesus as deity in Acts 2:21, 34-38, and clearly sees the disciples as witnesses sent by Jesus (Acts 1:8); Matthew's change to make Jesus rather than divine wisdom the sender makes more sense. In any case, Thompson 1985: 222 (following H. E. Tödt) is correct to observe that here Q presupposes Jesus' death and resurrection.

66. Davies 1993: 163 reminds us that Nero's execution of Christians included crucifixion, as here (Tac. Ann. 15.44.2-8); nevertheless, Jesus' language elsewhere (16:24) may provide the most direct source for Matthew's modification of Q here, by which disciples share Jesus' sufferings (20:19; 27:22; on blood "shed," cf. 26:28).

67. It is very possible that the order of the Hebrew canon was not yet fixed in this period (though cf. Beckwith 1985: 211-22), but undoubtedly many MSS ended here, presumably including some known to Jesus (cf. Nowell 1988). That this saying thus reflects the Hebrew rather than LXX sequence adopted by later Christians favors the saying's antiquity and probably authenticity.

68. E.g., Ps-Philo 16:2; Test. Abr. 13A; IIB; Life of Adam 23; Apoc. Mos. 2-3; 40:4-5; 1 Clem. 3; Asc. Isa. 9:8. The ancient horror of fratricide (e.g., Cie. De Offic. 3.10.41; Hor. Epode 7.17-20), as well as chronology, made it an outstanding illustration.

69. So, e.g., Gundry 1982: 471-72; France 1985: 330-31; Urbach 1979: 1:559; Lachs 1987:372.

70. For a probably accidental conflation, see Lives of the Prophets 9 (Obadiah), §§2-4 (in Schermann's Greek text, §15, pp. 53-54); b. Sanh. 39b; for conflation of these two Zechariahs in later Jewish tradition, see Davies and Allison 1997: 319. But that Matthew's conflation here is accidental (cf. Meier 1980: 273) is no more likely than in the transformation of "Amon" and "Asa" into "Amos" and "Asaph" in 1:7-8, 10; for such deliberate allusions, see comment on 27:9. Such conflation of the two figures is attested later, and the early Christians could have conflated the two intentionally to allude to the writing prophet's message (cf. 21:5; 26:31; 27:9-10) or because they assumed their identity, reading "son" in a general sense in one of the passages. Others think that this refers solely to the prophet who wrote the book Zechariah; or to John's father Zechariah in Luke, martyred in later Christian tradition (but the references are too late); suggest an unknown Zechariah (Ross 1987); or follow Chrysostom's view that the text refers to Zechariah son of Bariscaeus whom the zealots murdered in a.D. 67 (Jos. IVar 4.334-44). The last view falters not only because this Zechariah is not known to have been a prophet (Manson 1979: 105) but because either it presupposes that Jesus or Q prophesied this name (and only this name in the tradition) or it dates Q later than 67; further, it supposes that Q would have regarded Zechariah as an apt model for Christians even if he was not one (as a wealthy and outstanding Jerusalemite, he almost certainly was not).

71. B. Git. 57b; p. Ta'an. 4:5, §14; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:7; Lam. Rab. 2:2, §4; 4:13, §16; Qoh. Rab. 3:16, § 1 ; 10:4, § 1 ; ef. Urbach 1979: 1:559. The tradition appears in later sources, but our largest body of texts (rabbinic literature) includes less haggadah in the earlier collections, and Jesus' words in Q (Matt 23:35; Lk 11:51) most naturally presuppose a tradition like this one. For the image, cf. Paus. 9.33.4; sanguinis fontem in Apul. Metam. 9.34; Pesiq. R. 24:1.

72. Shrines often functioned as sanctuaries of refuge (Ex 21:14; 1 Kings 2:28-29; Hesiod W.D. 327; Eurip. Madness of Heracles 48; Children of Heracles 61-62, 69-72, 77-78, 123-25, 364- 66; Androm. 253-54, 260, 411-12, 565, 859; Aristoph. Knights 1311-12; Diod. Sic. 11.89.6-8; 16.58.6; 17.41.8; Livy 35.51.1-2; 45.5.3-8, 11-12; Appian R.H. 12.1.7; 12.4.23; 12.8.53; Arrian Alex. 2.24.5; Corn. Nep. 4 [Pausanias], 4.4-5; 5.2-3; 17 [Agesilaus], 4.6; in Rome, also at the family hearth — Dion. Hal. 8.1.4), and bloodshed there both revealed the wickedness of the killers, inviting judgment (e.g., Eurip. Daughters of Troy 69; Virg. Aen. 1.349; Appian C.W. 5.1.9; Diod. Sic. 13.90.1; 17.13.6; Paus. 7.24.6; Jos. Apion 2.57; so also other acts against sanctuaries — e.g., Paus. 3.23.4-5; 9.33.6; Livy 42.28.12; Appian R.H. 3.12.2; Phaedrus 4.11; Babrius 78), and desecrated the shrine (e.g.. Dio Cassius R.H. 51.15.5; Diod. Sic. 14.4.6-7; 38/39.17.1).

73. Typically in the Mediterranean world people honored the sanctity not only of sanctuaries but also of ancestral tombs (Dion. Hal. 11.10.1; Appian R.H. 8.12.89); destroying such tombs was hideous (Jos. Apion 2.58). Like shrines (see comment on 23:35), tombs could be places of refuge, though not inviolable (Appian R.H. 8.7.38).

74. Just as pathos was appropriate in persuasive rhetoric, tears and laments could represent praiseworthy affection in narrative works (e.g., Diod. Sic. 17.69.4; 34/35.11.1; Jos. Life 205, 210; War 2.402; Test. Abr. 3 A; Test. Mos. 11:2-3; Jn 11:35; Acts 20:37; ef. Gen 31:28, 55; 1 Sam 20:41; Dion. Hal. 3.18.3; 7.7.1; Ep. Arist. 123). Lamentation was part of life (e.g., GreekAnth. 7.339-40, 389; Quint. 6, pref.; Pliny Ep. 2.1.10-11; see comment on 27:55-66), despite some philosophers' challenges and the stereotypical consolatory exhortation not to grieve beyond measure (Theon Progymn. 8.55; Sen. Dial. 11.4.1; Epict. Disc. 1.9.20; 1.29.65-66; Plut. Letter of Condolence to Apollonius 33, Mor. 118E; Consolation to Wife 2, Mor. 608C; 4, Mor. 608F-609A; Socrates Ep. 21; Ep. Arist. 268; Test. Zeb. 10:1-2; Syr. Men. Sent. 463-69; Stowers 1986: 145-46). See especially Malina 1993: 24-25 and his sources.

75. For the expression in general, cf. 3 Enoch 7:1. The protective instincts of a mother bird were proverbial, applied at times to human mothers (4 Maec 14:14-17; Eurip. Madness of Heracles 71-72; Androm. 441, 504-5) or others (Eurip. Children of Heracles 10). Boer 1974: 37 believes that 23:37 carries on the rare, but real, OT worship of God's motherly aspects (e.g., Num 11:12). The bird can appear as Israel or as Torah in Tannaitic parables (Sifre Deut. 48), but it is found too infrequently and in too ad hoc a manner to constitute a standard metaphor there (Johnston 1977b: 596).

76. Cf. also God's grief over Israel's judgment, often expressed anthropomorphically, even in Tannaitic parables. There, however, the picture is often apologetic (guaranteeing Israel's restoration), and sometimes God becomes dependent on his people to comfort him (Stern 1991: 126-27).

77. Bultmann 1968: 114-15 argues that 23:37-39 come from a Jewish prophecy based on the wisdom myth with parallels (the dates of which are now known to be questionable) in the Primal Man myth, but allows that the prophecy may have come via either Jesus or the Christian community. Aune 1983: 175, with less speculation, argues that this unit is authentic from Jesus. It fits traditional polemic, noting the biblical pattern of sin-exile-return (Stanton 1993: 250).

78. On its massive architecture and how it was built, see Jos. War 5.184-227, and for archaeological corroboration Josephus 1982: 346-61. Some recent scholars have also questioned whether the temple proper is under the Dome of the Rock or elsewhere (see Josephus 1982: 364, 426; Vogt 1974; Kaufman 1983; this would be easier politically). In many ancient cities "temple mounts" included palaces and other supremely important buildings as part of the most defensible acropolis (see Rohrbaugh 1991: 134).

79. Long after rabbinic Judaism had adjusted to the loss of the temple, it remained central in Jewish hopes (e.g., Gen. Rab. 14:8; 56:2; 95 MSV); speaking hyperbolically, a later teacher lamented that while pagans pray for the earth, all Israel's prayers were for the temple's rebuilding (Gen. Rab. 13:2).

80. For the general sentiment of its invulnerability, cf. Borg 1984: 165-70. After 70, some revised the claim of invincibility to argue that the western wall would never be destroyed (Num. Rab. 11:2; Song Rab. 2:9, §4; Lam. Rab. 1:5, §31; Pesiq. R. 15:10).

81. Horsley 1995: 145 is probably too skeptical of Galilean devotion to the temple, though he may be right that Galilean pilgrimage was much less frequent than Judean (144-46).

82. Mack 1988: 327 believes that the attribution of Mk 13'seschatological sayings to Jesus is part of Mark's fiction. Kelber 1976a: 168-72 supposes that Mark, being anti-temple, must be post-70; Marxsen, however, believes that Mark sees in the temple's destruction a herald of the imminent end ( 1969: 168, 189). But while most Jews would have viewed the temple as invulnerable before 66, some thought otherwise (see text). At least Mark's traditions are usually dated before 70 (see Allison 1998: 16-17).

83. Only Gos. Thorn. 71 attributes the statement to Jesus himself, and this version is clearly late and gnosticizing (Aune 1983: 173). Nevertheless Sanders 1985: 73-74 is probably right to suggest that this reflects an authentic (though probably misinterpreted) saying; it is multiply attested and not the sort of threat one would have made up later (also Theissen 1991: 113, 194). If the four-beat rhythm in the proposed Aramaic reconstruction is accurate, it may indicate that Jesus originally offered this teaching privately to the disciples (cf. Jeremias 1971: 22-23).

84. Fritsch thinks that the probable Damascus Essenes were less anti-temple than the Qumran community, based on CD 13.27; 9.46; 8.11ff. (1956: 84); cf. also Davies 1982. Essene opposition sheds light on another point in the Gospels: that Jesus also respected (5:23-24; 23:16-21) and taught in (21:23) the temple does not conflict with his announcement of judgment against it; even Essenes reportedly sent sacrifices to the temple (Jos. Ant. 18.19).

85. Making the same point, Aune 1983: 174-75 more thoroughly lists many examples of Jesus' predecessors and contemporaries who prophesied against the temple or made similar claims: e.g., the Egyptian Jewish prophet expected Jerusalem's walls to collapse (Jos. Ant. 20.169-70; cf. War 2.261-63); Josephus himself claimed to predict the fall of Jotapata (War 3.406) and cites an ancient oracle predicting the temple's fall (War 6.96-110; 4.388; he may refer to a biblical oracle, however).

