Transformations of Post-70 Judaism: Scholarly Reconstructions and

Transformations of Post-70 Judaism: Scholarly Reconstructions and

TRANSFORMATIONS OF Post-70 JUDAISM: SCHOLARLY

RECONSTRUCTIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR

PERCEPTION OF MATTHEW, DIDACHE, AND JAMES

Peter J. Tomson Crucial to nascent Christianity was its relationship to Judaism, either in its positive significance of "mother religion" or in the more negative one of "rival sister," and the social implications of this familial imagery are very much in place.

The evolution of the relationship may even be seen as a major component in the development of Christian identity. There are two sides to this: the developments within the early Christian movement itself, and the evolution of Judaism as a whole. This is also true of the genesis of early Christian documents in the bosom of specific communities.

Therefore, studying Matthew, Didache, and James in their relationship to Judaism also requires a fair understanding of Jewish history in the Roman

Empire during their time of origin, that is, the late-first and early-second century c.E. It was a period dominated by the series of wars fought by the Jews against Rome between 66 and 135, and most specialists would agree that this must imply that profound transformation processes took place. What transformations these are, however, and what significant social entities could have been involved in them is the subject of intense discussion. !

In order for us to be able to say sensible things about the historical setting of our three documents, we have no choice but to engage in the discussion and to ponder which elements in it are worth retaining. In addition to the general questions about historical interpretation, we shall see that biography plays a significant role. Historians are themselves part of history and, while playing their allotted role, are subject to shifts in perspective engendered by changes in contemporaneous geopolitics. Such shifts could either illuminate or obscure developments in the ancient period they are studying. It will only be later gen1. I am indebted to my colleague Joshua Schwartz for important comments and suggestions. The positions taken are mine, however, including any errors. oak.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

erations who are in a position to judge,? but meanwhile we must try to make the best of it and keep a watchful eye on the way the interference between biography and historiography works out.

Let us start out, however, from the basics of historiography.

1. INTERPRETATION

There are occasions where it is necessary to remind ourselves again that historiography is based on interpretation and nothing but interpretation. The present paper is such an occasion as it deals with a discussion between historiographers on the formative period of rabbinic Judaism, which—coincidence or not3—was also the period in which main New Testament writings took shape.

A common interpretation is that events surrounding the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 c.g. reduced Jewish existence to one drawn-out, tragic exile.4 With strong theological judgments added, this is not unlike the image of Jewish history embedded in the Church history of Eusebius of Caesarea, which practically gained canonical status in Christian historical consciousness. In this view, the Roman war and the ensuing exile were God's punishment of the Jews for their rejection of Jesus as Messiah. After the two further abortive revolts against the Romans under Trajan and Hadrian,° the Jews effectively disappear from ecclesiastical history, except in the guise of Judaeo-Christians, Judaizers, or other heterodox phenomena. In the meantime, as Eusebius made sure to inform us, the writings of the New Testament as well as some of the so-called Apostolic

2. See the refreshing remarks by Tal Ilan, below at n. 53.

3. It is difficult to view the rise to prominence in the Church of Matthew and John as completely detached from the anti-Jewish polemics of precisely these two Gospels, see Peter J.

Tomson, "The New Testament Canon as the Embodiment of Evolving Christian Attitudes to the Jews," in Canonization and De-Canonization, Papers presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR) held at Leiden 9-10 januari 1997

(ed. A. van der Kooij and K, van der Toorn; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 107-31.

4. Similarly, Benjamin Isaac and Aharon Oppenheimer, "The Revolt of Bar Kokhba: Ideology and Modern Scholarship," JJS 36 (1985): 33-34, adding the modern repetition of this conception in handbooks of Christian, especially Protestant scholars; see also Oppenheimer's opening chapter in The Bar Kokhva-Revolt (ed. Aharon Oppenheimer; Jerusalem: Zalman

Shazar Center, 1980), 9-10 (Hebrew).

5. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.5-9 brings excerpts from Josephus's Jewish War prefaced with tendentious quotes from the New Testament and Eusebian historiosophics.

6. Hist. eccl, 4.2, reports from "historians of the Greeks" about the wars between Jews and "Greeks" under Trajan; and 4.6, the report from Ariston of Pella on the Bar Kokhba war epilogued with the continuation of Eusebius's episcopal chronography in which it is said that Hadrian made Jerusalem into a Roman town after the war, and that henceforth non-Jewish bishops officiated. This overview suggests Eusebius's chronology of Hadrian's building project and decrees is also biased by the author's theological anti-Judaism.

TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

Fathers had been created, but without any clear interaction with Jews or Judaism. As the Caesarean church father saw it, Christianity was not only superior to, but also ab ovo separate from Judaism." Hence, Jewish history and thought cannot possibly have a positive relevance.' The obvious fact that this is an utterly polemical reading of history does little to counteract its massive influence.

The point is, this influence also made its way to Jewish chronographers and historians. It is formally correct to describe much of Jewish existence in history as "exile," meaning that it has been devoid of independent statehood and of residence in the ancestral Land.° From that point on, however, all is interpretation. One would say that such ages of prosperity as experienced by the Jews in Hellenistic Alexandria or in late-antique Babylonia do not at all justify the depressing model of interpretation that Salo Baron has irreparably exposed as "the lachrymose view of Jewish history."!° Yet Baron had reason enough for his anti-lachrymogenic revision. Heinrich Graetz, the nineteenth-century father of modern Jewish historiography, did consider the period we are dealing with as "eine Leidensund Gelehrtengeschichte" ("a history of suffering and of scholars").11

But neither is early Christian history the continuous crescendo of truth triumphant that Eusebius wants us to believe. Walter Bauer made the sobering point in his watershed Rechtglaubigkeit und Ketzerei im dltesten Christentum

(1934; trans. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity): what later was to become "orthodoxy," at an earlier stage was one rival sect among others. Anyone who sees the use of crossing borders between New Testament and patristic scholarship would also value the insight that the Apostle Paul would quite probably

7. See the way the introduction jumps from Joshua to Jesus (fittingly, both called 'Inoovc),

Hist. eccl. 1.2-3.

8. Eusebius does quote Philo and Josephus, but, especially in the latter case, hardly in a positive light (above n. 5). See Heinz Schreckenberg, "Josephus in Early Christian Literature and Medieval Christian Art," in Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval

Christianity (ed. H. Schreckenberg and K. Schubert; CRINT 3/2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992),

63-71.

9, See "The Elements of Exile" in Gedalyahu Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic

Age (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980-84), 1:4-17. In ibid., 3, Alon indicates that rabbinic sages also spoke in terms of exile. However, as shown among others by Isaiah Gafni, "The Status of Eretz Israel in Reality and in Jewish Consciousness following the Bar-Kokhva Uprising," in The Bar-Kokhva Revolt: A New Approach (ed. A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport; Jerusalem: Yad

Izhak Ben Zvi, 1984), 224-32, this is the case only from the Usha generation onwards.

10. Michael Stanislawski, "Salo Wittmayer Baron: Demystifying Jewish History," n.p.

[cited April 6, 2007], online: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/alumni/Magazine/Winter2005/

Ibaron.html, locates the phrase in Salo W. Baron's article "Ghetto and Emancipation: Shall We

Revise the Traditional View?," The Menorah Journal 14 (1928): 515-26.

11. As quoted by Stanislawski (see previous note) and also, in the translation by Gershon

Levy, in the preface of Alon, Jews in Their Land, 1.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

have stood condemned for subordinationism had he been involved in the Christological debates of the fourth century.!?

The crucial work of interpretation is done in the first place in the choice and use of sources. As to sources, the important additions to those available in the nineteenth century are the manuscripts discovered in the Cairo Geniza and at Qumran. For a correct perspective, it is important to note that in addition to Aramaic and Greek, most of the new discoveries are in Hebrew and invite us to reconstitute considerable parts of culture expressed in that more typically

"Jewish"!3 language that were no longer on record. Lachrymose or not, history, and certainly Jewish history, is always also the tale of quantities of source material gone lost.!4

Thus, the task ever ahead of us is to create a coherent imaginary world using the familiar categories of material: archaeology and epigraphy; pagan Greek and Latin sources; Graeco-Jewish sources; Qumran documents typical of the desert community; early Christian sources; classical rabbinic literature and such

"fringes" as targumic, mystical, and prayer texts.

Most of the discussion we are engaged in deals with the interpretation of classical rabbinic and early Christian literature, and this is hardly a coincidence.

As distinct from the other categories, these concern writings proper to the two rival religious traditions that survived from our period, embodying a sense of community, of identity, and of "historical justification" if not apology on both the Jewish and the Christian side. Because most scholars who get drawn into the discussion are motivated by values emanating from either tradition, they must somehow deal with the relationship to the "other" one. This is one area where biography tends to get involved. It is also what makes the discussion we are head to toe engaged in so complex—and so fascinating.

The contentious questions are not new. These are some of them: Who were the Pharisees before 70 and how important were they in Jewish society? Who were the rabbis after 70 and how important were they? How does one assess the use of rabbinic literature in this connection? How reliable are the early Christian sources?

12. See 1 Cor 15:23-28; cf. 11:3. Incidentally, the same subordination of Christ under God is echoed in Jude 25 and may be viewed as "orthodox" for the earlier period, a possibility Athanasius would never admit, of course.

13. Although of course Hebrew by origin is a Canaanite, West Semitic, language, and in no way typically "Jewish."

14. There is more at play here than sheer loss of material. The almost total loss of GraecoJewish sources, which is most likely due to demographic changes that befell the Greek-speaking

Jews, has not prevented scholars across the board from getting highly interested in "Hellenistic

Judaism." We possess only what the Church Fathers chose to preserve, notably Eusebius, and this channel of preservation apparently engenders predilection, It is not the same with the lost

Hebraic-Jewish sources.

TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

But neither is it our task merely to repeat well-known questions. Drawing in the novel evidence from Qumran and the Geniza, we must reread our sources and try to accommodate them in a synthesis that does justice to the complex realities of the age we are interested in. We cannot pretend to do so from scratch, however, and we will begin with a major synthesis that was created in the midtwentieth century and has remained on the agenda ever since.

A final preliminary remark is in place. Historiography is interpretation, and this always involves considerations of likelihood and margins of uncertainty.

One who cannot live with such margins and is afraid to choose between greater and smaller probabilities will be ill at ease as a historian. This is because a "synthetic" approach is needed. If we want to describe, for example, the setting of an early Christian document in relation to Judaism, we must view Jewish and Christian sources together; we cannot study them in comfortable isolation. Of course, we must analyze the sources and their development through adequate literary methods. At the risk of losing its historical relevance, however, such analysis cannot be separated from the synthetical approach and must be practically simultaneous. Rudolf Bultmann, one of the founders of form criticism, a related

New Testament discipline that figures prominently in what follows, spoke of a "hermeneutical circle": we must analyze our sources in a historical perspective, but our historical synthesis is based on the same sources.!> Without the support of external sources, form-critical study of the Gospels has consequently remained rather unsuccessful.!®

2. ALON'S SYNTHESIS

In 1925, a young Zionist intellectual from Bielorussia named Gedaliah Rogoznitzky, having completed a yeshiva in neighboring Lithuania and a year at a rabbinical seminary in more westward Berlin, learned of the founding of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He decided to move to Palestine, changed his surname into Alon (also transliterated Allon), and registered for courses in the departments of Classics and Jewish Studies at Mount Scopus. He was there to stay, a brilliant student among the first to graduate in 1931 and subsequently teaching Jewish history until his sudden death in 1950. At that point, he had not yet finished his dissertation, which at Hebrew University was half a life's work in those years, but he had begun to set out his innovative approach in a series of 15. Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (9th ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 5.

16. Craig A. Evans, "Source, Form and Redaction Criticism: The 'Traditional' Methods of Synoptic Interpretation," in Approaches to New Testament Study (ed. S. E. Porter and D.

Tombs; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 17-45: with the Vorlage in Mark, the tradition units contained in Matthew and Luke are easier to grasp than those in Mark itself, which lack external support.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

studies, published especially in Hebrew in Tarbiz, the leading scholarly journal edited by J. N. Epstein, a main pillar of critical rabbinic scholarship and one of Alon's primary teachers. The articles were published by his colleagues and students, notably Shmuel Safrai, and most of them were subsequently translated into English (Jews, Judaism and the Classical World, 1977). Also gathered up and, where necessary, reconstructed from the students' notes was his course on early

Jewish history, "edited," as the very conscientious translator said, as The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (1980-84).!7

Alon mustered the range of sources from archaeology, via Greek and Latin literary sources including Roman military records, to rabbinic, patristic, and Byzantine literature, and put this vast learning to use with a creative imagination and a talent for historical synthesis.!8 A socio-political outlook was one of his methodological assets.!? Alon was well aware of the import of the early Christian sources for Jewish history, and one of his innovations was his readiness to find halakah in them, even in such a glaringly anti-Jewish writing as the Epistle of Barnabas.?° He had discovered that halakah, especially when combined with economic and political information and supported by archaeological data, is a historical source of great sociological significance. In this way, for example, he approached the thorny subjects of the purity laws and of the "impurity of Gentiles" in ancient Jewish law, searching for their background and development in a socio-historical perspective.?!

17, See Gershon Levy's own foreword in Alon, Jews in Their Land, 1:vii-xiii. At p. xi he indicates himself as the "editor" who "presumed" to reorganize the division of the book. In vol.

2:v-xii, Levi published a more personal preface, reviewing also the discussion on "Alon the historian," See also Shmuel Safrai, "Allon, Gedalya," EncJud 2:654-65.

18. See Safrai's introduction to Gedalyahu Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World

(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977).

19. The article "Sociological Method in the Study of the Halacha," Tarbiz 10 (1938-39):

241-82 (Hebrew) is a highly critical review of the presumed "sociological method" used simplistically in Louis Finkelstein, Akiba: Scholar, Saint and Martyr (New York: Covici Friede,

1936). Alon does not at all want to discard the "sociological method" for the study of the halakah: "On the contrary: it does have the potential to bring us in various ways closer to the truth,

We may even say that the (halakic) tradition itself contains explicit examples to prove this"

(282, my translation). I am not aware, though, that he offered methodological elaboration on the point. Jacob Neusner, A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai c. 1-80 C.E. (1st ed.; StPB 6;

Leiden: Brill, 1962), 10-11, n. 3 takes good notice of Alon's criticism, but says he follows Finkelstein where possible.

20. Gedalyahu Alon, "The Halakah in the Epistle of Barnabas," Tarbiz 11 (1939-40):

23-38, 223 (Hebrew); idem, "The Halakah in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," Tarbiz 11

(1939-40): 127-45 (Hebrew).

21, See the chapters "The Levitical Uncleanness of Gentiles" and "The Bounds of the Laws of Levitical Cleanness," in Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World, 146-89 and 190-234 respectively, Critical discussion is mainly with Emil Schiirer and Alfred Biichler.

TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

Armed with these tools and with a clear, analytical sense of purpose, Alon set out to rewrite post-70 Jewish history. He consciously aimed at a departure from the prevailing Jewish histories of "suffering and scholars" and the "lachrymose view" they incorporate.?? The task first of all involved defining the period, a well-known problem for historians. !t is of course nothing but interpretation, but even so it expresses the particular interest that the historian had better state openly.?> In the energetic Jerusalem-based Jewish university, we may assume, there were courses on Second Temple Judaism and Medieval Jewish history, but it also seemed obvious to offer a course on the history of the Jews in Palestine between the destruction of the Temple and the Arab conquest. How must one name this period, if not "the post-70 period of Jewish exile"? Alon takes an interesting experimental approach, asking: "How much exile?" Complete "exile" would be constituted by the progressive subtraction of the following six elements of statehood: demographical mass, territory, internal governance, authority over exile communities, and military power. In sum, Alon defines the period as one of transition, from previous independent Jewish statehood to eventual complete exile.?4

This definition reflects the modern conception of history as a socio-political process, while zooming in on the specifics of Jewish history. Another definition is also used, however, especially in the title of the book: "The Talmudic Age," or in the original Hebrew edition "The Period of Mishna and Talmud." The title was apparently chosen by the editors, though it could have been the one by which the course was known at the time.?> It expresses a different, seemingly more idealistic interest, one that would also favor speaking, among other periods, of "the Biblical Age."2° By way of comparison, a history of earliest Christianity would be titled "A History of the New Testament Age," thus misleadingly applying a much later category of canonized literature to a period in which this literature was still in its formative stages at best.

22. See above n. 11.

23. Alon, Jews in Their Land, 1:18-19.

24. Alon, Jews in Their Land, 1:3-38. He subdivides this in the Tannaitic period ending with the death of the last Severan emperor in 235; the Amoraic period till the abolition of the Jewish Patriarchate in 420; and the Byzantine period till the Arab conquest in 636.

25. The text of the book at p. 1 speaks of "the era that created (in the Hebrew: laid the foundations of) Talmudic Judaism," by that term meaning the Judaism of the age that followed.

The confusion actually suggests the definition Alon wanted to avoid: the post-70 period as the one of "scholars and suffering."

26. "The Era of the Mishnah and Talmud (70-640)" is also the title of Safrai's contribution in the six-part History of the Jewish People, edited by H. H. Ben-Sasson (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1976), the English translation of the Hebrew work, which, under the popular title of ha-historia ha-aduma (by the color of its jacket), was obligatory literature for history and literature students in Jerusalem in the 1970s and 1980s. The ancient Israelite period, however, is titled here "The Period of the First Temple, the Babylonian Exile and the Restoration."

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

There is, however, a major historians' dilemma here, the choice being between focusing on the general developments conditioning Jewish history or on the factors making it Jewish. Arthur Hertzberg has classically formulated this

"paradoxical truth" while referring to the history of Zionism: "For the general historian, Zionism is not easy to deal with because it is too 'Jewish,' the Jewish historian finds it hard to define because it is too general."*7 Incidentally, the relevant volume of the Cambridge History of Judaism carries a title that embraces both sides of the dilemma: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period.?8

Following his concept of a "transition period," Alon proceeds to unroll post-70 Jewish history. The destruction of the Temple meant the loss not only of "a house of prayer" but also of an impressive center of identity, authority, and financial power, as well as a range of institutions and procedures connected with it. Furthermore, the Roman occupation of Judaea had huge consequences in terms of economy and land ownership, and there was also mention of persecution, apostasy, and collaboration with the occupiers. Finally, Judaea was made into a Roman province, involving a more direct tax-raising system as well as the permanent garrison of the Tenth Legion, the Fretensis, at Jerusalem.?? It was in this setting that the leadership of Johanan ben Zakkai and of Gamliel the Younger must be assessed. Talmudic tradition attributes Johanan with reformulating Judaism on a new, spiritual basis, a conception that is also found in modern historiography. Again, Alon insists on pragmatic history and pursues the following questions: What was the political status of Yavneh, Johanan's administrative center? What was the position of Johanan in internal politics? What results can be attributed to him in the public domain? For Alon, an important political element is that Johanan distinctly belonged to those Jews who preferred to compromise with the Romans all along.>°

27. The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader (repr.; New York: Atheneum, 1973),

20, 28. See Steven T. Katz, ed. The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period (vol. 4 of The Cambridge History of Judaism; ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2006).