86. Strangely, Crossan 1991a: 359, who admits that Jesus' threat against the temple is authentic, doubts that it could have been literal. A "symbolic" threat against the temple is much harder to document among Jesus' contemporaries.

87. Nevertheless, in keeping with prior biblical tradition, they saw the temple's destroyers as ignoble (Jos. War 6.95; Gen. Rab. 37:4) and warranting judgment (Urbach 1979: 1:91-92). In contrast to Matthew, Gentile Christians after the first century often saw in the temple's demise God's rejection of Judaism, vengeance for Christ's death, or the present impossibility of fulfilling the law (Lampe 1984: 153-71).

88. See also Beasley-Murray 1957: 24; Meier 1980: 277, 283; Gundry 1982: 475; Davies and Allison 1997: 335.

89. Thus Kümmel 1957: 101-2 sees the temple prophecy as originally referring to the end of the age rather than a historical event (cf. Ellison 1966: 19ff.). "Since the destruction of the temple and the holy city is a theme of Jewish apocalyptic, Jesus' prophecy is generally and quite correctly regarded as eschatological" (Aune 1983: 175; citing also Bultmann). But Borg may be closer to correct when he suggests that Jesus prophesied judgment rather than constructed an elaborate apocalyptic schema (1984: 181), though he is clearly wrong to deny Jesus' eschatological worldview in other respects (Witherington 1990: 30n.l 11; see below).

90. Grammatically the coming and close of the age (for synteleia see also 13:39-40, 49; 28:20) are linked by the single sign and represent a single question; the single definite article governing them may identify them as well (cf. Gundry 1982: 476; pace Ellis 1974: 87-88). Frost 1924: 22 hopes to distinguish synteleia (13:39; 24:3; 28:20) as the end time in a general way, including the tribulation period, from telos (24:6, 14), meaning the final end. But despite the intentional connection between 24:6 and 14, synteleia and telos are interchangeable in this discourse. Other Jewish texts also spoke of "end" both in an eschatological sense (CD 6.11) and as an end-tme "sign" (e.g., 2 Bar. 70:7; cf. Sib. Or. 4.173-76).

91. Gaston 1970: 10-13 thinks the prophecy's original context was a public address; while this suggestion would fit Mark's "mystery" motif, it is improbable that Matthew, who has prior tradition here, would not have changed it back (to correspond to biblical prophets', especially Jeremiah's, public denunciations) if the Palestinian tradition had reported it otherwise.

92. In Jewish tradition, God's presence departs from Israel or the sanctuary when their sin becomes unbearable; cf. 2 Bar. 8:1-2; 64:6; 3 Enoch 5:14; Sifra Qed. pq. 8.205.2.1; par. 4.206.2.6; Sifra Behuq. pq. 6.267.2.6; Sifre Num. 1.10.3; Sifre Deut. 258.2.3; 320.2.1; ARN 34, 38A; b. Ber. 5b; Rosh Hash. 31a; Shab. 33a; 139a; Yebam. 64a, bar.; Yoma 21b; p. Sanh. 8:8, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1; Gen. Rab. 19:7; Deut. Rab. 5:10; 6:14; Ruth Rab. 1:2; Qoh. Rab. 12:7, §1; Lam. Rab. Proem 25; Song Rab. 5:1, §1; Pesiq. R. 5:7; for earlier traditions, see 1 Sam 4:22; Ezek 9:3; 10:4-18; Jn 8:59; Wis 1:4; 6:12-25. (Rabbis regularly associated the Presence with merit — e.g., Sifre Deut. 305.3.1; 313.3.1; 355.6.1; Gen. Rab. 60:16; Ex. Rab. 45:5; Num. Rab. 19:20; Song Rab. 4:5, §2; 7:6, §1; Pesiq. R. 10:2.) Nevertheless, teachers felt that God's presence accompanied Israel into exile (Mek. Pisha 14.87, 100-101; Beshallah 3.82-83; Sifre Num. 84.4.1; p. Ta'an. 1:1. §10; Ex. Rab. 15:16; Num. Rab. 7:10; Lam. Rab. 1:5, §32; Cohen 1982a).

93. Clearly the delay of the parousia appears problematic in some passages (especially 2 Pet 3:3-14). That Jesus seems to have proclaimed only potential imminence minimizes the problem of the parousia's delay (cf. Witherington 1992: 48), but it is doubtful whether in practice this would eliminate it altogether (compare the progressive postponements of expectation in Qumran texts such as IQpHab 7.7-8, 11-12, and perhaps in OT prophets, e.g., Hab 2:3; Dan 9:2-3; Ps 89:46; Reicke 1964: 179; Vermes 1984: 24, 116-17; for some treatment of imminence in early Qumran texts, cf. Alminana Lloret 1970). At the same time, we lack evidence for a radical reformulation of early Christian eschatology due to this delay (see Aune 1975); heavily eschatological material (e.g., the Jesus traditions behind 1 Thess 4-5 and some of Revelation) and potentially realized eschatology (the church saying of Mt 16 and John) existed side by side throughout the first century, including in Paul (cf., e.g., Phil 1:23; 3:20-21).

94. See Schweitzer 1968 (original edition 1906); cf. Sanders 1985: 8. Jeremias 1964c: 33-34 doubts the authenticity of agrapha in Papias because they resemble Jewish apocalyptic more than the Gospels (earthly fertility, etc.); but whether or not these agrapha are authentic, such grounds for excluding them are probably unwarranted. Similar imagery appeared in Jesus' Bible (e.g., Amos 9:13; Is 35:1-2; Joel 2:24), and if Jesus could draw on other eschatological images (e.g., Matt 8:11; Is 25:6) and treat the Hebrew Bible as a unified book (Matt 23:35) there is no reason why he could not have embraced biblical images different from those most frequently found in his canonical sayings.

95. Despite their exaggeration, "there is no going back behind Weiss and Schweitzer" (Dunn 1975: 41); those uncomfortable with an eschatological Jesus who fit his milieu, followed John, and left an eschatological church must resort to saying "that everybody misunderstood Jesus completely," based on wishful thinking without evidence (Sanders 1993: 95, 183).

96. The genre is technically closer to a testament (cf. Tob 4, 14; 1 Macc 2:49-69; Jub. 36:1-11; 2 Enoch 2:2; Test. 12 Patr.; p. Ketub. 12:3, §§12-13; Ta'an. 4:2, §8; deathbed visions or predictions in p. 'Abod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Sota 9:16, §2; Hom. II. 16.853-54, 859; 22.359-60; but on the Testament of

Abraham, see rightly Kolenkow 1974; Burnett 1979: 352) or farewell discourse, which often includes eschatological and sometimes apocalyptic features (see Robbins 1992: 175). A sage's imminent death often provides the occasion for parenesis (Perdue 1990; Jos. Ant. 4.177-93). On testaments, see Saldarini 1977; Kolenkow 1986; Collins 1986; Endres 1987: 199-201; McNamara 1983: 89-92; on farewell speeches, see also Stowers 1986: 55-56; Kurz 1985. Neusner 1986 is correct, however, that the analogy is largely formal; the Gospels' Christology necessitates radically different content.

97. After commending Beasley-Murray for a brilliant defense of Mk 13's authenticity, Perrin responds that many "non-Markan" terms common to Revelation appear in this chapter (1963: 130-31); but the data he marshals for his objection merely confirm the pre-Markan character of the text and the distinctive vocabulary of Jewish eschatology. Likewise, an argument for prophetic language similar to that of Revelation (Boring 1982: 186-95) does not question authenticity if one concedes (as Boring elsewhere does) that Jesus himself spoke as a prophet.

98. Mark may have combined disparate elements of the Jesus tradition (Beasley-Murray 1983), and may combine apocalyptic with antiapocalyptic motifs (cf. Tagawa 1977). Mark may likewise emphasize suffering for believers too focused on final eschatology (cf. Hooker 1982; Ford 1979: 35; to some degree, Weeden 1971: 101). For connections between predictions and parenesis, see Aune 1983: 185, who, with Hartman, takes this passage as pre-Markan. But imminence and prerequisite signs are hardly incompatible, for they occurred together in apocalyptic texts (Ford 1979: 28); from the earliest sayings of Jesus, imminence would take effect only after the signs were fulfilled (F. F. Bruce 1977c: 230).

99. See especially Waterman 1975 (citing 24 parallels, mostly compelling); D. Wenham 1984b; cf. also Hunter 1961: 49; Stanley 1961: 82; Barrett 1967: 12; Riesenfeld 1970: 13; Minear 1972: 164-65; Mounce 1974; Lane 1974a: 449; Beasley-Murray 1974: 42; Ridderbos 1975: 65; Hill 1979: 130; Plevnik 1979; Robinson 1979: 113-14; Davies 1980: 139; Marshall 1983: 126, 134; Sanders 1985: 144-45; Crossan 1991a: 243-47; cf. ConzeImann 1969: 165; in 2 Thess 2, see besides those above D. Wenham 1984b: 176-80; Milligan 1908: Ixi n. 1. The cumulative evidence is, as Ford 1979: 22 puts it, virtually "conclusive." Although it is far from clear, some other material in 1 Thessalonians may also echo the dominical tradition (Riesenfeld 1970: 17; cf. Dibelius 1953: 93). The "catching up" part may be an agraphon (Frame 1912: 171; Morris 1959: 141; Jeremias 1964c: 14; cf. Neil 1950: 97) or a midrashic implication of the explicit gathering(Wenham 1981: 348; cf. Marshall 1983: 130); the descent may derive from OT theophany language (see Scott 1959: 132).

100. Cf. also the early fourth-century-A.D. Egyptian syncretistic text Asclepius 72.16-25; 73.5-12, 18-22 (Boring 1995: 135-36), which includes among end-time sufferings not only wars but the pious being considered "insane," wicked angels remaining, atheism prevailing, etc. Some significant parallels remain, but given its date influence from Egyptian Christianity cannot be ruled out.

101. Glasson 1963: 175 and Robinson 1979: 105-7; they rightly find a source for much of the material in the LXX, especially Is 26-27, but miss the one authority behind early Christian eschatology that could combine these particular motifs (cf. similarly Wenham 1981: 348-49). (Note that the Christian tradition also echoes sources like Ps. Sol. 17:11-18.) Goulder 1974: 166 characteristically thinks Matthew derives the trumpet from 1 Thess 4:16 (cf. Dodd 1936: 154-55, on 1 Thess 5:2-8 with Lk 21:34-36), but this gives Paul's correspondence too preeminent and early a role in early Christianity (perhaps before Christians even collected his letters).

102. Pace Koester 1971: 196; Best 1977: 189-93; Boring 1982: 11, 34n.41; Aune 1983: 253-56.

103. rophecies could be written down and preserved (Test. Job 51:4/3); but it does not appear to have been the norm (cf. Aune 1983: 244). Further, oracles were far more likely to be heavily redacted than didactic traditions were (cf. J. J. Collins in OTP 1:320).