29. Alon, Jews in Their Land, 1:41-85.

30. A cruder picture is given in Alon's 1935 Zion article (originally a lecture, apparently),

"The Attitude of the Pharisees to Roman Rule and the House of Herod," ScrHier 7 (1961):

53-78 (Hebrew); repr. in his Jews, Judaism, 18-47. After Agrippa's death, he interestingly posits (pp. 45-46) two novel religio-political attitudes to have arisen alongside the traditional

Pharisaic attitude of "realistic nationalism": zealot nationalism (epitomized by Dipax ya A, according to b. Git 56a, identified by Alon with Zayapia vid¢ ApguadXer in Josephus, War

4.4.1 = 4.225) and total submission to Rome (seen in Hanina the Deputy High Priest and, hesitatingly, even in Johanan ben Zakkai (ibid., 44), but essentially from the Usha period onwards).

The attitude of "realistic nationalism" was still shown in Akiba and his comrades when supporting Bar Kokhba, but it declined after the defeat. The article reads as an epitome of Alon's entire work and is especially important for the explicit emphasis on Pharisaic pluralism. This

TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

The ensuing period of Gamliel the Younger is similarly approached. Alon sees this as the real period of reconstruction, and significantly, he looks for the underlying power basis. With his sharp political eye, he recognizes the import of the rabbinic reports that Gamliel "went to get permission (reshut) from the Governor in Syria.">! Along with a number of related reports, this is reason for Alon to establish that Gamliel succeeded in obtaining political and administrative recognition from the Romans, also setting up a system of civil servants and creating liaisons with the Roman judicial system. This came down to a relative restoration of Jewish autonomy under Roman occupation. As to the time when this change came about, Alon carefully estimates it involved a series of events starting with local acceptance and ending with official recognition acquired during the journeys to Rome of which rabbinic tradition informs us. It could only come to full deployment, however, after the Flavian dynasty ended with Domitian's murder in 96 C.E.3?

After a number of pages that analyze the local economic and administrative basis of this relative Jewish self-government,>? Alon turns to its central institutions, the Sanhedrin and the Patriarchate, and their judicial power. He establishes that, until the abolition of the Patriarchate, the Jews existed in the land "as an ethnos, a socially and nationally distinct group with certain rights to administer its own internal affairs."34 With these powers, Gamliel and his colleagues ran affairs even in diaspora communities, notably the important calendar affairs and financial contributions. Also, a series of takkanot or reformative measures were issued, ranging from adaptations of priestly levies and purity rules to a new

Passover liturgy, a decision about the biblical canon, and the introduction of the must be brought to bear on such unwarranted statements as "From the days of the Hasmoneans and onwards the Pharisees constituted the vast majority of the nation (Ant. 13.15.5, etc.), and, hence, generally speaking, we have to regard the history of Jewry in our period, in all spheres, as also reflecting the history of the Pharisees" (ibid., 22). See the criticism specifically on this article by Tal Ilan, "The Attraction of Aristocratic Women to Pharisaism During the Second

Temple Period," HTR 88 (1995): 2.

31. Alon, Jews in Their Land, 1:121; in the Hebrew original (Toledot ha-Yehudim beErets-Yisrael bi-tekufat ha-Mishna weha-Talmud [Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, repr.

1967-1970], 1:71) is says AMDAW Asan Mw iw Tonw (b. B. Qam. 38a; y. B. Qam. 4, 4b;

Sipre Deut 344).

32. For further consideration see Shmuel Safrai, "The Travels of the Sages of Yavne to Rome," in Sefer zikkaron li-Shlomo Navon (ed. R. Bonfil et al.; Jerusalem: Mosad Shlomo Meir/

Mosad Raphael Cantoni, 1978), 151-61 (Hebrew); repr. in In Times of Temple and Mishnah:

Studies in Jewish History. Collected Studies (ed. S. Safrai; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994; repr. 1996), 2:365-81.

33. Chapters 7-9, in the Hebrew chapter 5, which was wholly restored by S. Safrai from his own notes taken during Alon's lectures; see the preface by Ezra Zion Melamed to vol. 1 of Alon, Jews in Their Land.

34. Alon, Jews in Their Land, 1:206.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

birkat ha-minim, a deprecation of heretics in the main prayer of eighteen benedictions.35 With historical acumen, Alon realized the significance of Gamliel's measures against the Christians, taking in relevant information from rabbinic and patristic sources as well as recently discovered Geniza texts. In his estimation, the various groups of Jewish Christians were effectively removed from the Jewish people. It is of great importance for our discussion that in Alon's analysis not only did these measures have decisive social consequences for Christian-Jewish and for inner-Christian and inner-Jewish relations, but they also were connected with Gamliel's Roman power base.

Alon calculates that Gamliel must have died before 115 c.£., the year when the "war under Trajan" broke out among the Jews in Cyrenaica and Egypt. It lasted till 117 and in Alon's history, which after all is about ancient Palestinian

Jewry, it figures only in relation to the question whether Palestinian Jews were involved. The answer is that this was marginally the case in the so-called "war of Quietus," which hardly left a trace.97

By contrast, the war that broke out in Judaea under Hadrian seventeen years later proved a turning point in Palestinian Jewish history. The Bar Kokhba war

(132-135) involved an incredible effort on the Jewish side. By Alon's detailed count—and it is not inappropriate here also to recognize the commissioned officer in the Jewish defense force, the Hagana38—the revolt kept twelve or thirteen Roman legions plus auxiliary troops engaged for three and a half years, as compared with the three or four legions during the first Roman war. The war ended, however, with the massacre at Beitar and the destruction of Judaea, and it brought about a deep moral crisis. The causes for this poorly documented war are far from evident. Alon concludes that they lay in the Hellenizing politics of Hadrian, which—here agreeing with Emil Schiirer—involved a ban on genital mutilation including circumcision but was not aimed as such against the Jews.3?

Alon also estimates that not only R. Akiba, but also the Patriarchal family and the high court, and as a result a majority of rabbinic sages supported the war effort.4°

35. Alon assumes the eighteen obligatory daily benedictions to have existed before Gamliel. Cf. however Shmuel Safrai, "Gathering in the Synagogues on Festivals, Sabbaths and Weekdays," BAR International Series 499 (1989): 7-15; Ezra Fleischer, "On the Beginnings of Obligatory Jewish Prayer," Tarbiz 59 (1989-90): 397-441.

36. G. Levy made the section on the Judaeo-Christians into a separate chapter entitled

"Jewish Christians: The Parting of the Ways" (in Alon, Jews in Their Land, 2:288). More markedly, the Hebrew version (ibid., 179) calls this Amixn Son OANA Sw DIN, "the removal of the minim .

. from the Jewish people." This is in fact what seems implied in the term dnoovvaywyos in the Gospel of John; see below.

37. See the conclusion in Alon, Jews in Their Land, 2:426-27.

38. See Levy in his preface to Alon, Jews in Their Land, 2:x.

39. Alon, Jews in Their Land, 2:583-91.

40. Ibid., 2:618-32.

TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

After the defeat, the Romans punished the Jews by closing law courts, forbidding religious gatherings, and prohibiting another number of sensitive ritual commandments.*! Furthermore, "as a result of the Bar Kokhba war, the legal basis for Jewish autonomy ceased to exist."42 Many fled the country or abandoned Jewish tradition. Also, many moved to the north: "We may describe the second half of the second century as a demographic turning point, when the center of gravity of the Jewish population in Palestine shifted northwards, to Galilee."43 For decades to come, thus Alon, Jewish life in Palestine maintained a low profile.

It was only under the more favorable reign of the Severi (193-235) that a measure of Jewish autonomy in Palestine returned. At the same time, the rabbinic leadership showed a more submissive attitude to the occupiers. In Alon's formulation, "the long drawn-out, stubborn refusal of the Jews to come to any kind of terms with Roman rule had been weakened by the defeat in the Bar Kokhba war."*4 The decimated and "Romanized" Jewish community, while living in the Land of Israel, now experienced a greater measure of "exile" than ever before.

3. FOLLOWERS AND OPPONENTS

It is fair to say that for a long time Alon's synthesis was accepted as a basis for further research by a majority of Israeli historians and archaeologists.*°

The publication of his collected works was realized by his former students, first and foremost Shmuel Safrai, who later became professor of Jewish history at the Hebrew University. Safrai's own research, based on exhaustive study of the rabbinic sources and a constant watch of archaeological results, in many ways consisted in supplementing and refining Alon's synthesis, and he also conveyed this approach to his students.46 When in 1980 Aharon Oppenheimer, a former student of Safrai's and professor at Tel Aviv University, published a reader on the Bar Kokhba war in Hebrew, he chose the relevant chapter from Alon's history for an opening chapter.' It is also clear that Alon's influence extends well beyond

41. Ibid., 2:632-37.

42. Ibid., 2:648.

43. Ibid., 2:645.

44. Ibid., 2:698.

45. See Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 2001), 5-6.

46. See esp. Shmuel Safrai, "Further Observations on the Problem of the Status and Activities of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai after the destruction [of the temple]," in Sefer zikkaron le-Gedalyahu Alon (ed. M. Dorman, S. Safrai and M. Stern; Tel-Aviv: Hakibutz Hameuchad,

1970), 203-26 (Hebrew); repr. in S. Safrai, ed., In Times of Temple and Mishnah, 2:341-64 and idem, "Travels of the Sages of Yavne."

47. Aharon Oppenheimer, ed., The Bar-Kokhva Revolt (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center,

1980), 23-56 = Alon, Jews in Their Land, 2:592-637 (see also below). Similarly, Isaac and

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

Israeli scholarship. As Safrai put it in his preface to the 1977 English edition of Alon's collected studies, "During the past few decades, anybody who has read any literature in English investigating the Jewish history of those centuries [i.e., the Roman period] has been influenced by Gedalyahu Alon, whether the reader recognized the fact or not,"48 and, one might wish to add, whether the reader agreed with him, or not.

There has always been criticism as well, as there ought to be in scholarship.

Unsurprisingly, North American Jewish scholars sometimes find Alon a "Zionist" historiographer. For one, Jacob Neusner, in his remake of A Life of Rabban

Yohanan ben Zakkai of 1970, counted Alon among "Israeli revisionist [i.e., rightwing Zionist] historians" whose "tendency in general is to treat Yohanan [ben

Zakkai] as a traitor, a quisling" because of his flight from beleagered Jerusalem.*?

Curiously, these pronouncements, which do little justice to Alon, were added in the "complete revision" of a study dating from 1962. Neusner added: "It is pure anachronism to make judgements about first-century events and people in the light of twentieth-century values and ideals. That does not mean anyone can be free of anachronism who proposes to study history. But it does mean we have to criticize our judgments and to recognize our own presuppositions.">° The reference to contemporary circumstances suggests that the world-wide tensions generated by the Six Day War in 1967 contributed to Neusner's sudden change of perspective. The first edition, which is to be counted among the richly footnoted early work of Neusner's, is still unambiguous in its esteem for Alon.>!

The main difference between both editions is in the historical account being made "entirely separate" from the "form-critical" analysis of the sources, which was now simultaneously made available in Neusner's Development of a Legend.

The method of analysis, which took inspiration from Neusner's teacher Morton Smith in borrowing from form-critical Gospel study and was to become central in Neusner's subsequent work, knowingly considers each source in isolation:

"The complex relationships between one rabbinic document and another are not Oppenheimer, "Bar Kokhba Revolt," 37: "G. Alon laid the foundations of the modern study of the period of the Mishnah and the Talmud through critical examination of talmudic literature,"

48, See Safrai's introduction to Alon's work, above n. 18.

49. Jacob Neusner, A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, ca. 1-80 c.g. (2nd ed.; Leiden:

Brill, 1970), 147 and 243-45, quoted by Levy in his preface to Alon, Jews in Their Land, 2: ix=xi.

50. Neusner, A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, 2nd ed., 245.

51. J. N. ["Y. N."] Epstein is also duly mentioned. Similarly, Neusner's valuable study on "The Fellowship of the Second Jewish Commonwealth" of 1960 goes along with Alon's analysis of ancient purity laws. The positive references to Alon have remained in A Life of Rabban

Yohanan, 2nd ed., now yielding an ambiguous result, and disappear from Neusner's subsequent work.

TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

under study here".5? There is an inherent contradiction here, since form criticism builds on Synoptic studies and by nature implies a comparative or synthetic approach of the sources, not atomization. Also, as observed at the beginning, external sources such as archaeological ones are essential in setting up an interpretive framework. In addition, as we have seen, form criticism from the start has been conscious of the necessary interrelation between source analysis and historical synthesis. We shall also see that a similar method of "atomistic" analysis was to be adopted by Peter Schafer, and that it was criticized by Seth Schwartz.

With comprehensive insight and a refreshing touch of humor, Tal Ilan, while in 1995 engaging in a discussion about the Pharisees, critically set off Neusner's

"Diaspora" viewpoint from Alon's "Zionist" approach. Implementing Neusner's theoretical insight that no historian is free from "anachronistic" presuppositions, she also wrote: "I am certain that I too can be placed on the Pharisee research chart by someone standing further away from the present discussion and in command of a better view of the discipline."53

More recently, sophisticated methodological objections against Alon were advanced by Seth Schwartz of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York.

Under the title Imperialism and Jewish Society 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E., Schwartz wrote a prize-winning monograph with the ambition of offering an alternative to Alon's synthesis. Although in my view there are some misunderstandings, the endeavor is convincing in large parts and deserves to be taken very seriously. In Schwartz's view, Alon belonged to the type of Jewish historians who "are writing from deep inside some sort of romantic nationalist ideology, nowadays usually

Zionism.">4 As did other Zionist historians of the first generation, Alon would have "argued that the Jews had always constituted what amounted to a nation, even in periods when they lacked political self-determination, mainly because

Judaism always had a national component at its center." And because of this "powerful national sensibility," "the Jews were always devoted to Judaism.">°

Schwartz terms this approach the typically Israeli "field of Jewish history in the 'Talmud period" of which he considers Alon to be the founder,>® illustrating

52. The foreword of Jacob Neusner's Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai (StPB 16. Leiden: Brill, 1970), xi mentions Neusner's teacher, Morton Smith, who stressed that the study of parallels in rabbinic literature must be approached in a similar way as the synoptic study of the Gospels. The foreword of A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, 2nd ed., refers to Vincent Taylor's Formation of the Gospel Tradition.

53. Ilan, "The Attraction of Aristocratic Women," 5-6.

54. See Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 5, tending to caricature, 111: "Alon... always ascribed to the rabbis absolutely as much power and popularity as the most romantically sentimental reading of rabbinic literature would allow."

55. The criticism is to the point especially in view of the article referred to in n. 30 above.

56. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 6 n. 8 and p. 7.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

this by quoting the long phrase that concludes Alon's preface: "We shall begin our study by regarding the [Talmudic] age as a continuation of the Second Commonwealth."57 Possibly misled by the translation, Schwartz overlooks Alon's critical discussion of the problem of naming the period a few pages further on and does not recognize that indeed the title given by the editors to this "problematic book" is ill-suited to Alon's own approach.

Methodologically, Schwartz thinks this view presupposes "an unusually close connection between the prescriptions of the rabbis . .

. and the Jews' behavior."

It involves a "hermeneutics of goodwill" in which, in contrast to the "hermeneutics of suspicion now widespread among non-Israeli scholars," it is thought the rabbis are nothing but "the distillation of the Jewish national will." According to this "rabbinocentric" model, which Alon's followers apply less critically than he did himself, "rabbinic prescriptions could be used to describe Jewish life," and "rabbinic disagreements were thought to reflect deeper social and political conflicts among the Jews." As the one massive objection to this model, Schwartz adduces the archaeological and epigraphic material gathered and interpreted by Erwin R. Goodenough in his Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period with the conclusion that "the rabbis did not control Jewish life." Judging by archaeology, most Jews of the period practiced "a profoundly hellenized, mystical, platonic version of Judaism" as exemplified by Philo of Alexandria.5? On the basis of a similar critical insight, thus Schwartz, Jacob Neusner first conceived his theory of the rabbinic documents not as "repositories of tradition" reflecting reality but as ideologically motivated "selections of material" attempting to construct reality.

Schwartz embraces this emphasis of the early work of Neusner, who "historicized rabbinic literature and reduced it to an artifact of a society in which it was in fact marginal." However Schwartz thinks that in his later work, Neusner has allowed these salutary methodological caveats to rigidify into positivist "orthodoxies," maintaining that all attributions of traditions to named rabbis are false and that 57. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 6 quoting Alon, Jews in Their Land, 1:2.

The translation has: "Later on we shall outline some criteria for evaluating the fundamental aspects of life in those times. But it should be stated at the outset that we shall begin our study by regarding..." But more correctly translated, the Hebrew states, "Further on at the beginning of the introduction, some important criteria shall be outlined as to the fundamental definition of our period. Initially (n2.nm9), we must consider it as a continuation of the Second Temple period." See Gedalyahu Alon, Toledot ha-Yehudim be-EretsYisrael bi-tekufat ha-Mishna wehaTalmud (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1967-70), 1:1, emphasis in original. Alon obviously means the six subtractive criteria he mentions on p. 4 in order to define how much exile there is in the period under discussion; see n. 24 above.

58. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 7 n. 10.

59. But see Erwin R. Goodenough's An Introduction to Philo Judaeus (2nd ed.: Oxford:

Blackwell, 1962), in which he attached much more importance to Philo's Jewish specificity than in earlier work; see Peter J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (CRINT 3/1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990), 40-42.

TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

every rabbinic work is per se the expression of a distinct ideology. In Schwartz's calculation, the rabbinic texts were shared by a couple of thousand people and by consequence must have a basic coherence, for which reason "an atomistic reading" of them is "most problematic of all."6°

In his preface to the second volume of Alon's history, the translator, Gershon Levy, takes issue with the objection of Alon's "Zionist" bias. No historian is free from subjective interests, and the historian Alon was "a Jew living in his ancestral homeland, writing about his people's past experiences and traditions not as a stranger, but from within." To that extent he was a "Zionist" historian,

"but in the final analysis his work must be judged by the evidence he adduces, and the reasoning he employs."6! Basically, that is a healthy approach.

Following Karl Popper's widely shared theory,® science and scholarship advance by setting up imaginative theories, bombarding them with observed facts

(in our branch, source evidence), and then taking stock of what has remained standing. Without the "leap of imagination," no new theories are born; without the falsifiability by observable facts, they do not become scientific. In that sense,

Alon's experimental approach to the problem of defining our period can be viewed as truly scientific. He put up the theory of the period as one of transition from "national statehood," of which the destruction of the Temple was an important turning point, to the situation of "exile," and then went looking at what the sources tell us to contradict that theory, or in other words, where less autonomy is indicated than was theorized. His "Zionist" bias motivated him in finding as much evidence of Jewish autonomy as he could find; his conscientiousness as a scholar ought to have prevented him from maintaining theories that are contradicted by the sources. In order to assess the outcome, let us review the approach of Alon's major recent critic.

4. THE SYNTHESIS OF SETH SCHWARTZ

The ambition of Seth Schwartz, as the opening paragraph of his extremely clearly written book states, is:

(to trace) the impact of different types of foreign domination on the inner structure of ancient Jewish society, primarily in Palestine. It argues that a loosely centralized, ideologically complex society came into existence by the second century B.c.E., collapsed in the wake of the Destruction and the imposition of direct Roman rule after 70 c.£., and reformed starting in the fourth century,

60. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 8-12.

61. Levy in Alon, Jews in Their Land, 2:xi.

62. For a helpful overview see Stephen Thornton, "Karl Popper," Internet Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.p. [cited 6 June 2007]. Online: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ popper/.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

centered now on the synagogue and the local religious community, in part as a response to the christianization of the Roman Empire.®

Schwartz' ambition is not unlike Alon's, only the perspective is opposite: where

Alon tends to observe Judaism from the interior and to look for signs of autonomy, Schwartz observes it from the outside and looks for the impact made by external forces. This epistemological constellation is not without merits. I will come back to this.

Developing the opening paragraph just quoted, Schwartz's book is in three parts. The first part describes the making of Second Temple Judaism and its central institutions, Torah and Temple, in the framework of successive empires:

Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman (539 B.c.E.—70 C.E.). The idea is that the imperial support for these institutions made for the integration of the Jews in society.

Until the last part of the period, Roman governance was fairly non-interventional, though less so than the preceding empires.

The author's own description of the second part deserves being quoted at some length:

The second part of the book concerns the period from 135 c.g. to 350... when the Jews were under the direct rule of the relatively centralizing pagan Roman

Stale... .:.

I suggest that under the combined impact of the Destruction and the failure of the two revolts, the deconstitution of the Jewish "nation," and the annexation of Palestine by an empire at the height of its power and prosperity, Judaism shattered. .

.. For most Jews, Judaism may have been little more than a vestigial identity, bits and pieces of which they were happy to incorporate into a religious and cultural system that was essentially Graeco-Roman and pagan.4

Judging from archaeological and epigraphic evidence, Schwartz observes that the Jews did not distinguish themselves from others in this period and that they largely shared the motifs and values of surrounding Graeco-Roman paganism.

Yet this was also the period in which some of the main literary texts of the rabbis were created, In a sense, these were two worlds apart.

The third part of the book is about the Christianized empire, 350-640. As evidenced by archaeology, it was only in that period that synagogues began to be built in any quantity; it was also the period of continued literary production by the rabbis. Apparently the two worlds somehow merged, and Schwartz's explanation is that it was rivalry with the Christianized state that brought them together and caused a "Judaization" of the Palestinian Jews.

63. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 1.

64. Ibid., 15.

" TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

Before saying anything else, I want to state that I find this an impressive book, in its erudition, its methodology, and its theoretical elucidation. I agree with the historian of Rome, Fergus Millar, who, in an important review article titled "Transformations of Judaism under Graeco-Roman Rule" (I saw this title long after I had posted mine), wrote that the book is "not only a salutary challenge," but also "a very significant step forward in the study of this period."® I think Schwartz has an important point especially for the third to sixth centuries, while I have doubts as to the earlier period.

What occurred to me at once is the practical absence of the two great Jewish wars against the Romans and of the intervening period of Yavne, 70-132. Where is Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai, where is the regime of Rabban Gamliel? In his review article, Fergus Millar also notes the curious absence of the Yavne period.®

Furthermore, Millar points out bodies of evidence that are not covered by Schwartz's approach and that must cause his theory to be adapted. I join Millar in reviewing evidence that needs to be taken account of, adding some of my own observations and formulations.

1. Unlike Alon, Schwartz does not take in the evidence of the Gospels and of the fierce late-first-century conflict with the "Pharisees" (Matthew) or with the "Jews" (John). The contrast with the much more subdued picture emerging from Mark and the more socially specific account of Luke make the evidence of Matthew and John the more compelling.®" The Pharisees must have succeeded in causing a lot of trouble for the Christians in Palestine and Asia Minor and apparently even in ousting them from the Jewish community, because that is how I think we must translate the unique word anoovvaywyog used in John 9:22, 12:42 and 16:2.98

65. Fergus G. B. Millar, "Transformations of Judaism under Graeco-Roman Rule: Responses to Seth Schwartz's Imperialism and Jewish Society (2001)," JJS 57 (2006): 139-58. The review was made on the occasion of the paperback edition, the hardback having slid off the JJS desk unnoticed.

66. Millar, "Transformations of Judaism," 142: "an odd omission"; 144: "Three .

. . missing chapters (the First Revolt, the Inter-War Period, and the Second Revolt)."

67. For an overview see Peter J. Tomson, "If This be from Heaven": Jesus and the New

Testament Authors in Their Relationship to Judaism (trans. J. Dyk; The Biblical Seminar 76;

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), chapters 5-7. For detailed studies see idem, "'Jews' in the Gospel of John as Compared with the Palestinian Talmud, the Synoptics and Some New

Testament Apocrypha," in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000 (ed. R. Bieringer et al.; Jewish and Christian Heritage Series 1; Assen: Van Gorcum,

2001), 301-40 and idem, "Das Matthausevangelium im Wandel der Horizonte: vom »Hause

Israels« (10,6) zu »allen Volkern« (28,19)," in Judaistik und Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (ed.

L. Doering et al.; FRLANT; Gottingen: VandenHoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming).

68. See Tomson, "The Wars against Rome, the Rise of Rabbinic Judaism and of Apostolic

Gentile Christianity, and the Judaeo-Christians: Elements for a Synthesis," in The Image of the

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

2. Schwartz does not take into account the archaeological evidence confirming the large spread and the enormous intensity of the Bar Kokhba war, that is, the elaborate underground structures that were excavated in the hills of Judaea and even in Galilee and that agree remarkably with the account of Dio Cassius.°?

Alon of course could not yet dispose of the Judaean excavations that were done in the 1970s and 1980s and seem to confirm his account.

3. Schwartz does not take in the evidence (but Millar points out that some of it became available only after his book appeared) about fifth-century synagogues in which Graeco-Roman pagan motifs seem to merge with literary motifs from rabbinic tradition, thus confirming the complex coexistence with Byzantine culture. This seems to corroborate what earlier scholarship had supposed, namely, that rabbinic tradition had been developing all along and now was ready to step in and fill in the gaps left available for the new "rabbinic culture." Millar correctly points out the bior even trilingual culture of the mixed pagan-Jewish cities and villages of Byzantine Palestine. Years ago, Moshe Herr concluded that indeed in fifth and sixth century c.g. midrashic works, the influence of "Hellenization"— meaning the intrusion of Greek vocabulary in rabbinic parlance—is most in evidence."° All this throws illuminating light on the importance of the preceding periods of latency and of "post-70 transition."

4. Schwartz does not take in the modern study of the Mishna founded by Alon's teacher J. N. Epstein that is the starting point for anything done in the field in Israeli academic circles. The evidence of the Mishna is brought up by Millar, but in my view he is too skeptical about the possibility of dating the process of redaction and final editing. The development of the Mishnaic tradition as tradition-critically pioneered by Epstein testifies to the creative development of rabbinic tradition during the period of latency and of underground survival after the Bar Kokhba war. This analysis must of course not be done in "literary" isolation but, as exemplified by Epstein, presupposes being integrated in a thoroughly historical approach.

Judaeo-Christians in Early Jewish and Christian Literature (ed. P. J. Tomson and D. LambersPetry; WUNT 158; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck 2003), 14-18.

69. See Amos Kloner, "Hideout-Complexes from the Period of Bar-Kokhva in the Judean

Plain," in The Bar-Kokhva Revolt: A New Approach (ed. A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport;

Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1984), 153-71; Amos Kloner and and Boas Zissu, "Hiding Complexes in Judaea: An Archaeological and Geographical Update on the Area of the Bar Kokhba

Revolt," in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (ed, P. Schafer; TSAJ 100; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 181-216; Yuval Shahar,

"The Underground Hideouts in Galilee and Their Historical Meaning," in The Bar Kokhba War

Reconsidered, 217-40, 70. Moshe D. Herr, "Ha-hellenismus veha-Yehudim be-Erets Yisrael." Eshkolot n.s. 3

(1977-78): 20-27.

TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

We can speculate as to what may have induced a sophisticated author like Schwartz to such oversights. As concerns the Bar Kokhba war, at any rate, he has amended them, as we will see when reviewing his 2006 overview of the period.

If Schwartz felt impressed by the methodological problems surrounding the Bar Kokhba war as raised especially by Peter Schafer (see next section), he has explicitly criticized the "atomistic" method adopted by Neusner and Schafer.7! Even so, Schwartz seems to share the wariness vis-a-vis "rabbinocentric" approaches strongly voiced by Schafer. One could also wonder, as Tal Ilan did in the case of Jacob Neusner, to what extent Schwartz's Diaspora-based Jewish standpoint could condition his views on early Jewish history."2 But however one turns it, the fact is that Schwartz's synthesis, valuable as it is, does not take account of a certain amount of evidence and needs to be amended.

Coming back to the growth of scholarly knowledge as theorized by Popper, I propose to consider Alon's viewpoint as one vantage point whence to observe the Judaism of 70-135, and Schwartz's as another, complementary one. Schwartz's entirely convincing approach is, starting from the Persian period, to look for the impact of empire; it involves an outside perspective in which Jewish phenomena are interpreted in Graeco-Roman terms. No less coherently, Alon's ambition is, in continuity with the Second Temple period, to look for the expression of Jewish motifs; it involves an inside perspective in which elements from Graeco-Roman culture are interpreted in Jewish terms. What "leaps of imagination" does either perspective yield? And do these survive the confrontation with the range of available sources? Such an epistemological constellation reminds me of the debate between Adolf von Harnack and Theodor Zahn over (coincidental or not) the formation of the New Testament canon. Where von Harnack stressed the impact of Christian polemics with adversaries, Zahn underlined the internal dynamics of community reading. When studying the subject I had to conclude that both perspectives combined produce the best starting point for studying such a complex process.73

5. DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BAR KOKHBA WAR

The synthesis presented by Alon is very much at stake in the intense debate about the Bar Kokhba war, which we noted was effectively omitted in Schwartz's endeavor along with the entire Yavne period. The debate has been going on for 71. See n. 60.

72. For Ilan, see at n. 53 above. It is advisable not to adopt the language of "revisionist" (Schwartz) as against "traditional history" (Alon) as does Michael Satlow in his review of Schwartz; see "A History of the Jews or Judaism? On Seth Schwartz's Imperialism and Jewish

Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E.," JQR 95 (2005): 157. Neusner called Alon "revisionist," see n.

49.

73. See Tomson, "New Testament Canon."

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

the last thirty years, and much of it has evolved around ideological motives at play in interpreting the evidence, especially the rabbinic part. Likewise, and increasingly so, the import of the recent archaeological excavations has been brought to bear on the discussion. Several collections of studies were published, and the subject is prominent in a recent handbook. Major questions debated include the scale of the war effort, the amount of support for it among the people, and the involvement of the rabbis.

An early contribution was made by G. S. Aleksandrov, "The Role of "Aqiba in the Bar Kokhba Rebellion." In his view, there is no proof that a majority of rabbis supported the rebellion, nor that Akiba was a leader or organizer, though possibly his eschatological mysticism did make him a supporter. In rejecting Alon's hypotheses, Aleksandrov is much more decisive than Alon was while presenting them. Originally written in Russian, the paper was brought into the discussion by Jacob Neusner who published an English translation in his Eliezer ben Hyrcanus.'4

In 1976, Shimon Appelbaum published his Prolegomena to the Study of the Second Jewish Revolt in the supplementary series of the British Archaeological

Reports. The tactical strength of the Roman forces receives minute attention, the conclusion being that at a later phase of the war seven complete legions were involved, plus ample auxiliaries; the calculated total numbered at least 74,000 troops. Appelbaum included a tactical comparison with the Roman campaign against the Welsh and concluded that as opposed to that episode, the campaign in Judaea reflected "the decision of the Roman government to exterminate the Jewish population of the Judaean massif."75 The core of the revolt was in the peasantry, which had become embittered by the Roman land policy after 70, and direct causes lay in Hadrian's Hellenizing program.

The discussion gained full speed with Aharon Oppenheimer's reader, The Bar-Kokhva Revolt (1980, in Hebrew). The revolt has been much neglected in scholarship, the editor states, not only because of the paucity of sources but also because of the ingrained idea that the Jews disappeared from political history in 70 c.£. A major cause for the novel interest in the revolt was the publication of the Bar Kokhba letters."° As noted above, Oppenheimer, a main player in the debate, chose the pertinent pages from Alon's history for an opening chapter because

74, Originally published in 1973 in Russian and simultaneously in REJ; G. S. Aleksandrov,

"The Role of 'Aqiba in the Bar Kokhba Rebellion," in Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man (2 vols.; ed. J. Neusner; SJLA 3-4; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 2:422-36, also in RE] 132 (1973):

65-77.

75. Shimon Appelbaum, Prolegomena to the Study of the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 132135) (BAR 7; Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1976), 52.

76. Aharon Oppenheimer, ed., The Bar-Kokhva Revolt (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center,

1980), 9-10 (introduction),

» TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

tii they embody "a general survey of the revolt and of the problems it poses."77 Valuable studies dating as far back as 1897 (Biichler on Samaritan participation in the revolt) and 1923-24 (Carol or Carroll on the archaeological remains at Bettar, called Khirbet al-Yahud in local Arab) drew attention.

Another major partner in the discussion has been Peter Schafer. His 1981 collection of studies in German, Der Bar Kochba-Aufstand, consists of elaborate analyses of literary sources pertaining to major aspects of the revolt. The introduction explains that these analyses are aimed at "destroying common clichés and naive prejudices." Alon is mentioned furtively; it is stated that his approach is

"similar to the one of Yeivin, but more critical." Schafer is explicit: "The method is one of rigorous and 'atomistic' source criticism."78 As did Neusner in his Development of a Legend, Schafer proceeds to analyze the sources one by one, probing each isolated case for its measure of historical reliability, but unlike Neusner, no attempt at a synthesis ensues.

That was precisely where Oppenheimer criticized Schafer in his 1983 review.

While agreeing that the groundwork done is very useful for a new synthesis, the reviewer thinks the atomistic approach tends to negate the historical value of the sources. "For each subject the book deals with, the sources are broken down into their components, each of which is treated in isolation. .

.. Because of the nature of talmudic literature, historical details are cited in it only incidentally. The aim of talmudic literature is not historiographical. .

. The possibility of utilizing it for historical research depends largely on combining various sources from different works."79 Also, the archaeological sources are hardly taken into account.

Next to appear was a collection of "new research papers"®° edited by Aharon Oppenheimer and Uriel Rappaport, The Bar-Kokhva Revolt:

A New Approach (1984). Among other interesting studies, Dalia Ben-Haim Trifon, studying

"aspects of internal politics," doubts the reliability of rabbinic reports on the support from the rabbis including R. Akiba for the revolt. Aharon Oppenheimer investigates Jewish rituals practiced by Bar Kokhba as witnessed by his correspondence; not only do these exude a "nationalistic flavor," they also agree with rabbinic halakah. Amos Kloner reports on the numerous subterranean "hideout complexes" in the Judaean hills that had recently come to attention and that seem

77. Ibid., 7 (foreword).

78. Peter Schafer, Der Bar Kochba-Aufstand: Studien zum zweiten jiidischen Krieg gegen

Rom (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981), Introduction, 5-6. See the criticism by Seth Schwartz, see n. 60.

79. Aharon Oppenheimer, Review of P. Schafer, Der Bar Kokhba Aufstand: Studien zum zweiten jiidischen Krieg gegen Rom, JSJ 14 (1983): 218. Similarly, Isaac and Oppenheimer, "Bar

Kokhba Revolt," 38: the method that "dissects talmudic sources into their component parts and studies each source separately" has the "fundamental weakness that it fails to consider the sources in combination," sometimes leading to worse conjecture than the method criticized.

80. Thus the subtitle in the Hebrew: DW7N DO" pNn.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

to confirm Dio Cassius's report on the guerilla methods used by the Jewish rebels.

Following a survey by Ze'ev Safrai, the evidence on extinction of Jewish settlement in various regions of the Land of Israel testifies to the extent of the Bar

Kokhba war, most of all in Judaea. Joshua Schwartz, to be sure, concludes that Jewish settlement in post-war Judaea did not become completely extinct. Furthermore, Isaiah Gafni finds that only following the Bar Kokhba revolt do rabbinic traditions evidence an emphasis on living in the Land and against Diaspora life.

An important attempt at defusing the ideological motivations behind the debate was made by Benjamin Isaac and Aharon Oppenheimer.8! Whereas certain historians identified fully with the Roman point of view, others, among whom were Yeivin and Alon, identified with the Jewish viewpoint. More balanced approaches are also noted. The need for a sober and critical assessment of the sources is obvious. It was, however, "G. Alon [who] laid the foundations of the modern study of the period of the Mishnah and the Talmud through critical examination of talmudic literature." Schafer's method is again criticized because it "dissects talmudic sources into their component parts and .

. . fails to consider the sources in combination, and this sometimes results in conjecture that is no better founded than that which it criticized in the first place." Also, "the most substantial contribution to our information on the revolt has been made by archaeological exploration, epigraphy, and numismatics."82

In 2003, Peter Schafer rejoined with The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, a collection of papers read at a 2001 Princeton conference. The editor agrees that recent developments, especially in archaeology, justify a status quaestionis.

Oppenheimer and Isaac participated along with many others, including archaeologists Amos Kloner and Hanan Eshel. Schafer opens with a paper on "Bar

Kokhba and the Rabbis," stating for his aim to refute the concern of "most Jewish

Studies scholars ... with placing the revolt firmly within the emerging rabbinic movement of post-70 Judaism." In spite of the criticisms, Schafer persists in his

"atomistic" method, taking the sources on the revolt one by one. On that basis, he doubts the historicity of R. Akiba's support for the revolt and the rabbinic basis of Bar Kokhba's law observance—would he not rather have followed "pre70 and non-rabbinic models"? Similarly, the reputed desecration by the rebels of idolatrous motifs on pagan utensils "might as well be the result of significant tear and wear." Having thus pulverized most of the evidence pertaining to the rabbinic tradition, Schafer wants "to turn the tables" and "ask what kind of Judaism emerges if we rely above all on the primary sources.

. . It has become increas81. In their essay, "The Revolt of Bar Kokhba," 33-60. See also the sober study by Harry

Sysling, "De Bar-Kochba opstand, historie en legende," Ter herkenning 14 (1986): 165-76.

82. Isaac and Oppenheimer, "The Revolt of Bar Kokhba," 36-38.

'TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

ingly clear . . . that there was not much of a rabbinic movement during the period under discussion."83

At the time of writing, the debate stands at the positions outlined in volume 4 of the Cambridge History of Judaism of 2006. Seth Schwartz, in the opening chapter on "Political, Social, and Economic Life in the Land of Israel, 66 — c.

235," starts out by highlighting the centrifugal movement in the aftermath of the Great War and the way in which "the norms of the Graeco-Roman city partly supplemented and partly replaced . .

. native norms as the cultural ideal." As to the ensuing Bar Kokhba revolt, the importance of archaeological discoveries is acknowledged, while stressing the inscrutable nature and course of the revolt.