104. Cf., e.g., Jub. 23:11-25, especially 23:13; 36:1; IQM 15.1; Sib. Or. 2.6-33; 3.213-15; 4 Ezra 8:63-9:8; 13:19-20, 30; 2 Bar. 26:1-27:13; 69:3-5; Test. Mos. 7-8; m. Sota 9:15; b. Sanh. 97a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Qoh. Rab. 2:15, §2; Lam. Rab. 1:13, §41 ; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; 8:9, §3; Pesiq. R. 1:7; 15:14/15; 34:1; pace Sanders 1985: 23, who questions the antiquity of the concept. Even the expression is demonstrably pre-Christian if IQH 3.3-18 refers to the community's eschatological suffering (cf., e.g., Black 1961: 149-51; Pryke 1969: 50-51), though the relation to a Messiah is debated (see, variously, e.g., Baumgarten and Mansoor 1955; Silberman 1956; Brownlee 1956-57; Brown 1957; Gordis 1957; Brown 1968).

105. So Morris 1972: 23; Lane 1974a: 459; Ladd 1974b: 201-2; cf. IQH 3.3-18; 1 Enoch 62:4; b. Sanh. 98b; Shab. 118a. "Birth pangs" draws on OTjudgment language (Ps 48:6; Is 13:8; 21:3; 26:17; 42:14; Jer 4:31; 6:24; 13:21; 22:23; 30:6; 31:8; 48:41 ; 49:22, 24; 50:43; Hos 13:13; also Glasson 1962: 175). Whether Paul in 1 Thess 5:3 also derived it from the dominical tradition (Milligan 1908: 65; Wenham 1981: 353-56) or not (F. F. Bruce 1982: 110) is disputed, since he applies the image quite differently from that tradition. For Paul, cf. the birth pangs in the day of judgment when the Son of Man sits on his throne in 1 Enoch 62:4-5 (Witherington 1990: 245), if it is genuinely non-Christian material, or the birth pangs of final judgment in 4 Ezra 4:42. Similar imagery was applicable to the first creation (Philo Creation 43).

106. Matthew and Mark clearly write for the church; this undercuts older dispensational interpretations that deny that the church is addressed (Walvoord 1971a; idem 1976: 73-74; Ware 1981; contrast Beechick 1980: 231-51, who, though supporting pretribulationism, admits that the text addresses the church). Historically, addressing the disciples, Jesus was also addressing the nucleus of the church, no less than in, say, Jn 14-17 (Katterjohn 1976: 17). As Carson 1984b: 490 notes, "Most will agree that no passage in the Bible unambiguously teaches a two-stage return."

107. Robbins 1992: 59 thinks that the Markan hortatory notes represent Greco-Roman adaptations of OT prophetic patterns like "Behold, the days are coming." He also notes (176) the frequency of warnings in farewell discourses.

108. The cry "I am (he)" (Mk 13:6; Lk 21:8) may have special messianic or prophetic significance (cf. Daube 1973: 325-27 on the usage for the divine presence; cf. John's "I am" statements); Weeden supposes prophets have identified themselves with Christ in ecstasy (1971: 77-78; cf. Theissen 1991: 152).

109. "Do not be deceived" was standard hortatory language (e.g., Epict. Disc. 2.20.7; 2.22.15; 4.6.23; 2 Macc 7:18; 1 Cor 6:9; Gal 6:7; 2 Thess 2:3; Ign. Eph. 16). Planaö seems an emphasis in Matthew's redaction here (cf. Broer 1993b). For Matthew and the Jesus tradition, those who do not know Scripture or who limit God's power are especially susceptible to being misled (22:29).

110. Sib. Or. 3.63-70 implies that an antichrist figure will work signs, but this may be a Christian interpolation.

111. Poseidon appears regularly as the "earth-shaker" in Greek sources: Hom. II. 7.445; 8.201, 208, 440; 12.27; 13.10, 34, 43, 59, 65, 89, 215, 231, 554, 677; 14.135, 150, 355, 384; 15.41, 173, 184, 205, 218, 222; 20.13, 20, 34, 57-63, 132, 291, 310, 318, 330, 405; 21.287, 435, 462; Od. 1.74; 5.282, 339, 366, 375, 423; 6.326; 7.35, 56, 271; 8.354; 9.283, 518, 525; 11.102, 241, 252; 12.107; 13.125, 140, 146, 159, 162; Aristoph.Acharn. 510-11.

112. Tr. Shem 1:1, 5-6, 11; 2:5; 5:1-4; 6:7-11; 7:4-7, 14; 8:6-7; 11:8-9; 12:9 associates food conditions with the zodiac, but as a Jewish document it likely presupposes that God is the one working through such signs. That God authors calamities is also implied but not stated in Syr. Men. Sent. 444-46. Both Epicureans and Stoics found naturalistic causes for earthquakes (Diog. Laert. Lives 7.1.154; 10.105), though paganism more frequently attributed them to deities (Orphic Hymn 15.8; Diod. Sic. 15.48.3-4; 16.61-64; Paus. 7.24.6); for plagues as judgment, see, e.g., Diod. Sic. 14.69.4- 14.71.4 (but some found naturalistic explanations here as well — Dion. Hal. 7.68.2; or sacrifices could not placate the gods — Dion. Hal. 9.42.1; 10.53.4-6). Some also preferred naturalistic explanations for eclipses (Dio Cassius R.H. 60.26.1-5) and thunderbolts (Pliny N.H. 2.18.82).

113. One may also compare the ultimate eschatological earthquake (e.g., 1 Enoch 1:6-8; Rev 6:12; cf. Bauckham 1977).

114. Although Josephus reports many false prophets (including in the OT, Ant. 8.318), we have little record of messiahs between Jesus and Bar Kochba, which Gundry interprets as supporting the authenticity of the saying that messiahs would come (1982: 477); but Josephus seems to have played down messianic claims wherever possible.

115. Theissen 1991: 277 thinks that Luke's earthquakes, more associated with the final events, reflect events in the 60s (Pompeii, 62-63 — Tac. Ann. 15.22.2) and 70s (Pompeii, Corinth, and Cyprus — Pliny Ep. 6.16; Dio Cassius 66.21.1-3; Malal. Chron. 261; Oros. 7.9.11; Sib. Or. 4.115-44). For a catalogue of earthquakes in Israel from 92 B.c. to A.D. 1994 (including tremors in Jerusalem in A.D. 30, 33, 48), see Amiran, Arieh, and Turcotte 1994.

116. Ancients sometimes recognized civil war as particularly noxious, given its propensity for dividing kin (cf. 24:10); cf. Dion. Hal. 6.79.1; 7.42.3; 10.35.3; Livy 7.60.2; Appian C.W. !.introduction, 5; Corn. Nep. 8 (Thrasybulus), 2.6; 15 (Epaminondas), 10.3; Lucan C.W. 1.1; Jos. Life 100 (cf. Life 26, 128); on lesser forms of civil strife, see Dion. Hal. 11.60.3. Although the Jewish-Roman war was noteworthy (e.g., Tac. Hist. 2.4; 5.1-5), other peoples in the east may have retained some nationalistic sentiments (cf. Millar 1987), threatening further potential instability.

117. Oikoumene can mean Roman Empire, but the "representative" sense began to be ful filled proleptieally as early as Acts 2:5-12; in view of the commission in 28:19-20, one might think that 24:14 hopes for a broader evangelization than that. Although Paul spoke of worldwide evangelization (Rom 10:18) before he reached Spain (Rom 15:20-24; Hagner 1995: 696), his use of "every place" was intentionally hyperbolic and perhaps proleptic (1 Thess 1:8). Josephus contended that Jews observed the law "everywhere" (Apion 2.282, 284). Those who argue that 24:14 has been fulfilled, however, rightly remind us that the "fulfillment" of this passage is not quantifiable, and hence serves as a motivator but not a predictor.

118. Theissen 1991: 153-54 focuses on the wars shortly before A.D. 40 (Jos. Ant. 18.113-14, 124; Tac. Ann. 6.31-37), which best fit his dating of the source. See Wilson 1977 for a historical survey of prophecy teachers' (usually errant) applications to current events over a seven-decade period.

119. The hatred of "all humanity" may have been a figure of speech for behavior that was universally odious (e.g., Plut. Educ. 14, Mor. 1 IC); Jewish people sometimes used "all the nations" hy-perbolically for the whole pagan world, as distinct from Israel (cf. 1 Macc 1:42-43, depicting the sin of both). Mt 24:10-12 seems to reflect pre-Matthean tradition (see Wenham 1980).

120. 1 Macc 1:41-51; see data in Caird 1955: 29-30; Schiffman 1981: 144-46; cf. CD 5.21; Sifre Deut. 318.1.10, 15.

121. E.g., 1 Enoch 91:7; IQpHab 2.5-6; Test. Iss. 6:1; Naph. 4:1; 3 Enoch 48A:5-6; m. Sota 9:15; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Pesiq. R. 15:14/15; cf. 4 Ezra 5:1-2; 14:16-18.

122. Schweizer rightly claims that the "lawlessness" here opposed is one that undermines love toward neighbor (1975: 451; cf. 22:39); I would add that it applies to all who reject Jesus' radical interpretation of God's law, including the Pharisees (5:17-20; though it is doubtful that 2 Thess 2:3's "man of lawlessness" was Pharisaism, pace Brunec 1957).

123. Pharaoh is "lawless" in 3 Macc 6:4; Nebuchadnezzar in 4 Bar. 7:25; Nero in Dio Chrys. 21st Disc., On Beauty 6; wicked priests in Test. Levi 17:11; and antediluvian society in 2 Enoch 71:24-25; among Greeks, revolt against religion was "lawlessness" (Avi-Yonah 1978: 32). Sib. Or. 3.69-70 warns of Beliar's leading astray both the "chosen" (cf. Mt 24:24) and the "lawless"(possibly a Jewish-Christian interpolation, but probably not Christian); Ps. Sol. 1:8 conjoins Jerusalemites' lawlessness with profanation of the sanctuary. Nevertheless, Pompey especially filled the role of "man of lawlessness" for Psalms of Solomon (17:11), as Antiochus IV Epiphanes appears to be the "man of sin" in 1 Macc 2:62. But Antiochus provides the basic model, because he seeks to make Israel forget God's law (1 Macc 1:49). Thus lawlessness (anomia and paranomia) functions as sin (Test. Job 43:2; Jos. War 4.355; cf. Epict. Disc. 2.16.44; 4.7.36) and the opposite of piety (Sir. 39:24), but as abandonment of God's law it functions especially as apostasy (Philo Mos. 2.165; Test. Dan 6:6; 7:3; Naph. 4:1), as in the Jesus tradition. "Man of lawlessness" may render the Heb. "man of Belial," which also appears in the LXX as man of "apostasy" (F. F. Bruce 1982: 167-68).

124. Although Christians undoubtedly discovered the severity of this temptation during the Neronian persecution, other early Christian texts and the probable Jesus tradition in 2 Thessalonians warn against too specific a referent to that persecution here (as in Taylor 1989). The apostasy of "the many" also involves far more widespread (cf. 20:28) apostasy than can be thought to have occurred under Nero.