Archaeology confirms reports in Dio Cassius and in patristic and rabbinic literature and warrants the conclusion, "The Bar Kokhba revolt seems to have been a mass uprising concentrated in Judaea." Shimon ben Kosiba, "apparently a pious

Jew," was "its single leader (but) may never have succeeded in controlling it fully."

It is uncertain if the rabbis operated as a group and "unknown what the views of individual rabbis aside from Rabbi Akiba might have been." While the question of the exact timing and scope of Hadrian's decrees must be left unsolved, the demographic shift to Galilee comes in full view from the fourth century onwards.

We can conclude that Schwartz, writing for this assignment, has admitted the apparent importance of the Bar Kokhba war. He has remained sceptical, however, on the involvement of the rabbis. His whole summary of the Yavne period, including the wars, reflects an exclusively outside perspective. As to the choice of sources, the import of early Christian documents is not felt.

In the same volume, Bar Ilan archaeologist Hanan Eshel summarizes the archaeological evidence on the Bar Kokhba revolt, evaluating it in the light of the literary documents. He ends up not far from the summary by Benjamin Isaac and Aharon Oppenheimer, twenty years earlier. The numerous subterranean structures in Judaea confirm Dio Cassius' information on large-scale preparations by the Jews. The letters of Bar Kokhba show him, the sole leader, to have set up an elaborate administrative system, though the command structure remains unclear. The insurgents are seen as "strictly observing Jewish law" in such details as the Sabbath, the sabbatical year, and the defacing of deities portrayed on pagan utensils as prescribed in the Mishna (m. 'Abod. Zar. 4:5). In order to quench the insurrection, the Romans had to muster up elements from ten or eleven legions plus auxiliary units and apparently "perceived the uprising as a genuine threat to their empire."

83. The last phrase summarizes Catherine Hezser's study, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 66; Tibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), a Habilitationsschrift prepared under Schafer's direction. However, Hezser's own conclusions are more cautious.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

6. CONCLUSION: POSITIONING MATTHEW, DIDACHE, AND JAMES

BETWEEN 50 AND 150 C.E.

On balance, we may conclude that Alon's theory of the years 70-135 C.E. in Jewish history as part of a "transition period" from a situation of independent statehood to one of subjection and political insignificance has been vindicated, certainly if we frame it in the larger "imperial" outlook advocated by Schwartz.

The pulverization of rabbinic evidence as propagated by Peter Schafer cannot contribute to a historical reconstruction, almost per definitionem; a synthetic approach following the lead of archaeological and literary evidence is called for.

Nor is Seth Schwartz's underrating of the inside perspective and his consequent scepticism as to the rabbinic sources for the Yavne period satisfying. Certainly, the various indications of apostasy and defection in the period may not be neglected; the challenges facing the Jewish leadership must have been legion, including those presented by the Christians. Indeed, the strong pressure from the rabbinic leadership felt in the early Christian sources is an important piece of the puzzle. Finally, there is the archaeological and other external evidence on the circumstances of the Bar Kokhba war. Judging from the system of underground caves and passageways, large preparations were made, and the Romans apparently needed to mobilize an exceptionally large part of their military potential. If we combine all of this evidence, Alon's depiction of the transition period as one in which political resilience coupled with religious devotion characterized a large proportion of Jews becomes not at all unlikely. The exact share the rabbis had in this ideological motivation is unclear, but many of them must have been somewhere near its center of gravity.

The Bar Kokhba war represents the ultimate and most violent confrontation of the Jews with the Roman Empire. It was not just its military power they opposed in this final showdown, but its ideology. The spirit of independence and non-submission with which the Jews had repeatedly responded to the assertion of absolute and quasi-divine power seems to have irritated the Romans quite a lot. In reaction, ideological motives seem to have played a role in their military strategy.54 In other words, the ideological and military power of the Jews was

84. See Shimon Appelbaum, Prolegomena to the Study of the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D.

132-135) (British Archaeological Reports. Supplementary Series 7; Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1976), 2-5; Martin Goodman, "Trajan and the Origins of the Bar Kokhba War," in P. Schafer, ed., Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, 23-29, as also the important remarks a propos the work of James Rives in Seth Schwartz, "Political, Social, and Economic Life in the Land of Israel,

66 — c. 235," in The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period (ed. $. T. Katz; vol. 4 of The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006),

30. Having studied Roman military strategy extensively, Adrian Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare

(The Cassell History of Warfare; London: Cassell, 2000; repr., London, Phoenix, 2007), 81-82,

148-49 explains that, while the Romans could impossibly tolerate even subdued insurgence, the

_TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

in ultimate collision with that of Rome, and more than ever we need both the "inside" and the "outside" perspective to study this part of Jewish history. The impression of massive Jewish resistance against the ruthless superpower, contrasting with the absence of any comparable phenomenon for the next eighteen centuries to come, is not easy to imagine for someone brought up with twentiethcentury Western civility. Nor is the atmosphere of total defeat, starvation, and mass killings in the caves and at the last stronghold that seem to be echoed in the gloomy reports of rabbinic literature. It also seems that since this tragic episode, the rabbinic concept of kiddush ha-Shem or "sanctification of the name" took the meaning of "Jewish martyrdom."85

In turn, this atmosphere enhances the likelihood of a significant yet certainly not unanimous involvement of the "rabbis"® in the revolt and, conversely, of a relative popular acceptance of their guidance in the years preceding. It is well imaginable that the massive pressure of the Roman war machine in collision with the stubborn resistance of the Jews worked towards amalgamating the latter into a single whole and drove the rabbis to their ideological center. Ben Kosiba's acclamation as Messiah seems a fact, quite probably also under the influence of the atmosphere of extreme polarization and looming defeat, and the dissent of rabbis like Johanan ben Torta, if historical, must have required great spiritual independence.®? This again highlights patristic evidence of a deadly conflict between Jews and Christians having built up in the meantime and now culminating in the requirement of allegiance to this Messiah and "denial" of theirs—or else "cruel punishment."88

Indeed, an aspect of the interbellum that deserves to be taken more seriously than it has been to date concerns the growing confrontation between Jews,

Judaeo-Christians, and Gentile Christians. As we saw, Alon did devote considerable space to it. Probably dating from just before the war,8? the so-called Epistle of Barnabas with its blatant anti-Judaism may be perceived as a counterpart of the reported rabbinic measures against the minim and their "books," which might

Jews were "exceptional" in their religiously motivated "sense of national identity and culture."

85. See Shmuel Safrai, "Martyrdom in the Teachings of the Tannaim" in Sjaloom. Ter nagedachtenis van Mgr. Dr. A.C. Ramselaar (ed. Th.C. de Kruijf and H. van de Sandt; Arnhem:

Folkertsma Stichting voor Talmudica, 1983), 145-64.

86. For the likelihood of the honorific use of this appellation by this time see below, n.

108.

87. Y. Ta'an. 4, 68d; Eikha Rab. 2,4. Significantly, Johanan ben Torta is also known for his

"prophetic" saying on the destruction of Shilo and the First and Second Temple, t. Menah 13:12; b. Yoma 9a; Exod Rab. 40:1; Num Rab. 7:10.

88. Justin, 1Apology 31.6, kai yap év t@ vov yeyevnpévy lovdaik@ nohépyp Bapxoxépas, 6 tic lovdaiwv anootacews apxnyétn, Xpiotiavodc pdvous [the exclusiveness is doubtful in view of rabbinic reports] ei¢ tpwplac Setvac, ei pi) Apvoivto Inooby tov Xpiotov kai PAaoenpoiev, éxéAevev andyeo8at. With minute variations, the report is cited by Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.8.4.

89. See Prostmeier, Barnabasbrief, 111-19.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

well have included Christians by this time. The echo of Jewish measures against Christians in the Gospel of John enhances this possibility.9° The use made in Pseudo-Barnabas of a halakic text in Greek as uncovered by Alon illuminates the polemical orientation of the work.?! Furthermore, the epistles written in this period to various Asia Minor churches by the bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, testify to a fierce competition between Gentile and Jewish Christians.?? The social conflict between Jews and Gentile Christians that crystallized out of this muddle was vigorous and could well have been guided and motivated by the rabbis.

Going back in time another step, it is then reasonable to accept the likelihood that Rabban Gamliel's measures against the Judaeo-Christians somehow had to do with the Eighteen Benedictions. Combining the rabbinic and early Christian evidence is crucial here.9? If in addition we accept Alon's theory of the support of the Roman authorities secured by Gamliel, the rabbinic decrees against the Christians gain political weight as they coincide with similar phenomena in Rome.

While anti-Jewish sentiment is evidenced under Domitian (81-96 c.£.),94 there are also distinct reports on Roman police investigations in this period against Judaeo-Christians of Davidic descent, relatives of Jesus suspected of harboring messianic ambitions.?> Needless to say, these were also the years when the major

Gospels embodying the developing Christian sense of identity took final form, and their evidence is essential. The explicit Davidic emphasis of the beginning of Matthew is revealing in this context.96

The period immediately preceding the Great War of 66-70 is also important for the evidence of rising Jewish-Gentile tensions, for example, as reflected in the 90. T. Sabb. 13:5 and parallels. See Dan Jaffé, Le judaisme et l'avénement du christianisme: orthodoxie et hétérodoxie dans la littérature talmudique ler-Ile siécle (Patrimoines: Judaisme;

Paris: Cerf, 2005), 237-312. For the important term a&noovvaywyoc see n. 68.

91. See above n, 20.

92. Ignatius, Magn. 10.3; Philad. 5.6; Smyrn, 1.2 still displays the Apostolic ecclesiology.

93, See the endeavor made in Tomson, "Wars against Rome."

94. John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323

BCE - 117 C) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 306-19. See also J. Andrew Overman, "The First

Revolt and Flavian Politics" in The First Jewish revolt: Achaeology, History, and Ideology (ed. A.

M. Berlin and J. A. Overman; London: Routledge, 2002), 213-20.

95. See discussion by E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule. From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976; repr., 1981), 351-52;

Appelbaum, Prolegomena to the Study of the Second Jewish Revolt, 2.

96. Matt 1:1-18, esp. in comparison with Ruth 4:18-22. Jesus's Davidic lineage (e.g., the phrase &« onéppatog Aavié) is stressed in Apostolic and sub-apostolic literature (e.g., Rom 1:3;

2 Tim 2:8; Rev 5:5; Did. 9:2; Ignatius, Eph. 18.2 et passim), subsequently seems to decline, except for Origen, but is again strongly evidenced in fourth-century literature.

TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

Lit letters of Paul.?? Though tense,?8 Christian-Jewish relations were still fundamentally open, as is seen in the sympathy of the Pharisees for James, the brother of Jesus who was lynched at the behest of the Sadducean high priest in 62 c.E.99

A rough framework of Jewish history between 50 and 150 c.k. having thus been established, we may now proceed and consider the genesis of our three documents in the perspective of evolving Christian relations with Judaism.

7. MATTHEW

Many scholars will agree that on top of its obvious Judaeo-Christian layer involving a range of expressions remarkably close to rabbinic literature,

Matthew underwent a redaction process reflecting a fierce conflict with the "Pharisees" or "scribes and Pharisees" as a-class and as an apparently important social group.!°! This must represent just about the last redactional layer. In turn, the evidence embodied in this redactional layer makes the Gospel of Matthew into a very important source for the historiography of the period.

In addition, some have pointed out the indications that more than a mere conflict with the Pharisaic leaders seems involved: a clash with the Jewish community as a whole looms large. Involved are passages like the one announcing to the upper priests and Pharisees: "The kingdom shall be taken from you and given to another people (€6voc) which will bring the fruits of it" (Matt 21:43), or the episode of the guard at the tomb requested by the Pharisees and upper priests and their lie about the theft of Jesus's body (27:62—66; 28:11-15). The story, which may be seen as the beginning of a development resulting in a series of anti-Jewish apocryphal Gospels and also involving Jewish anti-Christian narratives,!°? points to thoroughly deteriorated Christian—Jewish relations. The severe conflict of Judaeo-Christians with "rabbinic" Jews seems at this precise point to have been

97. See the overview in Peter J. Tomson, "'Die Tater des Gesetzes werden gerechtfertigt werden' (R6m 2,13); Zu einer adaquaten Perspektive fiir den Romerbrief," in Lutherische und neue Paulusperspektive: Beitrage zu einem Schliisselproblem der gegenwartigen exegetischen Diskussion (ed. M. Bachmann; WUNT 182; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 215-20.

98. See Rom 15:31, iva pvc and tov aneBobvtwv év tf lovdaig.

99. Josephus, Ant. 20.200, a passage considered authentic by most.

100. Most conspicuously, Baov\eia tov odpavev (only in Matthew, passim) in parallel to ornw man.

101. J. Andrew Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) contains a clear discussion of the conflict with "formative Judaism," a phrase coined by J. Neusner.

102. See the Gospels of Nicodemus, of Peter, and of Pilate. For some elaboration, see

Tomson, "Jews' in the Gospel of John," 330-39. On early Jewish anti-Christian polemics including the toledot Yeshu see Samuel Krauss and William Horbury, eds., The Jewish-Christian from the Earliest Times to 1789 (TSAJ 56; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 5-13.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

spilling over into an all out confrontation between a no-longer Jewish church and Judaism.

As to the final date of Matthew, this brings us to the measures of Rabban Gamliel around the turn of the century. For a location, we must look for an area with intensive Jewish-Gentile interactions. Moreover the soldierly language of the tomb guard story could well be reflective of a Roman garrison town; it reminds us of the positive interest in Pilate and his wife (27:19-25) and the seemingly crude anti-Jewish revision of the story of the centurion of Capernaum (8:5-13).!93 This would fit with the long-standing argument for Antioch as a likely candidate, especially in view of the conflict with Judaeo-Christians reflected in the Epistles of Ignatius and of the close interaction with Antioch's large Jewish community at the time.! Alternatively, there are no indications against a location somewhere in Roman Palestine either; one could think of Caesarea.!05

8. DIDACHE

The Didache's proximity to Matthew by cultural background, tradition, and apparently also social milieu, is well-known, but there are important differences.

One concerns the absence of indications of a conflict with the Pharisees—apart, that is, from chapter 8, which appears to have been inserted into the largely non-polemical book of ritual that runs from chapter 7 through 15 and treats of Baptism, the Eucharist, hospitality towards "apostles" and prophets, and other community matters. Links with Judaeo-Christian and Jewish tradition have been argued on solid grounds;!° ties with the "apostolic preaching tradition" evidenced in the synoptic tradition and in Paul could be added.!97 Nor should we

103. Kovotw6ia Matt 27:65-66; 28:11; see J. Andrew Overman, Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel According to Matthew (The NT in Context; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1996),

400 and Tomson, "Matthaiusevangelium im Wandel."

104. See Magnus Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific

Approach to the Separation Between Judaism and Christianity (London: Routledge, 2003), esp. chapter 5, "Politics and Persecution."

105. See Overman, Church and Community in Crisis, 16-19; idem, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism, 158-59: Galilee (Tiberias, Capernaum, or Sepphoris). The post-70 garrison of the X Legio Fretensis near Jerusalem would not yet have built up sufficient social interaction with local Jews. Caesarea, however, could fit (Acts 10:1), as could Capernaum (Luke 7:1).

106. Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (CRINT 3/5; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002); Marcello Del Verme,

Didache and Judaism: Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish Work (London: T&T Clark,

2004).

107. Compare Did. 11-13 with the complex described in Tomson, Paul and the Jewish

Law, 125-31; also with 1 Thess 4:9-12; 2 Thess 3:7-13 and see Peter J. Tomson, "Paul's Practical Instruction in 1 Thess 4:1-12 Read in a Hellenistic and a Jewish Perspective," in Not in the

TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

forget the apocalypse in chapter 16, which is linked to the "synoptic apocalypse" yet has independent features.

!08

Chapter 8 deals with fasting and praying "unlike the hypocrites." It is reminiscent of Matt 6:1-18, which similarly stresses almsgiving, prayer, and fasting

"unlike the hypocrites." At the previous Tilburg conference, I argued that the halakic substratum of these passages in combination seems to point to the institution by Rabban Gamliel of the daily prayer of Eighteen Benedictions.!99 As I said, this is the sole passage in the Didache that testifies to the conflict with the Pharisees or "rabbis," as they would probably have been called by this time.!!° In sum, the document gives much less of an impression of having been worked over in.a polemical atmosphere than Matthew.

The question is how to interpret these observations. As to a dating relative to Jewish developments, one could hypothesize that the Didache just did not undergo a thorough revision similar to Matthew's. This could be because a "book of ritual" embodied less of an ideological investment and required less updating.

However, we know too little of the Sitz im Leben (a term fully in place here) of a "gospel" as compared with this "book of ritual" to really understand this. What was a gospel used for? Could it be that the Didache was left alone at a somewhat earlier stage than Matthew, with just the one insertion in chapter 8 having been made? It is difficult to make out.

I do not see further clues to the background of the document. The Didache could well be of Antiochian origin as well, though the oft-adduced picturesque argument of the mountainous regions in Syria as an ideal area for wandering prophets sounds unconvincing to my urbanized ears. Is there anything against Caesarea for an option?

9. JAMES The Epistle of James betrays no evidence of social tension between Jews and Gentiles in any way comparable to Matthew or even the Didache. A general quesWord Alone: The First Epistle to the Thessalonians (ed. M. D. Hooker; Monographic Series of "Benedictina" 15; Rome: "Benedictina" Publishing, 2003), 120-24.

108. Del Verme, Didache and Judaism, 254. But see Jos Verheyden in "Eschatology in the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew," in Matthew and the Didache; Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (ed. H. van de Sandt; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005), 193-215.

109. Peter J. Tomson, "The Halakhic Evidence of Didache 8 and Matthew 6 and the Didache Community's Relationship to Judaism," in H. van de Sandt, ed., Matthew and the Didache, 131-41.

110. See Matt 23:8. The evolution of the title "rabbi" requires further study in light of the historiographical discussions here reviewed. See meanwhile the considered discussion by Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism, 44-48, 122-24, 145-46. See also Hezser, Social

Structure of the Rabbinic Movement.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

tion then is: Does this indicate that a similar conflict had not yet arisen at the time of writing, or, alternatively, that it has already lost its interest? The second option would bring us in the comfortable position of dating the Epistle late and taking it for a sub-apostolic pseudepigraphon, a purely literary creation free from awkward social entanglements. The very absence of "historical color" would seem to suggest as much.

As soon as we focus, however, on the topic of the law, which is pervasive in James, relations between Jews and non-Jews appear to be involved. This need not imply the justly criticized method of reading James on Pauline terms.!!! Rather, it may mean opening our eyes to common themes existing between James and, especially, Romans, even of the same terminology of "hearers" and "doers of the law" being used (4kpoatai, noutai vopov).!!2 Romans is notable for its attention to the interests of Judaeo-Christians, most visibly in Rom 3:1-2; 9:4-5; 11:25. The same can be observed in James, as in the address to the "twelve tribes in the diaspora"; the stress on the "perfect royal law of freedom", voptoc TéAE10¢ [BactKdc] tic éAevPepiac and the emphasis on "no faith without works". Moreover, in both cases popular philosophic shareware of Stoic vintage and the related use of the diatribe form can be observed.!!3

These similarities with Romans, when added to the absence of an acute social conflict, rather point to a situation similar to the one Paul was facing. An important passage in this connection is Gal 2:1-10, where in his polemics with the "Judaizers" over the forced circumcision of Gentile Christians (Gal 2:14; 6:13) the Apostle adduces the apostolic agreement reached by himself and Barnabas with James, John, and Peter. Otherwise, Paul reminds us, "one who has himself circumcized is obliged to keep the whole law" (GAov tov vopov, Gal 5:3, and see the same phrase in Jas 2:10). All this is in keeping with the "apostolic rule" Paul quotes in 1 Cor 7:18-19: those called either when circumcised or "having a foreskin" should remain as they are. Except that in the atmosphere of growing tension between Jews and Gentiles, Paul has to plead for the rights of Gentile Christians in Galatians, and of Jewish Christians in Romans.

It is entirely possible to read the definitely non-Pauline letter of James in the same light. "James" is addressing the "twelve tribes in the diaspora" and telling them that "faith without works is dead" and that they must by all means stick to "the royal law of freedom." As in the case of Romans, this context would suppose

Jewish Christians to have come under fire, especially from Gentile Christian quarters. But there is a difference in audience. While Paul is explicitly addressing the 111. Richard J. Bauckham, James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (New Testament Readings; London: Routledge, 1999), 113-20.

112. Rom 2:13; Jas 2:22-23, 25; 4:11. See Tomson, "Tater des Gesetzes," 203-7, 113. See especially the commentary by Martin Dibelius.

TRANSFORMATIONS OF POST-70 JUDAISM

Gentile Christians in Rome (11:13) with an appeal for tolerance, James addresses the Jewish Christians in order to encourage them in their specific calling.

On this interpretation, there is no real evidence against a dating of James to around 60.!!4 Nor is "James the brother of the Lord" (Gal 1:19; see Josephus,

Ant. 20.200) an unlikely author at all; the riddle of the evasive structure of the letter combined with a perfect command of Greek really is a question of secondary order.

Apart from such speculations, James also contains material that points to traditions in common with Matthew. I fail, however, to see convincing similarities on the redactional level. The achieved style of Graeco-Judaeo-Christian wisdom makes one think of a higher social milieu than the soldierly Matthew.

Some chique Judaeo-Christian colonnade or "stoa" may be thought of, in some provincial capital. Caesarea again? Or, indeed, a place like "Solomon's portico" in pre-66 Jerusalem (Acts 5:12)?

114. See considerations by Bauckham, James: Wisdom of James, 11-25.

er ee : ait VD eet, roo ae an ao Sarr

JEWISH CHRISTIANITY, A STATE OF AFFAIRS:

AFFINITIES AND DIFFERENCES WITH RESPECT TO

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND THE DIDACHE

Joseph Verheyden The Gospel of Matthew, the Letter of James, and the Didache have all three most probably been produced by Christians of Jewish descent and represent

(some of) the views and thoughts, hopes and expectations these groups cherished and wished to promote and divulge. Taking this commonly accepted position as my starting point, I will make two comments.

1. ON DEFINING JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

The first one is about defining Jewish Christianity. This looks hopeless. It is the kind of question many of us would probably rather prefer to avoid being asked because it proves to be so complex and difficult a task to answer it. Yet not a few scholars have tried their hand at it and by doing so, one could say, have shown my reticence to be fully justified.! In reviewing the extensive literature on this topic and the broad scale of positions that have been argued, readers could be tempted to settle for one of three possible conclusions. Either the specialists just do not know, or Jewish Christianity is what you make of it, or even there is no such thing as Jewish Christianity. Personally I do not think the third one is true.

1. Literature on Jewish Christianity in general has increased exponentially in the past decades. To wit, I just cite two collective works that have appeared recently, both of them featuring ample bibliographies, and both also containing essays on the issue of how to define the phenomenon: Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik, eds., Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early

Centuries (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), with contributions by O. Skarsaune, "Jewish

Believers in Jesus in Antiquity: Problems of Definition, Method, and Sources," 3-21 and James

Carleton Paget, "The Definition of the Terms Jewish Christian and Jewish Christianity in the History of Research," 22-52; and Matt Jackson-McCabe, ed., Jewish Christianity Reconsidered:

Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), with an essay by the editor entitled "What's in a Name? The Problem of 'Jewish Christianity'," 7-38.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

There simply is too much independent evidence in and after the New Testament of Christians looking for ways to find a balance between their Jewish origins and their current life as members of a newly established or developing religious community. The other two conclusions would be quite understandable, but perhaps it is not all weeping and gnashing of teeth. It is not necessary for our purpose to add one more survey to the many that have been written on this problem. Rather

I just want to formulate a couple of comments.

1. First a word about the material. Basically there are two kinds of evidence, literary and archaeological. All too often discussion of the latter has been polarized by the views of maximalists versus minimalists. The first, represented most prominently by the Franciscan school of Jerusalem, tend to have a very (too?) optimistic view of the amount of evidence that can still be recovered and of our ability to assure its Jewish-Christian origins.* The other side is much more (or again, too?) critical and would allow for only a few remnants to be assigned confidently to Jewish-Christian settlements.* Suffice it to say that nothing of this material can in any way be linked directly to the communities of Matthew, James, or the didachist.

Part of the literary evidence is secondhand only. It is the information that can be culled from the comments of the Fathers and that for obvious reasons is to be handled with great care. But there is also some firsthand evidence. Some of this has been preserved in the form of a small number of excerpts cited by later authors who are as a rule highly suspicious of their content, yet do not hesitate to speak of "gospels" in this respect (the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Nazoraeans). These gospels pose their own problems of identification and interpretation.4 Some more material can be found in a number of other writ2. Prominent members of this school are B. Bagatti, its "founder," E. Testa, and F. Manns.

From their many publications, see esp. Bellarmino Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision: History and Archaeology of the Judaeo-Christians (trans. Eugene Hoade; Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Smaller Series 2; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press,

1971); Frédéric Manns, L'Israel de Dieu: Essais sur le christianisme primitif (Studium Biblicum

Franciscanum Analecta 42; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1996); and the collection of essays by the same author, Le Judéo-christianisme, mémoire ou prophétie? (ThH 112: Paris:

Beauchesne, 2000). The archaeological evidence is also discussed at length, but somewhat more critically, by Simon C. Mimouni, Le judéo-christianisme ancien: Essais historiques (Paris: Cerf,

1998), 337-473.

3. See above all the, at times very critical, assessment by Joan E. Taylor, Christians and Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish Christian Origins (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993).

4. For a collection of relevant material on these so-called Jewish-Christian gospels from Patristic (and later) sources see Albertus F. J. Klijn and Gerrit J. Reinink, eds., Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (NovTSup 36; Leiden: Brill, 1973); Albertus F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition (VCSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1992). Compare now also Oskar Skarsaune,

"The Ebionites" and Wolfram Kinzig, "The Nazoraeans," in Jewish Believers in Jesus (ed. O.

Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik), 419-62 and 463-87.

JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

ings of various genres (e.g., the Pseudo-Clementine literature), in which have been incorporated older writings and traditions that are most difficult to unearth again. But fortunately with such writings as Matthew's gospel, James's letter, and the Didache we also possess quite substantial and even complete documents of Jewish-Christian origin, and this of a very early period.

However there is a double problem. These documents are not mentioned in patristic sources dealing with Jewish-Christian groups and they are often only somewhat marginally present in much of the modern discussion and research on Jewish Christianity. The former can readily be explained. The Fathers evidently regarded Jewish Christianity as a heterodox movement and were intent on cutting off any possible link with the earliest, in their opinion orthodox, communities of the first century. The second observation is more difficult to handle, but it is nevertheless what one finds in the literature. To give only a few examples. All three of these documents are understandably missing in Marcel Simon's classical study Verus Israel, which focuses on later developments within Jewish

Christianity only.> Simon Mimouni in his monograph on Jewish Christianity does mention Matthew and Didache, but not James, and the former two are apparently not really considered to be major exponents of the history of Jewish

Christianity.® In his survey of Jewish Christianity in The Cambridge History of Judaism, James Carleton Paget reserves a place for Matthew and James, but not for Didache."

But in a sense the secondary role these documents are given in recent surveys on the history of Jewish Christianity is also quite understandable. Two of them—James and Didache—were apparently not known or almost not received. in later Jewish Christianity, nor for that in the rest of the Church. And the one document that has left its traces in later so-called Jewish-Christian texts and milieus was obviously not capable of offering by itself the kind of support and solutions these groups needed and were looking for. They made use of Matthew in composing their own gospels,' but apparently this gospel could not claim any sort of supremacy over these other writings, and it certainly did not reach the kind of status it held quite soon in many "orthodox" Gentile-Christian circles throughout the second century. The latter may explain the relative lack of success

5. Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire

C.E. 135-425 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986); trans. of Verus Israel: Etude sur les relations entre chrétiens et juifs dans 'empire romain (135-425) (2nd ed.; Paris: Boccard, 1983).

6. See his Le judéo-christianisme ancien.

7. "Jewish Christianity," in The Cambridge History of Judaism (4 vols.; ed. W. Horbury,

W. D. Davies, J. Sturdy; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 3:731-75.

8. For evidence of this with regard to the Gospel of the Ebionites, see, e.g., Joseph Verheyden, "Epiphanius on the Ebionites," in The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature (ed. P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry; WUNT 158; Tubingen: Mohr

Siebeck, 2003), 182-208.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

of Matthew among later Jewish-Christian groups, but it is also in itself significant for assessing the "Jewish-Christian" character of Matthew's gospel. It seems it was deemed to be insufficiently "Jewish-Christian" by some to become their voice and standard bearer, yet sufficiently open or manageable to be received by others who had distantiated themselves from such Jewish-Christian groups.

The latter move may have strengthened whatever reservations there might have existed about Matthew within certain Christian communities of Jewish descent.

2. Second, the criteria and characteristics. Scholars have increasingly become aware of how difficult it is to establish general criteria and categories taking into account the great variety of opinions and positions that is echoed in the material and that apparently is itself a major characteristic of ancient Jewish Christianity. As a result one can observe, on the one hand, a growing dissatisfaction with attempts to identify "Jewish Christianity" as one or even the distinctive force and phenomenon within or of early Christianity and, on the other hand, a growing concern somehow to validate the evident diversity. Thus, Jean Daniélou's Théologie du Judéo-christianisme is now widely criticized for its all-embracing claims, labeling all of early Christian theology as "Jewish-Christian."? It is the kind of critique one can read in many a survey.!° As yet it has not been countered by the efforts of the Jerusalem Franciscans to throw in the archaeological evidence.

But there is more. It is not only that there never has existed "one" Jewish Christianity, but even the search for one overarching criterion or category that would (more or less) hold together the various forms and groups of "JewishChristians" has become problematic. In the same surveys I just mentioned, one will find that Simon's "ethnic" definition (a Jewish-Christian is a Christian of Jewish descent who in one way or another wants to remain true to his roots) has now largely been abandoned because this factor was played out in different ways by different groups and in part also because it does not take into account the presence of "judaizing" tendencies among what apparently are non-Jewish groups.!! Definitions that are solely based on matters of "doctrine" or "praxis"

9. The Theology of Jewish Christianity; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964); trans. of Théologie du judéo-christianisme (Tournai: Desclée, 1958).

10. See, e.g., Jean-Daniel Kaestli, "Ov en est le débat sur le judéo-christianisme?," in Le déchirement: Juifs et chrétiens au premier siécle (ed. D. Marguerat; MdB 32; Genéve: Labor et

Fides, 1996), 244-46: "En conclusion, la catégorie introduite par Daniélou est 4 abandonner.

Elle est abstraite, sans relation avec des groupes historiques déterminés, basée sur des oppositions artificielles" (ibid., 246). See Carleton Paget, "Definition of the Terms Jewish Christian and Jewish Christianity," 737-39; Mimouni, Le judéo-christianisme ancien, 42-45 and 326-31; and most recently, Jackson-McCabe, "What's in a Name," 23-27.

11. Kaestli, "Ov en est le débat," 248-50. Carleton Paget, "Definition of the Terms Jewish

Christian and Jewish Christianity," 733-34: "To accept a purely ethnic definition of Jewish

Christianity is not really to define anything meaningful at all" (ibid., 734), with reference to Georg Strecker, "Judenchristentum," in TRE 17: 311,

JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

meet with the same kind of problems.!? The Church Fathers in any case never tried to narrow the issue to just one of these aspects.

The sole way out of the impasse, it seems, is to go for a definition that is broad enough somehow to include several or all of the features just mentioned.

It is this kind of definition that is proposed by Mimouni: "Le judéo-christianisme ancien est une formulation récente désignant des juifs qui ont reconnu la messianité de Jésus, qui ont reconnu ou n'ont pas reconnu la divinité du Christ, mais qui tous continuent a observer Torah."!4 This is a workable approach on account that one acknowledges, first, that "Jewish Christianity" is thus of necessity defined in terms of "varieties" or "specimens" and that one better speak of "Jewish Christianities," second, that it is best not taken to be a complete catalogue of all the qualifications one must meet to be labeled a Jewish-Christian, and, finally, that after all it very much remains a modern scholarly construct.

Carleton Paget favors a similar approach when pleading for a definition that is "sufficiently narrow to refer to something we can call an entity, and sufficiently broad or open-ended to take account of a range of evidence, almost all of which is literary."!5 And it is something of this kind, indeed a flexible and functional definition, that is argued for by Petri Luomanen when proposing "to replace onesided definitions with the study of indicators of Jewish-Christian profiles. This approach focuses on several issues that have had key roles in early-Jewish-Christian communities."!© Luomanen lists several of these "indicators."!7 So there are many ways to be or present oneself as a Jewish-Christian, but not all should be traveled through. A variety of characteristics is what the sources show, but they do not tell us that there was an "absolute" list.

3. Third, and building on the previous. For modern scholars, then, defining forms of "Jewish Christianity" is not only about identifying characteristics

12. For a critique of the latter, see among others, Carleton Paget, "Definition of the Terms

Jewish Christian and Jewish Christianity," 744-46; Jackson-McCabe, "What's in a Name," 3234.

13. See Carleton Paget, who observes with regard to the latter of these two: "After all, it is clear that when heresiologists came to discuss groups that clearly adopted Jewish practices, they often also discussed their theological opinions" ("Definition of the Terms Jewish Christian and Jewish Christianity," 736).

14. Le judéo-christianisme ancien, 70; the chapter is a revised version of his "Pour une définition nouvelle du judéo-christianisme ancien," NTS 38 (1992): 161-86.

15. "Definition of the Terms Jewish Christian and Jewish Christianity," 740.

16. "Where Did Another Rich Man Come From? The Jewish-Christian Profile of the Story about a Rich Man in the 'Gospel of the Hebrews' (Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15.14)," in VC 57

(2003): 268.

17. Ibid., 268-69: observing "Jewish practices"; adhering to "Jewish ideas"; the pedigree of the group; the role of Jesus in its worshipping and ideology; the status of baptism in the name of Jesus; and the function of all these features in shaping the identity of the group as border markers over against "those outside."

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

or establishing criteria, but rather, and perhaps even more so, about describing and assessing how a certain, open, set of concerns and interests, doctrinal and practical ones, was dealt with and accommodated by various groups in various ways in and while acknowledging Jesus Christ and interpreting his message, and how these concerns and interests in turn have shaped the thought and life of these Christians and their appreciation of other Christians ("Pauline" Christians) and of their Jewish neighbors. It is a matter of assessing how these groups were handling their own heritage. And this in turn was a matter of finding a balance between the old and the new, of giving a place to the belief in Jesus within the framework of Jewish religious tradition. But it was not only about balance, it was also a matter of gradations, and in the end, of "orthodoxy." Upholding (aspects of) Torah obviously was a core issue among Jewish Christians, but they did so in different ways. In a similar way, criticising Paul can be a primary or a less important activity and goal among different groups. Some of these groups would end up on the "wrong side," others would prove able to find their place in the "Great

Church."!8 Hence, it is not just what is said that counts and should be looked into, but also, as far as possible, how, why, and when this is said. All these aspects and factors taken together will determine the degree of "Jewish Christianity" of a text and of the group that speaks through and unfortunately also hides behind it.

In a word, there is no standard definition of Jewish Christianity and there never was. There are only ways and forms of being a Jewish Christian and we have only a very limited access to them. Perhaps then the real challenge is not to focus on what holds the evidence together, but rather to recognize fully that the evidence is of necessity and by definition diverse because of the nature of the phenomenon itself.

2. MATTHEW, JAMES AND THE DIDACHE AS JEWISH-CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS

My second comment has more directly to do with Matthew, James, and the Didache, and specifically with the question of how the identity markers that can be found in these documents can reveal us something about the self-identification of these groups or communities as Jewish Christians. I have chosen to focus on the recent monograph by Gunnar Garleff that has the double advantage that it precisely deals with the issue of identity in all three of these documents and that it offers for this purpose a model for analyzing how these communities have

18. Most recently, this aspect has been emphasized by Skarsaune when arguing for a distinction between those Jews who came to believe in Jesus but "at the same time continued a wholly Jewish way of life" and those who finally "chose to become more or less 'orthodox'

Christians within mixed communities" ("Jewish Believers in Jesus in Antiquity," 4). The former

Skarsaune proposes to call "Jewish Christians," as defined by Mimouni, but for the latter he prefers the phrase "Jewish believers in Jesus." The distinction is interesting and obviously also reflects something of what actually did happen.

JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

described and established their identity as a group ("collective identity") through the texts they produced.!9

Garleff distinguishes three categories and six criteria for identifying aspects of this collective identity.*° Two of these criteria are formal ones. They have to do with indicators of continuity and differentiation, with how a group or community creates a link with its own past and roots and how it also demarcates its present situation from that past. Three other criteria are described as the means by which the group expresses its identity. These are labeled by Garleff the "Story"

(he uses the English word), the "Ethos," and the "Ritus." The first is not just about the choice for a literary genre, but also about how the group handles the story of Jesus in expressing its identity. The second and third are about the norms and values the group cultivates and lives by and about the praxis it has developed for building its community life as a separate group and for allowing possible candidates to join the group. A category or level that Garleff distinguishes has to do with how the group organizes itself as a community, that is, with issues of hierarchisation and with the critical reflection upon it.2!

Garleff is not specifically interested in demonstrating the Jewish-Christian character of any of the documents he is studying. However, one should realize that while the criteria he mentions probably do not all carry the same weight in bringing out the Jewish-Christian identity of a particular writing or community, they all can and even must be interpreted in light of that specific situation. "Being a Jewish Christian," or for that, "a Jewish believer in Jesus," is not just one factor among others, but rather the one overall component that holds together all these different identity markers and that rules the way these are handled. This is true for all criteria, even for the last one. The whole issue of gradually developing separate and autonomous forms of organiszation and hierarchization obviously is put in a totally different perspective when undertaken by Gentile Christians or by Jews claiming to be or have become Christians, acting within the orbit and traditions of their own "native" religion, or trying to break away from it and thereby consciously challenging the established order with its structures and its hierarchy, which they had belonged to or had believed in so far.