125. Jeremias 1958: 22-23 (followed by Barrett 1967: 75) thinks that the Gospel writers meant worldwide evangelism but that Jesus originally referred to an angelic proclamation as in Rev 14:6-7. Yet the logion better fits not only its Markan context but the whole of Jesus' sayings by fitting his sending of disciples, and the primary objection to it is the a priori assumption that Jesus anticipated an immediate appearance of his kingdom. Some of Jesus' other sayings also depict the disciples carrying on in a possible interim after his departure (Mt 10:28; Lk 17:22; Mk 14:58; Goppelt 1981: 217). Against another view, that the Semitic term behind euangelion here would not have born a religious sense, see Gundry 1982: 480-81.

126. Many Jewish teachers emphasized that Israel's obedience could hasten the end (e.g., Tob 13:6; Test. Zeb. 9:7; Sifre Deut. 41.4.3; 43.16.3; b. B. Bat.lOa; Nid. 13b, bar.; Sanh. 97b; p. Taan. 1:1, §7; Ex. Rab. 25:12; Deut. Rab. 3:2; Song Rab. 2:5, §3; 4:8, §3; 5:2, §2; Pesiq. R. 31:5; cf. Acts 3:19; 2 Pet 3:12), whereas others preferred fixed schemes, whether able to be determined or known only to God (e.g., Sifra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.3; b. 'Abod. Zar. 9ab; Sanh. 97ab; Lev. Rab. 15:1; Lam. Rab. Proem 21). Some reconciled the two by claiming that the redemption was scheduled but would come early if Israel were obedient (Song Rab. 8:14, §1). Laterrabbis reported both the multiplicity of dates and prerequisites for the Messiah's coming alongside warnings against speculating when he would come (b. Sanh. 97a-98b). Various texts speak of God delaying death (p. Ta'an. 2:1, § 11 ; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 7:10; Qoh. Rab. 7:15, §1; cf. 4 Ezra 7:82), other judgments (Sib. Or. 1.129; Sifre Deut. 43.14.1; cf. Plut. Delays of Divine Vengeance, Mor. 548A-68A), or the end (1 Enoch 60:5; 4 Ezra 7:24; cf. 2 Bar. 85:12) to grant time for repentance.

127. The "entire world" could be hyperbolic, as apparently in some other texts (e.g., Polyb. R.R.E. 1.1, 2, 64).

128. The early Christian perspective could thus explain their experience of delay on the analogy of the deferment of God's promise in the earlier biblical record; just as Israel through disobedience ruled the land promised to Abraham only twice in her history (Gen 15:18 ; 1 Kings 4:21 ; 2 Chron 34:5-7), so the Lord's return was delayed and the world's suffering prolonged by the church's disobedience to the Great Commission (cf. 2 Pet 3:9-15; Ford 1979: 76).

129. The contextual link might derive from Markan redaction: Mk 13:10 may interrupt its context and bear indications of Mark's special attention (cf. Pryke 1978: 53-54), but this likely suggests that Mark borrowed it from a different context rather than that he composed 13:10 from whole cloth; the idea is too common (and in some cases too early) in early Christianity to have begun with Mark (e.g., 2 Pet 3:9-15; Acts 1:6-11; Rom 11:25-26).

130. Cf. the false prophets of "peace" of Jeremiah's day (e.g., 6:14; 8:11; 14:13; 28:9) and tales of other "deceivers" who led to defeat (e.g.. Diod. Sic. 34/35.2.5-6).

131. By means of a wordplay Simeon bar Kokhba ("son of a star") became bar Koseba ("son of a lie"); cf., e.g.. Lam. Rab. 2:2, §4. The Jewish-Christian avoidance of force contrasts starkly with Bar Kochba's military ideology (Kellner 1988); on his administrative method, see Pileggi 1991. But most Jews would have regarded Hadrian as an antimessiah more than Bar Kochba, who was merely a false messiah.

132. The frequent application of "May his bones rot" and similar curses to Titus and especially to Hadrian (Gen. Rab. 10:3; 28:3; 65:21; 78:1; Lev. Rab. 18:1; Deut. Rab. 3:13; Ruth Rab. 3:2; Qoh. Rab. 2:17, §1; Lam. Rab. 3:23, §8) attached to wicked persons in general (probably Tannaitic tradition in Gen. Rab. 49:1), though it probably represents redaction from the editor of Genesis Rabbah and later writers. Again, however, the hatred of him is hardly unanimous (cf. Justin I Apol. 68). Naturally Nebuchadnezzar also featured occasionally in this tradition, though the influence of Jdt 3, 6 on 2 Thess 2 (Mussner 1963) is questionable.

133. Regardless of the date of Daniel, it cannot be later than the second-century-B.c. manuscript of it among the Dead SeaScrolls (see Yamauchi 1972: 87-91; Kitchen 1978: 152n.l0; Vasholz 1978); nevertheless, calculating the "seventy-sevens" from the time of the decree to which Daniel refers brings one to the early first century. This undoubtedly increased eschatological speculation among Jesus' contemporaries (Beckwith 1981; on Daniel's popularity then, see Jos. Ant. 10.268-81; 12.322; Mason 1992: 47), and though Daniel (probably due to its Aramaic portions) appears with Ezra rather than in the prophets, Matthew (24:15; contrast Mk 13:14), like his contemporaries (Jos. Ant. 10.266; Mason 1992: 47), considered him a prophet (though cf. also Mt 13:35; Gundry 1982: 482). Many think Daniel applied only to the Maccabean desecration (Aalders 1960; Colunga 1960), but both the Qumran pesharim and texts like Lives of the Prophets 12:11 (§ 19 in Schermann, p. 63) indicate that Jesus' contemporaries freely reapplied such images.

134. Cf. the similar call to pesher interpretation in Rev 13:18; typical of Jesus in Mk 4:9, 12. Elsewhere Jesus uses the more general motif of summoning readers to understand (e.g., 21:42), but this instance specifically represents an eschatological riddle (whether because of a politically sensitive reference to Rome, or simply reflecting a Jewish tradition of eschatological mystery — cf. Dan 12:9). Noneschatological riddles belong to the sage tradition (Jos. Apion 1.111, 114-15).

135. Although Josephus absolves Titus of personal responsibility (Jos. War 6.240-41, 249-66), many ancients considered the burning of temples a hideous act (Diod. Sic. 10.25.1; Livy 31.26.12; 31.30.9-10; 31.31.3; Corn. Nep. 2 [Themistocles], 4.1-2; Jos. Apion 2.131).

136. Probably because Titus ordered these standards to be erected, many church fathers held that Titus had erected a statue of himself on the site of the temple, literally fulfilling 2 Thess 2:4 (Lachs 1987: 383, citing Chrysostom and Jerome); but this patristic interpretation is not historically accurate (Ford 1979: 158).

137. For bibliography on the incident of Jos. Ant. 18.55-59, see LCL 9:45-46. Beasley-Murray (1957: 69ff.) and Payne (1962: 152) believe the desecration referred to was the one of 70 rather than of 66 (cf. Argyle 1963: 182), but the "abomination" probably precedes rather than occurs simultaneously with the "desolation"; see below. Kraeling 1942: 288-89 interestingly notes that Jesus entered Jerusalem in the spring of A.D. 30, three and a half years after Pilate's "abomination" with the standards in Jerusalem, suggesting that eschatological enthusiasm was already high.

138. Some feel the prophecy originated during the time of Caligula's oppression (Gaston 1970: 24-27). But that Jesus predicted an abomination of this or a related nature is, in my mind, indisputable; he could draw directly on Daniel without events directly provoking his words. At the same time, the saying changed through tradition history (cf. Thiselton 1977: 94 on the prophecy's openendedness). Perhaps reinterpreting Jesus' saying in light of the Caligula crisis of A.D. 40, the long tradition behind Mk 13 seems to imply a personal desecrator in Mk 13:14 (Plummer 1910: 332; Mickelsen 1963: 293; Moule 1965: 106; F. F. Bruce 1972b: 257; Anderson 1976: 296; Lane 1974a: 467; Wenham 1981: 350) — which Matthew, writing after 70, does not (Jeremias 1971: 128; Gundry 1982: 482). 2 Thessalonians (which in view of its image of a literal king enthroned in the temple must be pre-70) likewise interprets the Jesus "tradition" (2 Thess 2:2, 15) as declaring a king who would do what Caligula had previously tried to do (2:3-4). That non-Markan details of Matthew's discourse (e.g., 24:43; the trumpet in 24:31) also appear in 1 Thessalonians in the 50s confirms that the tradition behind Mk 13 is pre-Markan; that Paul draws from Jesus traditions distinct from this discourse, however (cf., e.g., Acts 1:7), indicates that he draws from a body of tradition accepted by the churches as a standard — namely, Jesus tradition — rather than merely from isolated prophecies. For a comparison of James and our passage, cf. Feuillet 1964.

139. Some (e.g., Hagner 1995: 711) argue that Jesus spoke only of Jerusalem's fall, not of his parousia, as imminent (23:36; 24:36). But though the early Christians sometimes understood "coming" language figuratively (Rev 3:3), Jesus' eschatological discourse does seem to imply that his parousia will be unexpected, albeit preceded by some specific prerequisites (like the temple's destruction). Part of the controversy may focus on the sense in which different scholars employ the term "imminent." Harvey 1982: 66-97 suggests that Jesus must portray the end in terms of imminence to retain the crisis's urgency, given the prophetic imagery current in his day.

140. The term bears more weight than in Mark, who uses "immediately" much more loosely (for a transition or starting over, etc. — Ellingworth 1978; though Matthew does use some terms, especially tote, transitionally — cf. Buth 1990). Cf. Paul, who believes that Christians are already in the eschatological tribulation (Rom 8:18; 1 Cor 7:26; 1 Thess 3:4; Witherington 1992: 158-59). Option two easily blends into three if one starts the tribulation in 70 but allows an intensification at the end of the age (e.g., Carson 1984b: 495; Blomberg 1992a: 359-60).

141. Cf. Frost 1924: 15-19; Meier 1979: 169-70; idem 1980: 282-83; Feuillet 1980; Turner 989.

142. This last view appears on both sides of the Atlantic but is more common in British than American scholarship; cf. Tasker 1961: 224-26; Wenham 1977: 71; Barclay 1959a; Gaston 1970: 484; France 1985: 333; Hatina 1996.

143. See Ladd 1974b: 196-201 (with OT examples); idem 1978: 36-37; cf. Beasley-Murray 1960; Everson 1974: 337; Bock 1994: 332-33.

144. E.g., some "shorten" particular days (e.g., 1 Enoch 80.2-4, if reading with Knibb against Isaac; perhaps 2 Bar. 20:1; lengthened in Jub. 23:26-28); though here he refers to a shortened number of days (cf. Filson 1960: 255; Theissen 1991: 133-34; of a person's life in 3 Bar. 9:7), probably of Daniel's appointed number in Dan 12:11 -13 (e.g., Anderson 1976: 296; Gundry 1982: 484).

145. E.g., Reicke 1974: 216; Lohse 1978: 49; idem 1955: 79; Sowers 1970; Cole 1961: 203; Sehoeps 1960; Pritz 1988: 122-27; pace Brandon 1967: 284; Lüdemann 1980. For some archaeological support, see Smith 1973.

146. Pace Aune 1983: 312, who regards the specific mention of Pella as secondary without stating why, though he accepts the likelihood of an oracle as in Eusebius. Theissen 1991: 160-61 thinks that Christians expected the desolating sacrilège to be set up when this warning was attached to the source, and that this fits the Caligula situation ca. 40 (Philo Leg. Gai. 232; but Jos. Ant. 18.274 is less clear).

147. David and the Maccabees used such terrain for guerilla warfare, for which tactics such terrain often proved effective (Dion. Hal. 7.10.4-5; those who practiced other kinds of warfare despised this form — Dion. Hal. 3.8.2), but Jesus' words stress flight, not armed resistance. Cf. refuge caves during the Bar Kochba revolt (Patrich 1989).

148. Lane 1974a: 470; Anderson 1976: 296; Meier 1980: 283; Gundry 1982: 483; cf. Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 83.

149. Even for those who lived in villages, but certainly for those who lived in Jerusalem, the fields were sometimes a considerable walk or donkey ride (Lewis 1983: 65).

150. Cf. Tr. Shem 5.6, of animals; see further Beasley-Murray 1957: 77; Laehs 1987: 383.

151. Ancient sensitivity to mothers' plight typically depicts the execution of pregnant or nursing mothers as horrific (2 Kings 15:16; Hos 13:16; Amos 1:13; 1 Macc 1:61; 2 Macc 6:10; 4 Macc 4:25); the tragedy of nursing mothers epitomizes a public disaster (Eurip. Suppliants 1114-64; Dio Cassius R.H. 68.25.3-4). The death of adult children also appears in terms of parents' suffering (Hom. II. 22.59-65, 79-90; Judg 5:28; Lk 2:35).

152. With but few exceptions (Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. 3.207; Diog. Laert. 7.1.121; 7.7.188; cf. Eliade 1958: 71), inhabitants of the ancient Mediterranean viewed cannibalism as immoral and disgusting (e.g., Herod. Hist. 1.73, 119, 123, 129; 3.99; Diod. Sic. 1.14.1; 34/35.12.1; Mart. Epig. 10.4.1 ; 11.31.2; Jn 6:52; cf. Horsley 1981: 20; idem 1987: 57-58). Thus the early slander of cannibalism against Christians (e.g., Athenagoras 3; Theophilus 3.4, 15) proved devastating.

153. Stanton 1989b; idem 1993: 205-6 doubts that Matthew's audience kept the Sabbath this strictly, whereas Wong 1991 responds that they did so. Stanton's view that Mt 12 argues against the Sabbath is not persuasive; the Matthean Jesus upholds Torah (5:17), and even if he did not. the Sabbath precedes the law as part of the creation order (Gen 2:2-3), which Jesus upholds (Mt 19:4-5). While we believe that Matthew's audience maintained the Sabbath, they would be at least as likely as their contemporaries to rank preserving life above observation of a particular Sabbath Day (12:1-14 challenges priorities, not Sabbatarianism altogether).

154. The supposed danger of being identified as a Christian by breaking the Sabbath (Gundry 1982: 483; Meier 1980: 284) misses the popularity of law-keeping Jewish Christians in Jerusalem before 66 (Acts 21:20; Jos. Ant. 20.200-203; Euseb. H.E. 2.23; see Martin 1988: lxii-lxix). A siege during a Sabbatic year would have other consequences (1 Macc 5:49, 53), but the unqualified term in the tradition here means the weekly Sabbath.

155. E.g., Longus 2.19, 21; Ach. Tat. 8.19.3; Apul. Metam. 11.5; Dion. Hal. 7.2.1; Livy 38.41.15; Herodian 5.5.3; Jos. War 1.279-80; 2.203; 4.499; Qoh. Rab. 3:2, §2; Acts 27:9; 2 Tim 4:21; see further Charlesworth 1970: 226; Ramsay 1904b: 376-77. See Rapske 1994: 4-6, 22-29 on exceptions; Virg. Aen. 4.309.

156. E.g., 2 Sam 11:1; Polyb. R.R.E. 10.40; Diod. Sic. 14.17.12; 15.73.4; 20.113.3; 29.2.1; Livy 5.2.1; 21.58.1-2; 22.22.21; 25.11.20; 32.4.7; 32.32.1; 37.39.2; 38.27.9; 38.32.2; 43.9.3; 45.8.8; Sail. Jug. 61.2; 97.3; Corn. Nep. 14 (Datames), 6.1; 17 (Agesilaus), 3.4; 18 (Eumenes), 5.7; 8.1, 4; Appian R.H. Ί.ΊΛ3; 11.3.16; 12.15.101; Lucan C.W. 2.648; Arrian Alex. 3.6.1; B.G.U. 696.3; Jos. War 4.442; Ant. 18.262; Dio Cassius R.H. 55.24.2; cf. Dupont 1992: 199. For exceptions, see, e.g., Dion. Hal. 9.25.1; Livy 43.18.1; 44.1.1; Arrian Alex. 1.24.5; 4.21.10. Troops were often quartered in cities and private homes (e.g., Livy 23.18.9-10; 43.7.11; 45.9.1).

157. Danger to the elect appears in Sib. Or. 2.169, but this may belong to a Christian interpolation. With the signs Theissen 1991: 266 compares specifically Vespasian's propaganda, which may be one example; cf. Ex 7:11 ; Jub 48:10; also Sib. Or. 2.165-68 (but this is probably an interpolation).

158. Davies and Allison 1997: 354 rightly emphasize that lightning was widely seen (citing Ps 97:4; Zech 9:14; Ep. Jer. 61; 4Q246 2.1-2; 2 Bar. 53:9) and parallel its use in theophanies or judgments (Ex 19:16; Ps 18:14; 144:6; Philo Vit. Mos. 2.56; Ps-Philo 11.4).

159. Schweizer 1983: 260 doubts that contemporary Judaism had a tradition of "a parousia from heaven." Some Jewish tradition did explain the resurrection as uniting the soul from heaven with the body in the earth (e.g., Sifre Deut. 306.28.3; cf. 1 Thess 4:14, 17).

160. If Aelian is a reliable guide to a more widespread perspective, eagles were known not to eat prey that they had not killed (Animals 2.39; cf. Babrius 137.1-2; they appear positively in Pesiq. R. 23/24:2), whereas vultures were known for consuming carcasses (Aelian Animals 2.46; 10.22); some even called vultures "living tombs" (Longinus Sublime 3.2). The association of carrion birds with carcasses may have been almost proverbial (see citations in Davies and Allison 1997: 355, including Cornutus Natura Deorum 21; Lucian Navig. 1).

161. Certainly in context this is not carnage merely during the tribulation (pace Strombeck 1982: 71). The saying could, however, simply declare that Jesus' coming will be as obvious as vultures gathered around corpses (Meier 1980: 286; Gundry 1982: 486-87).

162. In other cases an apparently unfinished ending may be acceptable because the end is implied; the Iliad concludes with Hector's burial (II. 24), but because he was Troy's "last" defender (II. 6.403; 22.506-7) the tragic fall of Troy is implied.

163. Significantly, reports of terrestrial portents that frightened Rome (Dio Cassius R.H. 48.43.4-6; 54.19.7) sometimes emphasize disasters to sanctuaries (Dio Cassius R.H. 48.43.4; 54.19.7; Appian C.W. 1.9.83; Livy 26.23.4; 27.11.2). Some of the portent reports seem incredible (e.g., Dion. Hal. 4.2.1; also 10.2.2-4, though the phenomenon in 10.2.4 might simply be volcanic ash).

164. In Gen 1:14 the sun, moon, and stars themselves are for "signs," though given Deut 13, the Israelite writer undoubtedly did not intend this in an astrological sense. Ancient peoples generally thought gods (Cie. De Re Publ. 6.15.15; De Nat. Deor. 2.15.39-40; Sen. De Benef. 4.23.4; cf. 1 Enoch 80:7-8; Lev. Rab. 31:9; Ps-Phocyl. 71:75) or angels (Philo Plant. 12, 14; IQM 10.11-12; 2 Bar. 51:10; 2 Enoch 4:1; 29:3A; 3 Enoch 46:1 ; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:3; Exod. Rab. 15:6) stood behind celestial powers (cf. demons in Test. Sol. 2:2; 4:6; 5:4; 6:7; 7:6; 8:4; 14:3; ch. 18; links with souls in Plato Timaeus 41E; Philo Gig. 7-8; perhaps 4 Macc 17:5); Meier thus suggests that 24:29 reflects Christ's cosmic victory over all other spiritual powers (1980: 287; cf. Barrett 1966: 73; Hurtado 1983: 210. 213; Gundry 1982: 487; Eph 1:21; 1 Pet 3:22); on "shaken," cf. Heb 12:27.

165. McCasland 1932: 335 was so impressed with Jewish parallels that he used them to argue for the tradition's antiquity ("within five years after Jesus died"). Herodian reports that some claimed to see the local deity in the sky, and that it might be credible though it may be imagination (8.3.8-9).

166. This context implies no secretive coming, as in some popular current North American eschatology (pace Strombeck 1982: 151-53); as Leon Morris warns, "It is difficult to see how he could more plainly describe something that is open and public" (Morris 1959: 145).

167. In some texts, it can be too late to repent (1 Enoch 50:3-4).

168. This is especially true when writers conjoin the term with another quasitechnical expression apantësis, as in 1 Thess 4:17; see Milligan 1908: 62; F. F. Bruce 1963: 68-69; idem 1977a: 527n.26; idem 1982: 102; Best 1977: 199; Marshall 1983: 131; cf. Payne 1962: 68; Jdt 7:15; Pesiq. R. 51:8. Like other NT terms for Jesus' coming, this one is applied "indiscriminately for what [pretribulationists] regard as the two phases of Jesus' return," more likely than not suggesting that the NT picture, like the historic Christian picture till 1830, was of only one return of Jesus, at the very end of the age (Gundry 1973: 158; see also Ladd 1956: 61-70; Katterjohn 1976: 43; pace Strombeck 1982: 147-48, who merely presupposes what he hopes to prove). Correctly noting that only Matthew among the Gospels employs the word parousia, Glasson implies that this represents Matthean redaction in an apocalypticizing direction (1963b: 66-69); but whether Matthew here translates pre-Markan tradition or simply applies Pauline language, the eschatological elements of Mark and Q clearly precede Matthew's redaction. The same language appears in the early second-century 2 Bar. 29:3 (revealed); 30:1 (parousia).

169. Sib. Or. 12.196-97 speaks of the sign of the great God appearing from heaven, but as a third-century-A.D. text it may include Christian influence. Gundry 1982: 488 renders "sign" here as "ensign," conjoined with the war trumpet of 24:31. Early Christian identification of this "sign" as the cross (Apoc. Pet. 1; Ep. Apost. 16) was speculative (so also Hagner 1995: 713-14).

170. Clouds are a recurrent motif in early Christian parousia language (Acts 1:9, 11 ; 1 Thess 4:17; Rev 1:7; 11:12; 14:14; see Rissi 1966: 103n.l68); if, as is likely, Paul alludes to Daniel by way of Jesus here, Paul places Jesus' coming for the saints at the end of the tribulation of this age (Mt 24:29-30; 1 Thess 4:17). In a late rabbinic tradition about the eschatological time, clouds would carry Israelites to Jerusalem every Sabbath (Pesiq. R. 1:3); but Matthew's source is primarily Daniel. A king coming in "glory" can imply his royal splendor (1 Macc 11:6).