Garleff shows that the three documents, while all relying on the same set of criteria, apparently display a great variety and diversity in formulating and handling these criteria." The central question, as I see it, is then to establish to what extent these differences reflect not just different ways of expressing

19. Urchristliche Identitat in Matthdusevangelium, Didache und Jakobusbrief (Beitrage zum Verstehen der Bibel 9; Miinster: LIT, 2004).

20. This framework is developed and described in detail in the second chapter of his book

(ibid., 26-47).

21. See the table in ibid., 47, at the end of his second chapter.

22. See the table in ibid., 325.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

the same identity, but maybe also different identities. One should of course be extremely careful in drawing firm conclusions from these differences for distinguishing between the various groups that produced these documents, let alone for reconstructing a "history of Jewish Christianity" in this early period. Yet the differences are real and should be accounted for in defining each of these three documents. This is obviously true for the way each community positions itself with regard to its Jewish roots and demarcates itself from "the others," but also for what it has to tell about its own organization, as well as for the means it has chosen to mediate its identity, which is the most complex, some might say weakest, part of Garleff's model.

I begin with the first category and will focus on the differentiation. Matthew is generally recognized to be singled out from the two other documents by its strong and sustained polemics against representatives of the Jewish religious authorities. These polemics are part and parcel of Matthew's story of Jesus.

They are found both in discourse and in narrative material, in various forms and genres. They cannot be dismissed as echoes of a distant past or of intra-Christian disputes. The nature and vehemence of the polemics also shows that the links are still very close, or rather, that the wounds are still fresh. The break is still very much on the minds and in the hearts of Matthew's readers.?3 No such kind of harsh polemics is found in Didache or James. In the Didache "the others" are

Jews, as in Matthew, but they really have already become "others," members of a clearly distinct religious community from which one has separated and wants to remain separated. They are occasionally referred to in order to illustrate the difference, not to explain how this came about, as this is still very much the case in Matthew.*4 In James "the others" even have taken a completely different identity.

They are not Jews but fellow Christians. But these remain relatively marginal and indeed rather shadowy figures that are not further identified beyond the cipher of the "rich brothers."25

23. Or, as Garleff puts it with reference to Matt 23, "Durch die narrative Verkniipfung mit der Konfliktgeschichte Jesu und den gleichzeitigen Gegenwartsbezug (Mt 8-12) wird die

Weherede zur Atiologie der Trennung der mt Gemeinde vom formativen Judentum, Sie verarbeitet somit die neue Existenz ausserhalb des Synagogenverbandes" (Urchristliche Identitét in Matthdusevangelium, 75).

24. Garleff recognizes the first element in this description (the otherness) when observing, with reference to a keyword in addressing the others that figures in Matthew and in Didache alike, "Als Fazit kann hinsichtlich des Stichwortes bnoxpttai festgehalten werden, dass sich die

Didache in Did 8,1f von anderen jiidischen Gruppen abgrenzt" (ibid., 123), but he does not develop the second one.

25. The experience of difference is explicitated in two ways, through the diaspora motif and through that of "the wealthy." Garleff points out that the contours of these opponents of the author of the letter can be somewhat delineated by contrasting James's critique to Paul's way of handling matters of hierarchy within the context of the house church: "PsJakobus' Kritik am Patronat ist total, er will eine andere Gemeindestruktur, in der die Egalitat hoher gestellt ist

JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

As for the means by which this sense of identity is shaped, and keeping to the categories proposed by Garleff, one has again to admit that there are obvious differences between Matthew, Didache, and James. The difference is not just about a mere shift in emphasis from "Story" (Matthew) to "Ritus" (Didache) to "Ethos" (James) in selecting the primary means for expressing the collective identity of the group. The choice for "Story," "Ritus," or "Ethos" can be paraphrased as a choice for either a descriptive, a prescriptive, or a combination of a reflective-admonitory approach to the question. It further appears that Matthew by opting for the "Story" component has better succeeded in integrating the other two components than have Didache or James. Garleff rightly characterizes Matthew as an "inclusive story." Matthew constructs the identity of his community by telling its story through that of Jesus and his disciples. The other aspects are made an integral part of that story. Garleff shows how this works for the "Ethos" component, which is being formulated or developed, sometimes even somewhat artificially, as part of the "Story" of Jesus's ministry.2© But the same is true also for the "Ritus" component that Garleff says is lacking in Matthew. One could maybe speak of a "rituelles Defizit" with regard to James, where this component is basically reduced to a somewhat marginal note on praying for the sick (4:13), but that is definitely too strong a label with regard to Matthew. Prescripts for Christian behavior on fasting or prayer, on the common meal, and on baptism occur also in Matthew. These prescriptions are by no means marginal, but they are integrated in the story, respectively as the subject of Jesus's teaching or as part of his controversies with the scribes and Pharisees, as a dramatic event in his life, and as a commandment of the risen Lord at the very end and climax of the Gospel.

The "Ethos" and "Ritus" the Matthean community keeps and propagates and identifies with are founded in Jesus Christ. Neither the didachist nor James can or wish to make such a claim. The former knows the story of Jesus as told by Matthew and occasionally alludes to and borrows from it, and James naturally assumes it, but it does not play that decisive a role in shaping the identity of the community as it does in the Gospel of Matthew. It would seem then that Matthew's option for the "Story" component as its primary means for communicating its identity makes all the difference.

A similar kind of difference also exists between Didache and James. The didachist's interest in "christianizing" ethical teaching and ritual praxis that has als die Hierarchie, damit stellt er sich der urchristlichen Entwicklung und auch Paulus entgegen" (ibid., 269).

26. See his analysis of the Sermon on the Mount and the comments on Matt 5:17-20 and the antitheses: "Entsprechend der Positionierung des Textes [i-e., 5:17-20] in der Komposition der Jesusgeschichte ist es bezeichnend, dass Jesus sich hier selbst in Opposition zu diesen beiden Gruppen bringt, denen er im Evangelium bis dahin noch nicht als handelnde Person begegnet ist" (ibid., 68).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

its origins in Jewish tradition results in making the teaching of the community as formulated and passed on by Didache the sole norm and source of authority.

In the end it is the Didache itself that prescribes how Christians should behave and live.27 For James, by contrast, it is the Law, here rebaptized as the "Law of freedom," that is still claimed to regulate the life of the community.?8 In short, the preference for one means over another involves moving away from Torah as the primary or even the sole normative instance towards Jesus, and even towards the community (and/or its leaders).

A word finally on the issue of the organization of the community. In each of the documents there appears to exist a strong connotation between the way difference is created and the views it holds on developing community structures.

This is again particularly clear in Matthew, which promotes egalitarian tendencies and is openly critical of hierarchical structures. The two obviously go together. They are combined and developed in some detail as part of the controversy with the scribes and Pharisees when contesting their claims and privileges and offering the "Christian" way as the better alternative (23:8-12). But it is precisely the ongoing controversy that forces the community also to look for ways to organize itself as an autonomous and independent entity.?? Similar links can also be found in the Didache and in James's letter. If "the others" are no longer seen as "opponents" but as members of another movement, as in the Didache, the community has to come to terms with the issue of how to organize itself as an 27. Garleff illustrates this on the basis of the phrase kata tiv évtoAny, of which he concludes: "die Formel selbst (lasst) keine Riickschlussméglichkeiten auf eine Detailstory zu. Sie zeigt jedoch, wie der Didachist seine ethischen Anweisungen verstanden wissen will: Sie sind

Gebote" (ibid., 150).

28. This reinterpretation of the concept of "Law of freedom" is made most obvious in a section such as 2:8-12, but it is also at the background of 2:14-26. "Der Jakobusbrief warnt vor einem Heilsautomatismus, der den Christen zu einer zu schnellen Heilsgewissheit verleitet.

Darum setzt er dem Héren des Wortes der Wahrheit das Tun des Gesetzes der Freiheit entgegen und mahnt zur ganzheitlichen christlichen Existenz, die zur vollkommenen Identitat werden soll. Der kontroverstheologische Akzent liegt darin, dass Jakobus eine klare Unterscheidung oder gar Trennung von Evangelium und Gesetz nicht kennt, vielmehr sind sie fiir ihn das eine verbindliche und kontinuierliche Wort Gottes" (ibid., 284).

29. Garleff seems to be aware of the tension there potentially is in Matthew between criticism on the one hand, and the interest in and need for forms of hierarchisation on the other

(ibid., 76-77: "Dagegen gibt es aber auch Hinweise, dass das MtEv dies sesshaften Sympathisantengruppen als Ortsgemeinden starken will. Die Ubertragung der Bindeund Lésegewalt an Kollektive in Mt 18,18 kann als solches Signal gelesen werden. Auch die Existenz von Schriftgelehrten in der Gemeinde deutet darauf hin, Aber anders als in der spateren Didache propagiert das MtEv fiir die ortsfeste Gemeinde noch keine eigenen Amter, die auf eine Hierarchie hindeuten"), but he looks upon it as developments that are linked to the missionary activity of the community rather than as a consequence of a struggle to overcome the gradually deteriorating relations with the synagogue and its leaders.

JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

autonomous entity with its own structures and ministries.>° James, for his part, shows an interest in forms of collective leadership that may echo a critique of, or at least some reticence about, certain inclinations towards a more centralized form of organization in (some of) the communities he is addressing.! But after all this may be a more ambivalent case, for the Letter at the same time also contains a critical note of more independent-minded communities that need to be

"reminded" or maybe even "corrected" on this point by someone who presents himself in a way as the spokesperson of some kind of "central authority," a position that is not without significance when pretending to address "the Church in the Dispersion." Magistri non sunt multiplicandi!

The evidence from second-century "heretical" Jewish-Christian groups shows that there are significant differences among these groups that modern scholars nevertheless have tried to bring together under the one label of "Jewish

Christians." The evidence from Matthew, Didache, and James seems to confirm this picture. At the risk of overgeneralizing, I would summarize the differences as follows. As I understand it, Matthew's community has already pulled out of the Jewish world in which it originally had taken form. It claims it has not given up the Law, only it believes it has found the definite key to read and interpret it.>2

As a matter of fact, the dispute over the authority for interpreting the Law and the break that resulted from it were the very reason why this gospel was written. The Gospel of Matthew tells the story of a drama that at the same time is an attempt at healing the trauma it caused for the community and maybe also for 30. And the Didache itself is proof that is was all but an easy task. The list of "ministers" runs from teachers to bishops and deacons, but it also includes the more debatable categories of apostles-missionaries and the apparently even more controversial one of the prophets (see ibid.,

189-98), which makes it rather more difficult correctly to assess the subject and the limits of the "fraternal correction" that is mentioned in 15:4. Garleff refers to the latter at the end of the section, almost symbolically, as if a corrective to the impression of hierarchization that might have been created by the interest in ministries in what had preceded: "In Summa lasst sich fiir die Didache nicht feststellen, dass sie von einer wie auch immer zu beschreibenden Gemeindehierarchie ausgeht. . .

. Fiir eine egalitare Gemeindestruktur spricht nicht zuletzt die correctio fraterna in Did 15,4" (ibid., 199). But can we be so sure that this rule really was or could still be applied to all members of the community once the movement towards hierarchization had begun? The latter must in any case have had some effect on the way the principle of 15:4 could still function or be appealed to.

31. So Garleff who thinks this view is expressed in a double way, through the importance given to forms of collective leadership and through the efforts of the author of the letter to describe and present himself as a member of such a body. "Uberblickt man die beiden Signale zur Gemeindeorganisation im Jak, so ist festzustellen, dass der Verfasser sowohl in 3,1 als auch in 5,14 Kollektive nennt. Ein einzelnes herausragendes Leitungsamt oder nur eine einzelne

"Amts"-Person ist nicht im Blick" (ibid., 315).

32. On this hotly debated issue, see now the fine analysis by Paul Foster, Community, Law and Mission in Matthew's Gospel (WUNT 2/177; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

fellow Jewish Christians. The future it offers and the solution it proposes was not new—the mission outside of Israel did not start with Matthew—but it was a new move for his community, one that needed to be explained and that inevitably would further consolidate the break with its Jewish neighbors. Matthew's was a Jewish-Christian community before the break, and he made sure it could go on considering itself this way afterwards if it wished, even when "turning to the Gentiles." The Law has not been put out of force but has been "fulfilled" in the teaching of Jesus, which eventually means it can now even also be "obeyed" by non-Jewish converts.

The Didache apparently has left this trauma behind. It focuses on the internal life and organization of the community and only occasionally refers to those former co-religionists who now have become strangers that are only invoked to mirror, in a negative way, the rules and prescriptions the didachist wants to promote. Its shows no particular concern about saving the status of the Law, but by recuperating or relying so heavily on the ethical teaching and religious practices of Jewish tradition, it fully proves how much it still values its past, and so again there are good reasons for labeling Didache "Jewish-Christian."

James obviously does not question the status of the Law but rather reflects on its commandments for what the Law itself has to say. He shows no particular interest in the struggle for authority, for who can decide on the correct interpretation of Torah, a matter that is central to Matthew. "The others" are not prominently present and they are not to be found among fellow Jews, but among such groups and individuals that apparently are following other leaders and experimenting with other forms of community building. James is not crudely polemical and he certainly does not openly oppose any mission to the Gentiles.

But the way he serenely and consistently opts for "the Law of freedom" as his guide and focus again very much makes his letter a "Jewish-Christian" document.

In short, Matthew describes the process that led to the transformation of his community and finds in it the remedy for the crisis it caused. The didachist lives in this transformed community and starts building it according to its own rules and principles and its own rituals, thereby heavily relying on its own past. James is aware that there are some "others" who could be said to have been "transformed," but it is not the kind of solution that appeals to its author or that he seeks to promote. There apparently are indeed many ways and various "degrees" of being "Jewish Christian."

This conclusion raises two further questions. The first one has to do with the label "Jewish Christian." Does this really mean anything, or is it an empty box? And if it still makes sense to speak of Jewish Christians with regard to Matthew's Gospel, the Didache, and James's Letter alike, what is it that holds them together and might link them to other such groups? The answer is probably not to be found in matters of ethics, or ritual and praxis, nor in doctrine, but in the way these various groups and communities are positioning themselves in rela-

JEWISH CHRISTIANITY

tion to the Judaism they originated from, hence in what Garleff calls the formal criteria. What these groups have in common is, negatively, that they do not outrightly reject their Jewish roots and religious heritage, nor do they even struggle to free themselves from it, but, positively, rather try to "master" their past and keep it functioning as well as possible within the new reality that is installed with and by Jesus and that they also fully recognize as such. Further what holds them together is a sense for the dramatic, or for tragedy if you wish. This can be exemplified in many ways. One can easily imagine it must have been regarded as quite a statement, both from a Christian and from a Jewish side, when the Didache so emphatically christianizes prayers that it most probably took over from the liturgical praxis of its own Jewish past. A same kind of ambiguity speaks from the attempts one finds in these documents at emphasising the links with Israel,

Garleff's first formal criterion. These attempts cannot be understood adequately and fully as a mere act of provocation or appropriation of Jewish tradition. But they could readily be understood as such by the synagogue. Is it a sign of confidence that a group goes on to "work" with or tries to "integrate" elements of the tradition it was gradually leaving behind, or is it not rather a somewhat desperate attempt at connecting the new present with the past by interpreting one's own situation as an ongoing process rather than as a break? The truth, and the tragedy of Jewish Christianity as a whole, probably is that it could well be the one and the other depending on which side was commenting on it.

My second question has to do with the limits of this apparently quite flexible concept of Jewish Christianity. What the Church Fathers report on "JewishChristian" groups of a later time gives the impression that some at least had wandered so far away from each other that they must have regarded the others as complete strangers. Would the same already be true also for Matthew, James, and the didachist, and for their communities? Were the groups who produced these documents still on speaking terms, and would they still have appreciated each other's efforts in marking out their identity. It would seem that this was after all still the case for the Didache with regard to Matthew, especially if one accepts that the former was familiar with that gospel, as I think it was, even when it was dealing with "other" but "related" matters of Jewish tradition. I am somewhat more skeptical whether this would also apply for James, but am tempted to answer the question positively, if only because he does not appear to have explicitly rejected one potentially dividing issue, namely, the mission to the Gentiles.

" sung > Pies tens seh ve .

$ '

"i pe eS i fadbemsent > hips :

"er , pie gehen — .

pe ary teen aed Ping at "a — a 7a < jon ure o> tia aie oe te poate Rei tat ee es ae bea icwtua

apr eh gibt, © a Bee.

2 Jone een s on ae i oie re) Ries 2s thomas —— : ae distantly p ev in, Ce Syecak wept: airs et i ay wie? es, , tool Cee: ten ed steht eevee) ie i ' hy pes teste ier yp ehtiae oid be: fit te Pe , pte Dire e? tae ity cll oll pela nes ; ; a. a es ee vi *~ ks pau a ae aol ™ Th i, "p, at)

-«e — es - 7 - ye: in] er eh ' —", (Pees

ei se ¢4

Zs va sheus

—s we +e chigottoea meta i ey tee ccc pal tener enw tes all 1% » vighb Sat Degel oe ie Maw e eee ee —_ + oko seep exe Oat ren te irl at ie ye '

(Cob pibhe way ° ~rabtcian Wee '

* = i , ee i "Zl if ' odie Pimes vary <hr aiigtanee val all og! tuts Evite e te rtodiee yet?

M.Seds oe eerie if pee obits ee ee « €§ by 7 yan Snort aa owe €P Se lH Rl re ee See! a, s+ Tove tee ei "@ ja ue '| corn Te rst | w bee

é bhetile eur OU ~ id

ie eH r wy Wey' a9 1, ee om _ s. ee hi ido es Pee juve tine & rel Se , pa be a APA TR:

] = = "ie .

_ or teaser qe, be @ as =e) ¢ ° stays a ol wt ar ab pee Lat vel Ba 7). ode d ey Snir ow sab? yh cate Seccanibe- "

Cran Dales Sg: he wy danakivahon:

2) PES aS & Sarat '

— 7"

' a as Pe =. 78 ae eae S&S Obey

ne ess ae ond

PART 3

COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS:

STABILITY AND MOVEMENT OF FUNCTIONARIES IN

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND THE DIDACHE

Jonathan A. Draper One of the longest running debates in the study of the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers since the Reformation has been the matter of ecclesiastical functionaries in the early church and their relation to modern church polity.

From its first publication in 1883, the existence side by side in the same text of apostles, prophets, teachers, bishops and deacons in the Didache ensured that it would be the subject of controversy. Adolf von Harnack's famous argument for the emergence of "early Catholicization" in Die Mission und Ausbreitung des

Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, first published in 1902, arose out of the findings of his 1884 commentary, Die Lehre der zwélf Apostel,! and made the instructions of the Didache the center point of his reconstruction. Gerd Theissen's influential study, Soziologie der Jesus Bewegung (1977), essentially presents the same picture." The missing piece of the puzzle for Von Harnack was provided by Did. 15:1-2, where it appeared to him that bishops and deacons are in the process of replacing (apostles), prophets, and teachers, so that charismatic ministry is being replaced by hierarchical functionaries in the emerging Catholic church. On this reasoning, the titles apostles, prophets, and teachers belong together in a scarcely differentiated way so that Heinrich Kraft puts it as follows:

"Like the apostolate, the charismatic teaching office is also a special instance of 1. Adolf von Harnack, Die Lehre der zwélf Apostel nebst Untersuchungen zur dltesten

Geschichte der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts (TU 2/1-2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1884).

2. First published in English as Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (trans. J.

Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978; British ed., The First Followers of Jesus: A Sociological

Analysis of Early Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1978). For an attempt to trace the history of this influence and to present an alternative hypothesis, see Jonathan A. Draper, "Weber, Theissen, and 'Wandering Charismatics' in the Didache," JECS 6 (1998): 541-76.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

the prophetic office."3 He is followed in this by H. A. Stempel,* who finds the teacher to be the predominant form of charismatic official in the local community. However, the evidence has proved slippery and certainly there is a need for a reevaluation of the evidence, particularly in the light of the emerging recognition that the Didache, like Matthew's Gospel and the Epistle of James, should be read together against a Jewish Christian or Christian Jewish background.° This paper is an attempt to read the evidence again, with an eye on the particular issue of the identity and nature of the respective leadership provided by "wandering charismatics" and the officials in the "settled local communities" that supported them.

The word "charismatic" emerges from the foundational work in the field of sociology by Max Weber, which was published posthumously in 1922 as Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie.® It constituted a key principle in his theory of the three forms of legitimate leadership: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational. In his understanding, times of crisis throw up a new kind of leader "not like other men," who owes his authority simply to an inner quality manifesting aspects of the numinous. After the death of the charismatic leader, a process of "routinization of charisma" replaces this initial personal charismatic leadership with an institutional leadership. The difficulty in using this language and this model of Weber in the study of the Didache is that Weber was himself influenced by Adolf von Harnack's thesis of "early

Catholicization," which, as we have seen, was itself based on his interpretation of the Didache." In this study we will use the term, if at all, in its narrow sense as referring to leadership, which is understood by the leader and the community in which s/he exercises leadership as authority that is unmediated since it springs directly from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

3. Heinrich Kraft, "Die Anfange des geistliches Amtes," TLZ 100 (1975): 93; cited in Hermann-A. Stempel, "Der Lehrer in der 'Lehre der Zwélf Apostel'," VC 34 (1980): 209-17.

4. Ibid,, 209-17.

5. See Jonathan A. Draper, "The Holy Vine of David made known to the Gentiles through God's servant Jesus: "Christian Judaism' in the Didache," in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered:

Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (ed. M. A. Jackson-MacCabe; Minneapolis: Fortress,

2007), 257-83. Note especially here the major work of Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser,

The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (CRINT 3/5;

Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002). A recent study by Gunnar Garleff (Urchristliche Identitat in Matthdusevangelium, Didache und Jakobusbrief [Beitrage zum Verstehen der Bibel 9; Minster: Lit

Verlag, 2004]) has contributed significantly to this process with his attempt to plot the development of early Christian identity in a trajectory across Matthew, Didache, and James utilizing social-scientific methodology.

6. The English translation was published as Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (ed. G. Roth and C. Wittich; trans. Ephraim Fischoff; Berkeley and Los Angeles:

University of California Press, 1978).

7. Draper, "Weber, Theissen, and "Wandering Charismatics," 541-76.

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

A second and related problem concerns the epithet "wandering," which is often combined with the "charismatics" in discussions of early Christianity. The terminology relates again to Weber's understanding that the charismatic leader bursts on the scene, unencumbered by tradition, property, family, and material concerns. However, not all travel, even in the pursuit of religious goals, is itinerant. It may be undertaken on a temporary basis with the intention of returning to normal life after the completion of the journey. Here, a distinction will be made between permanent itinerant travel and temporary purposive travel. Further,

Weber understood the itinerant phase as limited to the lifetime of the charismatic leader, while the leader's death is followed by a period of "routinization" in which the leader's followers settle.

A final difficulty relates to the use of the term "functionary," which is also not without its problems, since it brings to mind some kind of formal position in a community, when the function could be exercised spontaneously by a number of persons as need arises. Here we will use "functionary" to describe a person who holds a recognized position in the community related to a particular task or "function," whether they are paid or not and whether they are formally

"ordained" and appointed to that position or not.

1. SETTLED AND WANDERING FUNCTIONARIES IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL

1.1. INTRODUCTION

It goes without saying that Matthew's Gospel is no Church Order or Manual of Discipline, but a narrative standing in the tradition of, and in partial dependence on, Mark. Therefore any information about the church and its functionaries in Matthew's own time and situation has to be inferred from his redaction of Mark and "Q" and by his (re)arrangement of his source material in the narrative. It describes itself as a "Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, Son of David,

Son of Abraham." This marks it out already as a text with a dual orientation, first towards the covenant people, the Israel on whose throne God had declared a son of David would sit for ever, but on the other hand also towards the Gentiles who would receive a blessing through Abraham, "father of multitudes of nations/Gentiles" (natihp mAnBouc é6vav, Gen 17:4; see Rom 4:13-25). The narrative signal of Matthew's opening is confirmed by the concluding commission to the eleven disciples to go to all nations. So it is not surprising that it is difficult to obtain a clear picture of the kind of social and leadership structures prevailing in Matthew's community, which stands at an historical crossroads for Jewish

Christianity in relation to the Gentile mission, as Ulrich Luz has argued.® Fol8. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989),

84-87.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

lowing Luz's insistence on an interpretation of Matthew that "looks through the window" to take account of the historical circumstances and community that produced it,? Garleff has rightly argued that story is one medium for the identity construction of the community in which it is narrated, both in reflecting and creating norms.!9 It provides signals of both continuity and of change, and this applies to its representation of leadership as much as to other issues.

1.2. THE DISCIPLES AND MOBILITY OF FUNCTIONARIES IN MATTHEW

It is striking that, as has often been noted, Matthew broadens the geographical scope of Jesus's proclamation of the good news at the beginning of his ministry beyond what he found in Mark: firstly by the reference from Isa 9:1-2 to Galilee as "Galilee of the Gentiles," which brings great light to "those who dwell in the region and shadow of death" (4:12-16); secondly by the substitution of cic SANV thy Lupiav (4:24) for Mark's eic SAnv tiv Tepixwpov Tij¢ Tadtvaiac

(1:28) to describe the extent to which Jesus's reputation had spread; thirdly by the addition of a description of the crowds who followed Jesus, which includes those from the wider region, including areas normally (but not necessarily) associated with Gentiles, kai HKkoAOvONoav adt@ SyAot MoAAOI and TH Takraiac kai Aexanddews kai lepoooAvpwv Kai lovdaiag kai népav tod 'lopdavov (4:25).

This broad context extending from Judaea and Perea up to Syria!! provides the setting for the delivery of Jesus's authoritative teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, which Matthew inserts between Mark 1:28 and 29 to serve as the foundation of the new Christian community. I have argued elsewhere that this summary of Jesus's teaching found in "Q" sets the basic catechetical teaching of the community on the lips of Jesus.!? In Matthew, significantly, the teaching is given by 9. Ulrich Luz, Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Effects (Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1994), 24, 41.

10. Garleff, Urchristliche Identitét in Matthdusevangelium, 48.

11. While there is widespread agreement on the likelihood of Syria as the place of origin for Matthew's Gospel, there is less agreement on the precise location (see Luz, Matthew 1-7,

90-92). However, an increasing number of scholars have come to support Syrian Antioch as the community that produced it and have attempted to tabulate and interpret the relationship between the various texts that emerge from that city. For further discussions see John P. Meier,

"Antioch," in Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1983), 12-86; David C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community

(Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 53-107; Michelle

Slee, The Church in Antioch in the First Century C.E.: Communion and Conflict (JSNTSup 244;

London: T&T Clark, 2003).

12. Jonathan A. Draper, "The Genesis and Narrative Thrust of the Paraenesis in the Sermon on the Mount," JSNT 75 (1999): 25-48; see Alan Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew's

Dependence on the Didache (JSNTSup 254; London: T&T Clark, 2004). For a use of the tradition

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

Jesus to the disciples (ka8icavtocg abtod npoohASav adt@ oi paOntal adtod Kal avoigac 16 otdp1a adtod ESiSaoKev abtods Aéywv—of whom only Peter, Andrew,

James, and John have been mentioned thus far by Matthew) in the presence of these great crowds (iS@v S5é todg dxAov¢), symbolizing the mission of Matthew's community. The presence or absence of the crowd is a significant marker for Matthew's redaction, beyond what is found in Mark, not only in the Sermon on the Mount, but also, importantly, in the two feeding narratives of Matthew, where the role of the disciples as intermediaries is formulaic and moves beyond the simple function of sharing out what Jesus provides:

Matt 14:19

Kai kAdoac Edwxev Toic paONTaicg Tod< dptoug, oi Sé paOnTal Toic dxAorc.

Matt 15:36 ai é5idov toic pa8ntaic, oi 5é pabntai Toic SyoI<.

Mark 6:41

«ai é5iSov toi pabntaic [adtod] iva napaTiB@owv adtoic Luke 9:16 ai &6i50v toi pa8ntaic napaGeivat td dxrw.

The crowds represent those who are attracted to the gospel, Jews and Gentiles together, while the disciples represent those charged with mediating the teaching and ministry of Jesus to them after the resurrection.!4

Matthew's redaction of the "Q" material he had to hand in the macarisms of the Sermon on the Mount provides clues to his and his community's self-consciousness, as has been often noted. Most striking in terms of this study is the sudden shift from the third person address in the first eight blessings, which provide a kind of universal ethic (where Luke has the second person plural), to the second person plural in 5:11, which promises blessing in the face of persecution and calumny. In what is clearly a redactional touch, Matthew applies the "Q" saying—that "their" fathers persecuted the prophets also—pointedly to his own community, and the disciples in particular, as the locus of prophecy in his own day. The prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures are the predecessors of the disciples of Jesus and their successors: obtwe yap édiwkav tobs mpoprHtacs tovs mpd budv

(Matt 5:12). in Luke, see Jonathan A. Draper, "Jesus' 'Covenantal Discourse' on the Plain (Luke 6:12-7:17) as Oral Performance: Pointers to 'Q' as Multiple Oral Performance," in Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q (ed. R. A. Horsley; SemeiaSt 60; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 71-98. Luz (Matthew 1-7, 214) notes the "foundational character" of the Sermon on the Mount, but understands this in a theological sense, where I am arguing that it is foundational in a sociological sense and has a specific setting in life as catechesis of converts to the Christian way. I suggest that this explains its particular characteristics (binary opposites, exposition of the ethical commandments of the Decalogue and so on).

13. Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (CSHJ; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 37-40, has also noted the importance of the crowds in Matthew's narration. He understands them as referring to those attracted by Jesus within Israel, where I would emphasize the importance of signals that they come from Gentiles as well.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

As we have noted, the teaching is addressed through the disciples to the crowds. The implication of this signal switch seems to me to be that the disciples may be understood to be standing in continuity with the prophets in their mission to those represented by the crowds, which inevitably brings persecution.!4

This signal would need to find confirmation in the rest of the text before it could be considered significant. However, we should note here that in line with what is already signaled in the opening words of the Gospel, the sudden switch to second person plural is heightened by two parabolic sayings that have their nuclei in Markan sayings but are given a new direction by their combination with each other and with what precedes. The mission of the disciples in continuity with the prophets "who were before you" is on the one hand directed towards the people of Israel as "salt of the land" (bpeic ote TO Gag ti¢ yijs, 5:13) and on the other hand directed towards the Gentiles as "light of the world" (bpeic ote TO Pw TOD

KOop0v, 5:14). We have already heard in Matthew that Jesus goes to the "land" of Zebulun and the "land" of Naphthali in order that the Gentiles may receive "the great light" that takes them out of the shadow of death. It is no wonder, then, that Jesus's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount continues with a discussion of the Torah and its continuing validity in the "greater righteousness" Jesus requires of his followers, which is described as "being perfect" (5:17-48). Both words dtkatoovvn and té\e1o¢ are key identity markers for Matthew's community as for that of the Didache, as we shall see.!5

If, at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, the disciples are characterized as true prophets standing in succession to the prophets before them, then at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, the false prophets "who come to you" are described in considerable detail (7:15-23):

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

On that day many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your

14. On this much debated switch of person, see Luz, Matthew 1-7, 242; Hans Dieter Betz,

The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49) (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995),

147, 15. Georg Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthdus

(3rd ed.; FRLANT 82; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971). See Draper, "Genesis and Narrative Thrust of the Paraenesis."

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

name?" Then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers" (All biblical references are to the NRSV).

The situation is clearly in mind here in which some prophets come to the community from outside it and prove to be false prophets. The description of the prophets in terms of sheep and wolves is important, since sheep are used already to describe Israel in the Old Testament (e.g., Jer 13:17; Isa 40:11; Ezek 34:31; Hos

4:16; Mic 7:14; Zech 10:3; Pss 79:13; 95:7; 100:3) and in Intertestamental literature (e.g., 1 En. 90.20-27; Ps. Sol. 17.40), and subsequently to describe members of the new community called into being by Jesus in the gospels and consistently in early Christian literature (e.g., Herm. Vis. 5; Herm. Sim. 10.1). These prophets never were genuine members of the community, but were all along predators from outside only disguised as members, "wolves in sheep's clothing." The second important information on these persons, seemingly well-known in the life of Matthew's community, is that they cannot be tested on the basis of what they say but only on the basis of what they do. The test is their lifestyle, and the image of the necessary connection between a particular tree and its particular fruit is framed by an emphatic inclusio: and TOV Kapn@v avt@v éemtyvwoeoVe abtovc (7:16) dpa ye 4nd T@v kapn@v adta@v émtyvwoeoVe adtovc (7:20).

In this Matthew heightens and extends the "Q" saying found also in Luke 6:4344 though without the saying concerning the "treasure of the heart" found in Luke 6:45 (which is probably "Q," since it is found in Gos. Thom. 45). We are not told in Matthew why the prophets cannot be tested on the basis of what they say, but only on the basis of what they do. In the background though, inevitably, stands Deut 18:18-22, which poses the problem sharply and provides the basis for all subsequent discussion of false prophets in the rabbinic texts and in Qumran (11QTemp 61:1-4):

I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable. But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die. You may say to yourself, "How can we recognize a word that the LORD has not spoken?" If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.

The problem is that a true prophet receives words directly from the Lord and so cannot be challenged, but not all people who claim to speak the Lord's words

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

are actually true prophets. It is not entirely clear what is meant by "does not take place or prove true" in the Hebrew text (0277 817 812 851.9277 77ND) or in the Septuagint (kai pi) yévntat TO Pipa Kal pi] ovpBA TobTO TO pPfpa). In the text given in "Q" the actualization of the prophetic word that proves it to be true or false is interpreted in terms of its results in the lifestyle of the person concerned.

Further information is given in Matthew's account concerning these false prophets who come to the community from outside: they claim to be believers, who address Jesus as "Lord" and they will say on the day of judgment that they prophesied, cast out demons and worked deeds of power in the name of Jesus: noAAoi Epodotv pot év éxeivy TH Hepa: KUpte KUpte, OD TO O@ Svdpatt empogntevoapey, kal TH o@ dvdpatt Satpovia €ePadopev, kai tH o@ Svopatt

Svvapets MOAAAG Exoujoapey; (7:22). It is striking that the number of those who will make this claim on the day of judgment is "many" (moAAoi). Clearly this is a problematic area for the community Matthew represents. However, none of their displays of power will save them because of their evil fruit, which is described in the words of Ps 6:9 (Lxx) as oi épyaCouevot thv avopiav. Significantly, Jesus slips again into the second person plural mode of address: obdSénote Eyvwv bac

(7:23). Again, it should be noted that avopia is a key identity marker in Matthew representing the opposite of the téAetoc/Stkatoovvn complex (7:23; 14:21;

23:28; 24:12), as well as in the Didache, as we will see. In the last days many false prophets will arise and lead people astray, while avopia will increase (24:11-12).

The saying concerning the lifestyle of the prophet is concluded by instruction in the third person again, i.e., no longer to the disciples only but to "everyone" that they should not only hear but also do the words of Jesus in the face of the storm that is coming, in the parable of the House built on the Rock or the Sand taken from "Q" (= Luke 7:24-27). The switch from third person to second person in the macarisms at the beginning of the discourse is matched chiastically by the switch from the second person to the third person at the end of the Sermon on the Mount. The mode switch is thus a significant indicator of a change of reference from community members in general to leaders. Moreover, in the narrative context of the Sermon on the Mount, it seems that the nature of the leadership connected by Matthew with the disciples is described in terms associated with prophecy. Prophets are presumably unknown personally to the community since they come from outside it, and are thus characterized by mobility.

There is no doubt that discipleship is a key concept for Matthew. This was established in detail already by Giinther Bornkamm in his groundbreaking study of the Stilling of the Storm in Matt 8:23-27.!6 However, the account of the Stilling of the Storm begins again with a great crowd around and the disciples within the circle, which, as we have seen, is characteristic of Matthew's composition, so 16, Gunther Bornkamm, "The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew" in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (ed. G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held; London: SCM, 1963), 52-57.

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

that it may be addressed to the narrower circle of those engaged in the mission to the nations rather and not necessarily to all those who accept the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus. In this narrative, a scribe who seeks to follow Jesus, addressing him as "teacher" (5:S5aoxake), is rebuffed by Jesus with a description of the homelessness and possessionless lifestyle of the Son of Man (8:20). A disciple, addressing him as "Lord" (xtpte), requests to be allowed to stay with his father

(one must take the request to bury his father as a request to stay within the household), but is firmly instructed to leave home and follow Jesus on the road

(8:21-22). Since the crowds are in the background on the bank while the disciples

"follow" Jesus into the boat and storm, this homeless lifestyle does in some way seem to reflect Matthew's expectation of whoever his community views as the successors of the disciples in their own day. This fits with what we have observed about the lifestyle of the false prophets who come to the community from outside and it seems not unreasonable to assume that it characterizes also the lifestyle of the true prophets to which the Sermon on the Mount points. It is confirmed by Matthew's redaction of Markan material in chapter 19. In the context of a discussion on divorce, Jesus refers to an inner circle of those who do not marry but make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom:

His disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching (ov mavteg ywpodotv tov Adyov), but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can

(6 Sdvvapevoc xwpeiv ywpeitw)" (19:11-12).

The language of "accepting what one is able to accept" in this connection is important as we shall see for the Didache also, where the general ethic is based on the principle, "Do what you are able to do" (6:2-3). The same tendency to limit what is general in Mark to an inner group of those who are able can be seen in Matthew's redaction of the discussion between Jesus and the disciples after the story of the Rich Young Man (19:16-22). Jesus responds to Peter's question about the reward for leaving everything to follow him with an eschatological promise, which Matthew draws from "Q" (see Luke 22:30), that the disciples will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and certainly they will receive the hundred-fold reward promised also in Mark, but no mention is made of "in this time" (19:28-29). The reward here is limited to the Twelve, i.e., to those who serve in the role of apostles in the commission of Jesus to convert the nations given at the end of the Gospel, and no longer to all Christians.