171. Higgins 1963: 380 thinks Matthew adapted a Christian apocalyptic source and cites (382) Ep. Apost. 16; Did. 16.6; Gos. Pet. 10.39-42; and Apoc. Pet. to argue that the "sign of the Son of Man" is the cross. This common tradition about the cross as the sign may, however, be based on late first-century inference first found in the Didache.

172. So, e.g., Katterjohn 1976: 20; Sandmel 1978a: 38. Walvoord 1971a is forced to argue that the church is removed before the tribulation of 24:15-28, although no such event is mentioned here (nor explicitly mentioned anywhere else in the NT or other Christian literature before 1830).

173. The Granville Sharpe rule links the "gathering" and parousia (Waterman 1975: 112; Best 1977: 274).

174. Patte 1987: 338 suggests that this gathering reverses the scattering of 24:16-20; if his suggestion is correct, it may echo Pentateuchal judgment language about scattering and the Deuteronomic promise of restoration.

175. For various views on the world's shape, see, e.g., Plut. fr. 179 in Euseb. P.E. 1.7.16; Diog. Laert. 9.9.57 (perhaps because the sphere was a perfect shape); p. 'Abod. Zar. 3:1, §3. The "four winds" represent the extremities of the four directions; see, e.g., Ezek 5:10; 12:14; 17:21; cf. Deissmann 1923: 248; 1 Enoch 18:2-5; 34:2-36:2; 76:4; Test. Asher 7:2/3.

176. For the eschatological elect, see 1 Enoch 1:2. Predestination in its traditional corporate Jewish sense did not raise the question of free will, but in a hellenistic context of cosmic fatalism (cf. Jos. Ant. 13.172-73), especially dominant in late antiquity (see comment on 10:29-31), Jewish and Christian apologists had to argue for a sufficient degree of free will to allow moral responsibility (Cook 1981: 151-52, 156).

177. "Shout" appears in various contexts (Lightfoot 67-68), but conjoined with the trumpet may well be a military command (so also Walvoord 1967: 65). The shout was sometimes a war signal (e.g., Dion. Hal. 5.42.3; cf. 5.53.4; Hom. II. 11.15), but troops could also respond to trumpets with battle shouts (Dion. Hal. 6.10.2), employ unified battle shouts when charging to terrify their foes (Appian R.H. 4.1.1; 4.8; 7.2.11), shout victory (Livy 36.24.6; Josh 6:5), or shout acclamations for a hero (Dion. Hal. 6.94.2). From the earliest Greek tradition, war cries were typical for exhorting one's side and terrifying the other (Hom. II. 8.92; 11.10-11; 14.146-52; 17.334; Eurip. Suppliants 701; Arrian Alex. 7.3.6), and "good at the war cry" served as an epithet for strong warriors like Menelaus (Hom. II. 6.37; 10.36, 60; 13.581, 593; 17.237, 656; Od. 3.311; 4.307, 609; 15.14, 57, 92; 17.120), Diomedes (Hom. II. 5.114, 596; 6.12, 122, 212; 7.399; 8.91, 145; 9.31, 696; 10.241, 283; 14.109), Hector (Hom. II. 15.671), and others (Hom. II. 24.250). Other instruments were occasionally added to trumpets (Aul. Gel. 1.11).

178. Rissi 1966: 46 cites also Gk. Ezra 4:36 and Samaritan eschatology, but extant texts for both are late and the former probably betrays Christian influence; but for other texts, see Friedrich 1971: 84 (who notes their use in war, worship and coronation, 78-85). The Shemoneh Esreh probably echoes biblical imagery (Mendecki 1983); besides the Shemoneh Esreh Klausner cites later rabbinic texts in which the trumpet signals the gathering of Israel or the resurrection of the dead (1979a: 538-39; cf. Gaster 1976: 436).

179. Cf. also Lachs 1987: 386; Vermes 1993: 99, who tentatively note the possibility of a Semitic pun similar to that between "summer (fruit)" and "end" in Amos 8:2. On planting fig trees, see Columella Trees 21.1-2.

180. On the vine in the temple, see Jos. War 5.211; Tac. Hist. 5.5. Texts compare Israel, Jerusalem, or the covenant community to a vineyard (3 Bar. 1:2; Mek. Pisha 1.162; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:9; Ex. Rab. 30:17; 34:3; Song Rab. 7:13, §1), a vine (Ps 80:9; 4 Ezra 5:23; 2 Bar. 39:7; Ps-Philo 12:8-9; 23:12; 28:4; b. Hul. 92a; Gen. Rab. 88:5; 98:9; Ex. Rab. 44:1; Num. Rab. 8:9), trees in general (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Lev. Rab. 30:12; often including vines and fig trees — Gen. Rab. 53:3; Esth. Rab. 9:2), or plants in general (Jub. 1:16; 36:6; IQS 8.5; 9.8; CD 1.7; see also Fujita 1976; Mussner 1960); cf. the church in Jn 15:1; Rom 11:16-24; 1 Cor 3:6-15; Herm. 3.8. Althoughthe grape cluster features on Jewish coins especially from the Bar Kochba period (Porton 1976), Maccabean coins may portray Israel as a plant (Wirgin 1965: 22-26, despite the uncertain LXX support); cf. artistic tree symbolism in Leon 1960: 146; Goodenough 1953-68: 7:87-134.

181. Those who play down the future aspect in Jesus' teaching naturally apply the original point of this parable to Jesus' earthly ministry (Argyle 1963: 185); but in either case the implied harvest imagery is eschatological (cf. Jeremias 1972: 119). (Historic fig trees, like anything else, could provide noneschatological portents in Roman settings — Tac. Ann. 13.58 — but Jesus here applies the image figuratively.) The Jewish tradition applying the fig tree's leaves to seven years of tribulation preceding Messiah's coming might be helpful but is too isolated and late (Song Rab. 2:13); similarly, Rev 6:13 is simply a general image and unrelated to this allusion.

182. There is no need to doubt the prediction's authenticity; if Jesus spoke of the temple's destruction (see comment on 24:2-3), he could also have specified a time (Witherington 1992: 43-44 on Mk 13:30), as did some of his contemporaries, albeit less accurately. Because many early Christians probably took this as a prediction of his return, composing such a prediction after 70 would have complicated matters. Many (Carson 1984b: 507; Blomberg 1992a: 357) argue that the "generation" refers to the time in which all the prerequisites for Christ's return (cf. 24:5-28) were fulfilled; on its Markan and Matthean levels it must include at least the temple's demise.

183. Forty years also appears as an early estimate of the duration of the messianic woes — CD (MS B, 2.15); IQM 2.6-10; 4QPs 1.7 on Ps 37:10; Pryke 1969: 56; Gaston 1970: 466-67. Cf. also b. Sanh. 99a; Pesiq. R. 1:7, but the rabbis held this view only as one among many estimates (see, e.g.,Mek. Amalek 2.189-90, Laut. 2.161).

184. or the possibility that Paul introduced "day of the Lord" here, see Gundry 1987; for the sense of "day of the Lord" in Paul, see Ladd 1974b: 364, 555 (it cannot include the tribulation, pace Walvoord 1967: 81, 117; idem 1972: 160-63; Strombeck 1982: 46-54, which contradict 2 Thess 2:1-4; see F. F. Bruce 1982: 163). But the expression appears in the OT, and the parallel in 2 Pet 3:10 probably suggests that the whole phrase goes back to Jesus or to an early and pervasive midrash on his teaching (though cf. 2 Pet 3:15-16).

185. Vermes 1993: 160 doubts that Jesus believed the Father would hide anything from him; but is it not less likely that the church believed he would? Further, his argument that God consults rather than withholds information from his angels (ibid. n. 9) is too sweeping; in Jewish literature God did not reveal everything (including the time of the end) even to them. Thus most accept the verse's point, though some reject its wording (Dunn 1975: 34-35; cf. Barrett 1967: 25).

186. So also Wenham 1977: 46; Gundry 1982: 218, 492; Stanton 1995a: 153; cf. Glasson 1963b: 93.

187. Perrin 1976: 86 relates the absolute use of "Son" here to the same sayings-source behind Mt ll:25-27/Lk 10:21-22.

188. Matthew alludes to Gen 6-9, which would have been clear to his ideal audience, though other Mediterranean peoples had flood traditions (Diod. Sic. 1.10.4). Noah's flood was "wrath" (orge) in Jos. Ant. 1.98: see ! Thess 1:10; 5:9. Noahproclaimedrepentance (Sib. Or. 1.129, 168; 2 Pet 2:5), but

his generation was extremely wicked (Sib. Or. 1.171-72; Gen. Rab. 26:5; Urbach 1979: 1:28).

189. Here Luke probably retains a longer Q tradition that includes Lot (Lk 17:26-29); Jewish traditions sometimes connect the generations of Noah and Lot, in view of their similar judgments (e.g., 2 Pet 2:5-7; m. Sanh. 10:3; Mek. Bahodesh 10.20ff., Laut. 2.278; b. B. Mes. 49a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 4:1; Gen. Rab. 27:3; 49:5), though they also connected one or the other with, e.g., Babel (m. B. Mes. 4:2; Sanh. 10:3; cf. Noah and Jonah in 1 Clem. 7). Luke's construction may be more artful (cf. Tannehill 1975: 121-22; I am less persuaded by the chiasmus Aune 1983: 183 finds here); although Luke may preserve the original intention (Tannehill 1975: 122), he may have polished the tradition more here (Gundry 1982: 493; pagans may have recalled the old Greek story preserved, e.g., in Virg. Georg. 4.490-91; Ovid Metam. 10.50-52, when hearing the looking back implied in Lk 17:32 from Gen 19:26).

190. Cf. Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 147, who think "be merry" in "eat, drink and be merry" is euphemistic for sexual relations. "Giving in marriage" (v. 38) refers to the father's role (abolished

in the end time; see comment on 22:30). Later rabbis viewed the evil impulse as necessary to allow marriage (e.g., Qoh. Rab. 3:11, §3).

191. Cf. the interpretation of this Gospel passage in Apoc. Zeph. 2.2-4; pace Argyle 1963: 186 (who limits it to a slave girl). Women, including servant women, typically worked at mills (Hom. Od. 7.104; 20.105-10) or grinding flour (Goodman 1983: 761).

192. Thus while the women here could be sisters or mother and daughter (so Carson 1984b: 509), they need not be; in Middle Eastern villages, women's daily interaction with one another traditionally tended to be as close as kinship bonds (Eickelman 1989: 163).

193. In the city of Rome, Romans also knew roving night patrolmen, the cohortes vigilum (Dio Cassius R.H. 55.26.4-5); see more fully Clarke 1994: 472-73. But Jesus' image more likely presupposes stationary watchmen; like other Mediterranean cultures (cf. Jos. Ant. 3.50; Hom. II. 10.159, 164), the Romans respected soldiers who could resist sleep (Dio Cassius R.H. 73.3-5; Diod. Sic. 38/ 39.9.1). The vigilance of sentinels was essential (e.g., Livy 24.28.2; 24.37.4), for entire armies could be destroyed through their failure to watch adequately (Hom. II. 10.309-12,416-21; Virg. Aen. 9.314-66, 375-45; Diod. Sic. 3.55.1; 19.95.5-6; Dion. Hal. 5.47.1; 7.11.2-3; 9.34.4; Livy 24.46.4; 36.23.10-36.24.6; 44.33.8-9; Sail. Jug. 58.1; Jos. Life 405); warfare typically ended at night (Hom. II. 2.387; 7.282; 8.529-30; 11.209; 14.259-61; Arrian Alex. 1.19.2), making night attacks all the more unexpected and deadly (Hom. II. 10.100-101; Arrian Alex. 1.4.1).

194. Jeremias 1972: 48n.96 thinks that v. 42 comes from the parable of the doorkeeper (Mk 13:35). See the more detailed analysis of D. Wenham 1984b: 17, 51-52, 96, on the pre-Synoptic source behind both (as well as much of the other material); he thinks Matthew retains only the closing exhortation, Mark an abbreviated form of the parable, and Luke most of the original (ibid., 48-49).

195. Cf. perhaps Apollo's vengeful coming "like the night" (Hom. II. 1.47), though this may refer to nightfall. Manson suggests that "digging through" the house indicates breaking in some other way than through the door (Manson 1979: 116; Gundry 1982: 495), but this would hardly be a quiet invasion even through mudbrick (as opposed to stone) walls (cf. comment on 6:19); perhaps the thief digs beneath, but in any case, a householder who slept through this was neglectful indeed! If crime was half as abundant in Jewish Palestine as in Egypt's villages, where we have fuller evidence (see Lewis 1983: 77, 123), it was quite abundant. Pace Bultmann, Taylor 1935: 108 contends that since as late as Rev 16:15 the utterances of Christian prophets were distinguished from the historical Jesus rather than read back into his logia, the saying is authentic.

196. This is especially significant in favor of its authenticity; although the illustration would make sense (e.g., Juv. Sat. 3.302-4; Epict. Disc. 1.29.21) I know no other parallels to the expression, and Paul has already told the Thessalonians the saying (1 Thess 5:2); see Jeremias 1972: 50; Wenham 1981: 347; idem 1984: 54-55; cf. Nock 1963: 156; Neil 1950: 110; Marshall 1983: 133; Witherington 1992: 45-46. The more hellenized direction in Gos. Thom. 21 (cf. Gos. Thorn. 103) "is surely secondary" (Witherington 1992: 46).

197. One may compare Sifre Deut. 43.15.2 (a parable in which a robber plunders a neglectful householder), as well as the rabbinic parable of preparedness (b. Shab. 153a; Qoh. Rab. 9:8) recounted in Bonsirven 1964: 167; Jeremias 1972: 188. In the Markan form of the parable, a servant would be less likely to expect a householder's return at night since travel then was rare (Jeremias 1972: 54; cf. Gundry 1982: 503 for rare exceptions); the original form may have spoken of only one servant (1972: 55-56, citing Lk 12:45; Mt 24:48). Jeremias does regard various details of non-Markan material here as authentic, however (e.g., the Aramaic rhyme behind Mt 24:48; 1971: 27).

198. Sons and servants could represent Israel in rabbinic parables (Dodd 1961: 151), but the context of Jesus' ministry demands an application to either the first or second comings, and the Matthean context plainly to the latter. Those who deny the possibility that Jesus could have founded a church (but cf. comment on 16:18-19) must see the parable, if authentic, addressing only Israel's leaders, but even if that situation correctly analyzed Jesus' meaning, it misses Matthew's own primary point in context (pace Harrington 1991, who thinks that this text, with 25:1-30, addresses especially the synagogue leadership).

199. Whereas Jewish texts praise drinking in moderation (e.g., Sir 31:27-31 ) and Philo speaks of the intoxication of divine ecstasy (especially in defense of Noah in Gen 9:21-22; see Plant. 139-177), Jewish texts more often speak of the dangers of drunkenness (e.g., Philo Ebr. passim; Jos. Apion 2.195, 204; Life 225); the drunk were more susceptible to slaughter or incapacitation (Aqhat in ANET p. 155; Jos. Life 388; Polyphemus in the Odyssey; troops in Polyb. R.R.E. 11.3; Dion. Hal. 7.11.3; the enemy general in Jdt 13). For a fuller discussion of ancient views, see Keener 1992: 261-63, 270-72; plus Diod. Sic. 15.74.2. Moralists often recommended sobriety in both literal and figurative ways (Ep. Arist. 209; Anacharsis to Hipparchus Ep. 3.6; Marc. Aur. Med. 1.16.3; Philo Cher. 92-93; 1 Thess 5:6, 8; 1 Tim 3:2, 11; 1 Pet 1:13; 4:7; 5:8).

200. Throughout Mediterranean culture such behavior readily warranted the title "lawless" (Diod. Sic. 40.2.1, on Jerusalem's abusive high priest; 33.14.1; 34/35.12.1, each employing a term cognate to the one in Mt 23:28; 24:12), behavior unfitting for a ruler (Diod. Sic. 34/35.34.1). It may thus provide a stark narrative illustration of this rebellion against God's law of which Jesus warns (23:28; 24:12).

201. Matthew's audience might also think of the sexual abuse tyrants in power sometimes meted out to slaves or subjects, which was viewed extremely negatively (Dion. Hal. 4.36.1; 7.8.1; 11.10.3; Livy 3.44.4-3.48.9; Jos. Apion 1.100-101; 2.212; Life 259). Women occasionally participated in nocturnal Roman carousals, but it was a predominantly male vice (Friedländer 1965: 1:249).

202. Those particularly despised might also be tortured before execution (Dion. Hal. 7.11.3). When other methods of interrogation proved inadequate, torture was sometimes applied (Arist. Rhet. 1.15.26, 1376b; Quint. 5.4.1; Apul. Metam. 3.8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:7), and much more routinely with slaves (e.g., Demosth. Against Pantaenetus 27; Against Olympiodorus 18-19; Against Timotheus 55-58; Against Conon 27; Against Neaera 122; Rhet. ad Herenn. 2.7.10; Tac. Ann. 3.67; 4.29; 14.60; Justin. Dig. 48.18.1; Char. Chaer. 1.5.1; Apul. Metam. 10.28). Amputation of particular members, however, was preferable to execution (Jos. Life 147, 173; see comment on 5:30).

203. Although in its Matthean context the parable plainly addresses Jesus' return, some suggest that the original story could address other impending tests of faith (cf. F. F. Bruce 1972a: 71). A sage could demand preparation for such tests, but an eschatological reading of the parable better suits the eschatological content of Jesus' message as a whole. This parable may derive from a pre-Synoptic source collecting much eschatological material (see D. Wenham 1984b: 51-52).

204. This detail, alongside Mk 2:19, supports the authenticity of the parable's present form more than Dodd and Jeremias suppose; see Witherington 1984: 43 (though Gundry 1982: 497, 501, derives the whole wedding setting from the tradition behind Lk 12:36).

205. Conducting someone en route to his or her destination often functioned to honor the person so escorted (e.g., Dion. Hal. 7.7.2; Char. Chaer. 4.7.6; Judg 4:18; 11:31, 34; 1 Sam 13:10; 16:4; 21:1; 25:32; Acts 28:15); it appears in royal parousia contexts (e.g., 1 Thess 4:17; cf. 2 Sam 19:25; Jdt 5:4; 7:15; Pesiq. R. 51:8; Moulton and Milligan 1976: 53; Best 1977: 199; F. F. Bruce 1982: 102; Marshall 1983: 131).

206. Boring 1995: 138 cites Plut. Precepts of Statecraft 1 for another analogy with lamps but rightly points out that it is the necessity of oil for lamps that leads both sources to share the same image.

207. The single "cry" of v. 6 may parallel the trumpet call of 24:31, with 1 Thess 4:16 reflecting a tradition including both (Blomberg 1992a: 370); but the "cry" in 1 Thess 4 is probably a war cry and thus might be unrelated to the present image.

208. Cf. Eickelman 1989: 174, where the bride's relatives are engaged in "a farewell celebration . . . at the bride's house," and weep when the groom's relatives arrive to escort the bride to the party that has already begun in his house. The groom has no reason not to delay: he is the central personage of the event, the timing of which will center around him (Malina 1993: 159).

209. Naturally those who think that the delay of the parousia is only a later motif find the parable inauthentic (e.g., reasonably, Vermes 1993: 113), but the delay is already an issue in what is probably our first NT document (1 Thess 4:13), and if the initial disciples expected only a single coming or barely an interval between comings (cf. Dodd 1980), an issue already present in Jesus' ministry could easily translate into this problem by the time of the Gospels. Scott 1989: 70-72 rejects the parable because it describes community boundaries; yet the very selection of the Twelve began that process in Jesus' lifetime.

210. As in 1 Thess 4:17; see Milligan 1908: 62; F. F. Bruce 1963: 68-69; idem 1977a: 527n.26; idem 1982: 102; Best 1977: 199; Marshall 1983: 131; cf. Payne 1962: 68; Jdt 7:15; Pesiq. R. 51:8.

211. ;For another bold request for oil, ef. Diog. Laert. Lives 7.1.17; but there the boldness is that of Cynic impudence in begging, whereas here it stems from desperation.

212. The bridegroom image in the OTrepresented God (Is 49:18; 54:5-7; Jer 2:2; Ezek 16:8-14; Hos 2:16-23; Witherington 1990: 212, following Payne 1981b); the banquet host in Jewish parables is typically God as well. Yet while the parable may assume christological implications (Matthew's audience would certainly apply the image to Jesus), they remain secondary or tertiary to the parable's focus.

213. Judg 14:12, 17; Tob 11:19; Jos. and Asen. 21:8/6; Sifra Behuq. pq. 5.266.1.7; b. Ketub. 8b; p. Ketub. 1:1, §6; Meg. 4:4, §3; probably Pesiq. Rab Kah. 28:9; Lam. Rab. 1:7, §34; Safrai 1974/ 76b: 760; cf. fourteen days in Tob 8:19-20.

214. Vermes 1993: 113 thinks that this "heartless refusal of the 'bridegroom' to admit those who failed to be properly prepared" speaks against authenticity; but what then of Jesus' many other images of damnation (e.g., Mk 9:42-48; Mt 8:12//Lk 13:28; Mt 22:13; 24:39-41) or deadly judgment (Mk 12:9; Mt 22:7)?

215. B. Ber. 6b; 30b-31a; p. Ketub. 1:1, §6; Mk 2:19; Jn 3:29; also feasts in general (Ep. Arist. 294). Thus tragedies at weddings were particularly noteworthy; cf. 1 Macc 9:39-41; Jos. War 6.301; Lev. Rab. 20:3; Qoh. Rab. 2:2, §4.

216. Fitzmyer believes that parallels show that the Matthean and Lukan versions reflect the same original parable; Young 1989: 165. holds that all three Synoptic accounts reflect a single original Hebrew source behind the Gospels. I suspect that Mk 13:34 reflects a shortened version of an oral tradition preserved in Matthew; the Lukan parable could be a variant oral recension but may as easily reflect a separate parable (see comment on 22:1 -14). Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 150 think the Gospel of Nazoreans version (in Euseb. Theophania on Mt 25:14-15) is older than Matthew's version because of its "peasant" point of view. But the Nazorean report is not clearly more peasantlike; most people, including urban moralists, despised squandering (e.g., Juv. Sat. 1.58-60; t. Pisha 2:15), and the squandering allusion here may be borrowed from Lk 15:13-14; 16:1; the Gospel of Nazoreans may be a secondary expansion of Matthew into Aramaic (see Meier 1991a: 116).

217. Even in his first telling Jesus could have adapted a familiar story line; Tannaim told a parable of a king whose servants improved the property he gave them, referring to the patriarchs' treatment of the land (Sifre Deut. 8.1.2). Scott 1989: 230-31 compares a story in ARN 14A, in which God deposited Torah with his servants, and those who kept it and returned it undefiled by their sin would be rewarded; Jesus, he says, demands more than merely keeping the trust (cf. Davies and Allison 1997: 404).

218. The differences between the Matthean and Lukan reports are substantial; some therefore conclude that they derive from separate sources (e.g., Lachs 1987: 340-41). Because Matthew and Luke are normally so close when following Q, one suspects that if they used the same source the tradition in this case must have been mediated to them by other means.

219. Ep. Arist. 264; t. Hag. 2:9; Sanh. 7:1; Sheqal. 3:27; 1 Tim 3:10; cf. Plut. Compliancy 7, Mor. 531DE; in household leadership, e.g., Isoc. Demon. 35, Or. 1; Nic./Cypr. 41, Or. 3.35; Plut. Bride, Mor. 144CD; Diog. Laert. Lives 1.70. Cf. ARN 35, §79B, praising a poor person who handles a deposit trustworthily; Davies and Allison 1997: 407 cite m. 'Abot 4:2, which they render, "The reward of duty [done] is a duty [to be done]"; the greater are judged more strictly in b. Ta'an. 8a.

220. Tob 13:10, 13-14; IQM 17.7; 1 Enoch 5:7; 25:6; 47:4; 103:3; Jub. 23:30; Sib. Or. 3.619; Ps. Sol. 11:3; Test. Jud. 25:4; cf. Sifra Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim; at death in 4 Ezra 7:91 ; cf. 2 Bar. 14:13; ClJ 1:472, §656. Greek philosophers emphasized that true happiness followed virtue rather than vice (Cie. Par. Stoic. 16-19; De Leg. 1.23.60; Tusc. Disp. 5.7.19-20; 5.25.70; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 23; 59.10; Dial 7; De Benef. 7.2.3); Jewish writers often found joy in virtuous behavior as well (Ep. Arist. 261; Jos. Apion 2.189; Jub. 36:6), usually recognized as joy in God's law (Ps 19:8; 119:14; b. Yoma 4b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:2; Lev. Rab. 16:4; Song Rab. 4:11, § 1 ; Pesiq. R. 21:2/3; 51:4; cf. Wis 8:16) or prayer (Tob 13:1; cf. Jos. and Asen. 3:4). For "joy" in sacrificially embracing the kingdom, see 13:44; cf. 13:20; at news of the resurrection, 28:8.

221. E.g., Lucan C.W. 9.515-16; Corn. Nep. 23 (Hannibal), 9.3; Herodian 1.14.3. Only the most impious robbers would risk violating their sanctity (e.g., 2 Macc 3:12; 4 Macc 4:3-7; Jos. War 2.175; Ant. 4.207; Pesiq. R. 10:1; Diod. Sic. 14.63.1-2; 14.69.4; 14.76.3; 27.1; 27.4.3; 28.3.1; 34/ 35.9.1; 34/35.2.8.1-3; P. Tebt. 5.5; Livy 32.1.8; 36.20.3; 42.3.8; 42.28.12; 43.7.10; Appian R.H. 3.12.1-2; 8.20.133; Corn. Nep. 17 [Agesilaus], 4.8; Arrian Alex. 1.17.11; 6.30.2; Strabo 17.1.43; Phaedrus4.11.1-13; Babrius 78; Juv. Sat. 14.261-62; Paus. 3.23.4; 9.25.10; 9.33.6; Taylor 1979: 254; Trebilco 1994: 325; Goodman 1983: 58; cf. comments on 21:12).

222. Despite biblical prohibitions of usury, Jewish teachers had found ways to allow interest (Carson 1984b: 517), which may have reflected current practice (cf. Neh 5:10); see comment on 6:12.

223. For an opposite interpretation, cf. Malina 1993: 143, who contends that the third servant (in Lk 19:11-27) fulfilled the values of the culture (by maintaining things and avoiding risks; cf. Scott 1989: 232). But deposits with banks involved little risk. I thus find doubtful the suggestion that Jesus may have condemned the master's viewpoint and appealed to peasant support for the viewpoint of the third servant (Rohrbaugh 1993).

224. The word often translated "lazy" (oknëros), in fact, normally means "fearful," suggesting that fear was the source of the slave's passivity (Nielsen 1990). However Jesus intended the parable (and he himself may have directed it toward disciples), Matthew warns the lazy within the church rather than using this passage to criticize the Pharisees (pace Harrington 1991; Dietzfelbinger 1989).

225. In favor of authenticity, see further Broer 1970. Other imagery may derive from the Similitudes of Enoch (cf. Catchpole 1979), if they are early enough, or the broader judgment scene tradition on which both are based, and the OT, especially Is 58:7, but also Ezek 18:7 (cf. Gundry 1982: 513, 516).

226. For comparison of the two recensions of Testament of Abraham's judgment scene, see Nickelsburg 1972: 29-40; in a later Christian text, MacRae 1972. Davies and Allison 1997: 421 also cite among judges besides God Melchizedek in 1 IQMelch 2.13.

227. E.g., Ezek 34:11-17; Zeeh 10:3; Ps 23:1-4; 74:1-2; 77:20; 78:52; Is 40:11; Jer 13:17; 31:10; Mie 7:14; Sir 18:13; 1 Enoch 89:18; PhiloAg/: 50-53; Ps-Philo 28.5: 30.5. See further comment on the imagery in 18:12.

228. Jeremias 1972: 206 points out that synagö, "gather," is a common shepherd's term; nevertheless, its technical connotations are suspect: the term is common enough that one wonders what term shepherds might have used had they not used this.

229. Regardless of whether all shared the same owner, Greek goatherds and shepherds often grazed near each other (e.g., Theocritus The Goatherd and the Shepherd in Greek Bucolic Poets, LCL 62-81; P. Ryl. 114.10; Longus 1.8). Sheepandgoats usually got along (Aelian Animals 5.48; 7.27).

230. Often ten to fifty times as many, by the same owner; see Lewis 1983: 131-32, citing P. Lond. 1171; P. Strassb. 24; P. Oxy. 807; P. Hamb. 34. Sheep were preferred for wool, the milk of both preferred to that of cows, and goatskins preferred for leather containers (ibid. 132). Jeremias 1972: 206 notes that sheep are white whereas goats are black, but this is not always true (see, e.g., Aelian Animals 3.32; 16.33). Whether white or black (though especially white), sheep in dreams are auspicious; whether white or black (but especially black), goats were inauspicious (Artem. Oneir. 2.12). Some of Matthew's hearers might have thought of white sheep here through recalling 1 Enoch 90:32.

231. Mani later adapted these speeches in a Gnostic direction (Hutter 1991), but Jesus adapts a tradition of judgment scenes that appear in some form at least as early as the Egyptian Book of the Dead 125 (Herrmann 1991). The motif of divine messengers arriving in disguise was also frequent; see comment on 10:12-15.

232. The tradition persisted in the Near East and East Africa; thus, e.g., left-handedness as a sign of the demonic in the chronicles of Lebna Dengel, emperor of Ethiopia, in October 1531 (Pankhurst 1967: 62). The evil angel Sammael in later Jewish texts bears a samech, not a sin, hence is technically unrelated to the Hebrew word for "left"; but a wordplay might be possible (Derrett 1997: 178).

233. For a fuller history of interpretation see Gray 1989; Luz 1996: 271-86.

234. Cf. Stark 1991a: 202 and 1991b on how Christians cared for the sick, nursing them back to health in a plague of ca. a.d. 260, though others in antiquity regularly fled from the sick during epidemics. For a more recent example, see Jones and Allen 1794. Boring 1995: 143-44 compares Left Ginza 3.19 in which care for the poor determines the fate of one's soul en route to its home in the heavens; though admitting that the texts do not predate a.d. 500, he thinks that "some traditions may reach back to" the first century!

235. On the positive requirements, see, e.g., Sir 7:35; 4 Bar. 5:22-23; 7:37; Test. Iss. 5:2; ARN 30; 41A; Sifre Deut. 32.5.12; Gen. Rab. 13:16; p. Hag. 2:1, §10; Apoc. Zeph. 7:4-5; Jeremias 1972: 207; Van Unnik 1954: 96-97; Jones 1995: 258-59; for a comparative chart of lists, see Davies and Allison 1997: 426; cf. Tob 1:16-17; 4:16-17; Sir 18:21; Jas 1:27; outside Jewish circles, cf. Diog. Laert. Lives 1.70; Babrius 103.6-8; Friedländer 1965: 1:210-11; on hospitality, see Keener 1991a: 97, 196; in general, Koenig 1985. Presumably Jewish tradition would advocate visiting prisoners, too, in times of persecution when the pious were detained for their faith.

236. See, e.g., Michaels 1965; Grassi 1965b; 46; Cope 1969; Ladd 1974a: 191-99; Harrington 1982: 101; Gundry 1982: 511-14; France 1985: 355; Akano 1992; Blomberg 1992a: 377-78; Hagner 1995: 745; Overman 1996: 349-51; most fully, Gray 1989.

237. Prepared by God: Tob 6:17; Wis 9:8; the expression especially applies to eschatological reward or judgment (cf. 20:23; Rom 9:23; 1 Enoch 22:3; 54:1-2; 4 Ezra 8:60; 2 Bar. 21:17; 2 Enoch 9:1; ARN 12A). For eternal blessedness in Roman literature, one might compare Macrob. Comm. 1.4.4 in van der Horst 1973: 223. For the devil's angels, though of questionable date, see, e.g., Life of Adam 14:3; Test. 'Asher 6:4; Asc. Isa. 1:3; 2:2. Later rabbinic tradition frequently contrasts Eden and Gehinnom (m. 'Abot 5:20; b. Ber. 28b; 'Erub. 19a; Yoma 87a; Gen. Rab. 65:22; Ex. Rab. 7:4; Lev. Rab. 32:1; Qoh. Rab. 7:14, §3).

238. Judgment for ignorantly rejecting, and blessings for unwittingly accepting, divine messengers occurs frequently in ancient literature, both Greco-Roman (Ovid Metam. 8.621-29; Paus. 3.16.2-3; cf. Acts 14:11-12) and Jewish (e.g.. Heb 13:2; cf. Gen 18; Tob 5:4-6, 12; 9:1-5; Philo Abr. 114; the shipwreck victim who turned out to be the king in Qoh. Rab. 11:1).

↑ Back to top