We should also note that the title 5t5ao0xadoc for Jesus has a negative connotation for Matthew, as we saw already in 8:20, whereas it was an appropriate title for addressing Jesus in Mark. This is matched by the prohibition of the use of the title paBBi for community leaders in Matthew 23:7-8, on the basis of equality in the kingdom with Jesus as the only teacher: bpeic 5é pr) KANOijte PaBBielc yap

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

éottv budv 6 SiSdoKadoc, navtec SE dpeic d5eheoi éote. The only disciple to use the title "rabbi" to address Jesus is Judas on the night he betrays him, addressing him this way twice (26:25, 49). The basis for the aversion to the title is its use by the party of the scribes and the Pharisees, who are reported to love honor and not to do what they teach:

The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat (émi tij¢ Mwiioéwe xabédpac éxaOtoav). Therefore, do whatever they teach (einwotv) you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. (23:2-3)

We should note again both the presence of and distinction between crowds and disciples as addressees in 23:1. Matthew accepts the authority of the teacher of the law: the problem is not with teaching!" and interpretation of the Torah per se, but only the gap between saying and doing, which we have already observed is a key to discerning the false prophet. This matches the oblique but approving reference to the role of the scribe in 13:52: "And he said to them, "Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old." Jesus addresses the disciples only in this statement, having "left" the crowd (13:36), and it is his response to the declaration of the disciples that they have understood his teaching: "'Have you understood all this?' They answered, "Yes." (13:51). So despite the prohibition of the title "rabbi," the disciple is expected to exercise the role of the scribe by learning, understanding, and teaching the words of Jesus, even "adding to it" something new, it seems.!8

The importance of the task of teaching for Matthew's community is highlighted by its presence at the conclusion to the gospel, where the eleven remaining disciples are charged with the mission to "all nations," i.e., to the Gentiles (as well as to the Jews?), baptizing them and "teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you" (28:20). This command to undertake a mission to the Gentiles stands parallel and in something of a paradoxical tension with the instructions in 10:5; "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." However, this tension characterizes the gospel from beginning to end: it seeks to hold in tension the temporally prior address of Jesus to his own people with the subsequent experience of the Gentile mission. At the time of the composition of the gospel the community would seem to be fundamentally reconciled to and oriented towards the universal mission to all people, without sacrificing its continuity with its Jewish roots or its claims to represent true continuity with Israel.

17. Although the word used is einwowv rather than SSdoxerv.

18. See "adding to righteousness" in Did. 11:2.

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

So far, it seems that the disciples represent in some way the leadership of the new community! faced with the mission to both Jews and Gentiles represented by the crowds that accompany Jesus. As such, they reflect a task that appears to include both prophecy and teaching. The third role they are specifically given by Jesus is that of apostle. This title is used only once, namely, when Jesus calls the Twelve and names them apostles at the beginning of their mission to "the lost sheep of Israel" in 10:4. Jesus's calling of apostles is said by Matt 9:36-38 to be a response to the need of the crowds, who are designated as "sheep," code language usually reserved for community members.?° So the meaning of "apostle" may extend beyond that of mission to that of leadership within the new community:

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest."

What is specific to the task of the apostle is made clear from the outset, namely, delegated authority: 5wxev abtoic éovoiav (10:1). The task of the shaliah in Jewish culture is a legal function of representation, in which decisions made by the representative are deemed legally binding on the one who sends: "A person's apostle is as him/herself" (m. Ber. 5:5; b. Ned. 72b; b. Kidd. 41b; b. Hag. 10b; b.

Naz. 12b; b. B. Mesi'a 96a; b. Menah 93b; Mek. Ex. 12:4 [5a], 6 [7a]).2! It is in the nature of such delegated authority that it is temporary: it is only valid for and during the exercise of the task in hand. So an embassy to Rome, a finan19. Though without minimizing the egalitarian claims of 23:7-8.

20. For this reason, I do not agree with Ulrich Luz's contention (Matthew in History, 41), that "there seems to be no difference between the 'historical' term apostle and the 'transparent' term disciple," so that all the followers of Jesus, without distinction are called to the same lifestyle. It seems to me that the text signals a reference to leadership rather than general members of the community, whom Matthew designates as ekklesia.

21. The Jewish community in Palestine or Jerusalem sent rabbis to the Diaspora as "apostles" of the Great Sanhedrin for various purposes: to regulate the calendar (Akiba in m. Yebam.

16:7, R. Meir in t. Meg. 2:5) and to declare the beginning of the new month (m. RoS Has. 1:3,

14; 2:2). According to y. Hag. 1,76c, 31-32, Patriarch Juda II (ca. 250 c.z.) sent three rabbis to Palestine to appoint teachers. The important feature of the Jewish apostles is that they were appointed for a specific task, and only until the completion of that task did they have their plenary function. They were not missionaries nor necessarily even teachers, although rabbis seem usually to have been chosen for religious delegations. Hospitality towards such talmidim hakhamim was enjoined as especially meritorious (b. Ber. 10b; b. Sanh. 92a). They were not regular officers of the community, yet they must have been a common feature of life in the Diaspora, keeping communities in touch with one another and with the center of Jewish religious life in Palestine. Strict rules are laid down for the "poor travelling from place to place"

(m. Pe'ah 8:7; t. Pe'ah 4:8; y. Pe'ah 8, 21a). These "poor" were not necessarily only wandering destitutes or beggars, because the same rules apply to anyone needing support on a journey.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

cial negotiation or a marriage contract or some other such legal function lies in the background. The mission of the Twelve/ Seventy in the gospels as "apostles" would have had this sense. In Mark, in fact, this is most clearly expressed: they

"go out" (6:12) and then "gather together to Jesus and report back" on their mission (6:30).22 However, in Matthew this aspect of the role of the apostle is tempered at the end of the gospel, where Jesus says he has received authority

(£560n pot naoa eEovoia év obpav® kai éi tij¢ yi, 28:18) and now delegates it to them (opevbévtec obv, 28:19). Since Jesus now leaves them, there can be no return in this age to the one who sent them, and in fact the continuing nature of the delegated authority is emphasized by his presence with them to the close of the age. In this way, for Matthew, the name he is given at the beginning of the gospel is thus confirmed and validated: he is "God with us." So the description of the sending of the Twelve in Matt 10, which combines Markan and "Q" material, has a clear relevance to the continuing role of the disciples after Jesus's resurrection. Jesus sends them out and gives them instructions (10:5). The extended instructions then follow without any further reference to the mission or return, simply, "Now when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and proclaim his message in their cities."

The concept of the office of apostle underlies the woe pronounced against the scribes and Pharisees in 23:29-39 also. Here, the latter are accused of standing in line with their ancestors who murdered the prophets, since they now persecute those whom Jesus sends:

Therefore I send (4nootéAAw) you prophets, sages, and scribes (mpogrtag Kal oogods kai ypapyiateic), some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous

Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! (verses 34-37).

Yet the ones sent as Jesus's apostles are named as "prophets, sages, and scribes" and not "apostles." This is a highly significant indication that an apostle is not viewed by Matthew as a separate office, but rather a function of representation.

The offices in view are primarily conceived as prophets, since just as the scribes and the Pharisees stand in the line of the murderers of the prophets, so those who are Jesus's apostles stand in the line of the prophets of old, as we have already seen. Yet beside the office of prophet stand the two "wisdom" or teaching offices

22. See Jonathan A. Draper, "Wandering Radicalism or Purposeful Activity? Jesus and the Sending of Messengers in Mark 6:6-56," Neot 29 (1995): 187-207, where I am concerned more with discerning the role of the "historical Jesus."

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

of "sages and scribes." It is not clear whether three functionaries are really in view or whether this is a threefold elaboration of the same office. In any case, these ones whom Jesus sends are envisaged as moving from town to town under the pressure of persecution, which again speaks against them being a settled local ministry.

The instructions to the Twelve seem remarkably similar in reverse to what the false prophets claim to have done: prophecy, exorcism and acts of power

(7:22). Jesus gives them "authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness (10:1). Again in 10:7-8, "Proclaim the good news, "The kingdom of heaven has come near.' Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons." So it would seem that what we have already observed about Matthew's portrait of the disciples as community leaders is still true: they seem remarkably like true prophets as opposed to false prophets, both known by their fruits whether good or bad. The reference to sheep and wolves in 10:16 seems to confirm this. Whereas the false prophets appear to be sheep coming into the community, they are actually wolves in disguise. On the other hand, the true prophets are sheep by nature, sent out into an environment where the false leaders of the people are dangerous wolves and predators. A further mark of the instructions to the apostles is that they will speak in the Spirit when they are brought before judges and rulers: ob yap byeic éote oi Aadodvtec GAAA

TO mvedEa TOD MaTpd¢ Ku@v Td Aadodv év byiv (10:20; see Mark 13:11). At this point Luke, reflecting the "Q" emphasis on wisdom rather than prophecy, only says that this will be an opportunity to witness and Jesus promises, "for I will give you words and a wisdom (éy@ yap dwow vbyiv otépa Kai cogiav) that none of your opponents will be able to withstand or contradict." (21:15). So it is no surprise that the words about "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" in Matthew occur in the context of the repetition of the saying about "knowing a tree by its fruit," which also characterized the discussion of true and false prophets in the Sermon on the Mount:

Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy

Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit" (12:31-33).

However people may have responded to Jesus, to silence his delegated representatives when they are speaking in the Spirit is the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Behind this lies Deut 18:15-22, as we have already shown.

Those who silence the prophet God has sent will answer to God: "And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him" (Deut 18:19).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

What we have already seen concerning the life of the disciple of Jesus in 8:20-22 is confirmed in the instructions given to the apostles in 10:8-42. Since this is well-known, we need do no more than sketch them here.* They are to go without taking money or supplies but are to depend on the hospitality of the householders who accept their mission:

Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for laborers deserve their food. Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave. As you enter the house, greet it. If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of Judgment than for that town (10:9-15).

There is no word here of a restriction on how long the apostles may stay before moving on, only that they have a right to support and that their stay is only temporary—since they are apostles—but there is a note of eschatological urgency that impels them in the face of the day of judgment that is coming. They are expected to be fleeing from one town to the next to give their message of the breaking in of the kingdom in the face of persecution. Their presence is a blessing to those who do receive them, since their peace comes upon the house. So the picture of the apostles is one of traveling prophetic figures who proclaim the breaking in of the kingdom with eschatological urgency, in the face of persecution, who heal the sick and cast out demons and do works of power.

The sayings cluster (10:40-42) that concludes the instructions to the apostles is highly significant for our purposes:

Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.

Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet's reward; And whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous;

And whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple —truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward.

23. For a discussion of this passage see Jonathan A. Draper, "First Fruits and the Support of Prophets, Teachers and the Poor in Didache 13 in Relation to New Testament Parallels" in Trajectories through he New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (ed. A. Gregory; Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2005), 223-43.

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

We have already seen that the key aspect of an apostle is representation, not just delegation, but plenipotentiary authority. So here, those who welcome the ones

Jesus sends will be welcoming Jesus and the One who sent him. But the promise to the settled householders who welcome and provide for the apostles whom

Jesus sends is that they will receive the same blessing as the apostles. It is not clear whether three different offices or functions are in mind with "prophet,"

"righteous person" and "little one" or whether this is a triplet describing the same figure. Probably they all describe the same role, given the repeated occurrence of prophetic terminology in references to the role of the disciples.

To summarize: Matthew appears to identify the task of the disciples very closely with the role of prophets, standing in the tradition of prophecy in the Old Testament. Prophetic words, uttered in the Spirit, healing, exorcism, and deeds of power characterize their ministry and indeed mirror the claims of false prophets visiting the communities. The disciples are called apostles only when they are described as "sent by Jesus," but Matthew does not narrate the return of the apostles, whereas Mark and Luke (on both the sending of the Twelve and the Seventy) specifically mention the return and report back to Jesus after the sending out. This matches the open-ended commission to the eleven to undertake a mission to all nations at the end of Matthew on which Jesus would accompany them spiritually. While the role of the prophet predominates in the description of apostles, alongside them Matthew mentions "sages and scribes," but it is not clear whether these are to be understood as mobile in the same way as the apostle-prophet role.

1.3. THE SETTLED COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL FUNCTIONARIES IN MATTHEW

This summary of the data in Matthew would not, of course, be complete without a sideways glance at the pronouncement of Jesus to Peter after his confession at Caesarea Philippi in 16:18-19:

And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The most interesting thing here is that the promise that the church will be built on Peter as a rock is a response to a word of prophecy: Peter has spoken the words of the Father, not his own. So the authority is both a delegated authority from Jesus and hence apostolic, and the authority derived from speaking in the Spirit and so prophetic. I am not, of course, using these terms in the sense they have been given in the long debate over church hierarchies, but in the technical

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

sense in which they have emerged in our analysis. The choice of Peter is significant and no doubt relates to debates between Matthew's community and rival communities in the early Christian movement. It signals their consciousness of being directed to a mission simultaneously as salt to the people of Israel and as light to the Gentiles. The imagery of "building" and "foundation stone" seems to introduce an element of fixity or stability more consonant with resident communities than with wandering individuals. It is significant then that Peter, one of the disciple-prophet-apostle figures we saw described in the first section, is understood as the foundation of a more settled entity. I have already indicated that the motif of Jesus and commissioning and teaching the disciples in the presence or absence of the crowds has already introduced an element corresponding to this

"wandering"/"settled" divide.

However, it cannot really be taken as evidence for the emergence of a fixed local hierarchy, since the same terminology of binding and loosing is given to the whole church in 18:14-20, where the importance of each of "these little ones" is emphasized:

So it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost. If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.

Besides this, Matthew seems to emphasize the concept of "service," so that the most important title in the community is held to be that of "servant" in contrast to the authority structures of the Gentile rulers:

But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant (Siakovog), and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave

(SovdAo«); just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (20:26-28).

The same preference for the title "servant/ deacon" comes in 23:11-12: 6 52 pewov budv Eotat bpav Sidxovog Sotig 5 bydoet Eavtdv tartewwOroetat Kal

Sot Taneivwoet EavtTov bywOroetat. Of course, it cannot be concluded from this that the word "servant/ deacon" designates an actual office in the commu-

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

nity, but it also does not speak against it. Otherwise, Matthew's Gospel provides no evidence for the kinds of officials mentioned in the Didache, such as a college of bishops and deacons, or in the Epistle of James, such as teachers and elders.

2. SETTLED AND WANDERING FUNCTIONARIES IN THE DIDACHE

2.1. APOSTLES

The problem of the status and role of functionaries in the Didache is already given by its title(s). While the text was widely known and quoted in antiquity under the title AAAAXH TON [AQAEKA] AIIOZTOAQN, it is not clear whether this refers to the Two Ways source incorporated into Did. 1-6 or to the full text as we now have it.24 The Jerusalem Manuscript (H 54), our only complete text of the Didache first discovered by Archbishop Bryennios and published by him in 1883, begins the text proper with the longer title or perhaps incipit, Aiaxi kupiou dia tdv S@dexa AnootdéAwv Ttoics EOvectv. The problem of the two titles has long exercised the minds of scholars and no agreement has been reached on how it is to be solved. However, it seems very likely that the longer title, as Rordorf and Tuilier have argued,*5 is associated with the redaction that inserted the Jesus tradition (1:3b-2:1) into the Two Ways source (whose beginning seems to cohere with the "long title" tobtwv dé tdv Adywv Sidaxn éotiv abtn) and that inserted a series of references to the "gospel" into the text as a whole (8:2; 11:3;

15:3; 15:4). In terms of our topic in this paper, we can observe that the teaching is not described thereby as the "teaching of the apostles," but rather "the teaching of the Lord."2° The apostles are the intermediaries, the delegated representatives of the Lord who are the tradents of the teaching of Jesus. This is important, since it relates directly to the situation depicted by the commission of Jesus to the eleven

(!) at the end of Matthew (28:16-20) to go to all nations to make disciples, bap24. Witnesses to the various forms of the short title include Athanasius, Ps.-Athanasius,

Nicephorus, Eusebius, Rufinus, and Pseudo-Cyprian. For a summary of the evidence see Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 4-6.

25. Willy Rordorf and André Tuilier, La Doctrine des Douze Apétres (Didache); (2nd ed.;

SC 248 bis; Paris: Cerf, 1998), 16.

26. Garrow (Matthew's Dependence on the Didache, 48-249) sees here a confirmation of his redaction critical argument for a dependence of Matthew on the Didache, in that he considers the gospel writer taking what he found before him as "teaching of the Lord" and setting it on the lips of Jesus. Garleff (Urchristliche Identitét in Matthdusevangelium, 115) also argues for the security of the "long title" in the text and points to the importance of its attribution to the Lord rather than to the apostles.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

tize and teach them all he had taught them, rather than to the "teaching of the apostles" suggested by Acts 2:42.27

On the other hand, this attribution of both teaching and mission to the apostles at the beginning of the Didache raises questions about the use of the name in 11:4-6, since there is no mention of the "Twelve" in this passage. Instead the instructions seem to envisage a larger group of mobile apostles. While the expression SexOrtw cog KUptog seems to align itself with the concept of delegated authority of an apostle of Jesus, apostles here do not seem to be given any explicit role in the community. The concern in the instructions seems to be instead to protect the community against exploitation by "apostles" who come from outside and try to stay for long periods or obtain money for themselves. In response to this, the instructions limit the stay of the apostles to one day (11:4). On the following day they should leave with enough bread to last them to their next port of call (11:6). If they cannot travel on the very next day, perhaps because it is the Sabbath when travel is forbidden or perhaps out of sickness, they may stay a second day, but if they stay a third day, they are false prophets (11:5). Likewise, if they ask for money they are false prophets (11:6). If this were enforced, then it is hard to see in what way apostles could exercise any mission or any authority or even any leadership role in local communities. They would be always traveling.

It seems more likely to me that these instructions of apostles form a part of an early hospitality code for the community, together with instructions on the reception of travelers in general in 12:1-5, which has been edited by the insertion of material on prophets in 11:7-8.28 There seems nothing in the nature of polemic nor anything contentious about the instructions on apostles, such as can be found in the instructions on prophets. Those Christians traveling on official business, representing communities elsewhere, and passing through this community, would be apostles from a wider group than the Twelve (see Andronicus and Junia in Rom 16:7). Paul seems to envisage apostles as a group (e.g., 1 Cor

12:28-29). Hospitality for them was absolutely essential for the development of the Christian movement, as indeed for any ancient group. They would often be unknown to the local community and carry letters of identification setting out where they come from and where they are going.2? However, in the absence of any ability to check up on their credentials (such as is available today by telephone or e-mail), the possibilities for abuse were obvious. Major figures such

27. This has been argued again by Garleff (see previous footnote). However, it should be noted that the conceptions in Matthew and Luke are not unrelated, particularly if, as | would argue, the linking of authoritative teaching with the apostles derives from "Q" independently in Matthew, Luke, and Didache.

28. The kind of instruction found also in rabbinic writings concerning the "wandering poor," as we have shown in n. 21 above.

29. Such a letter of introduction for such an apostle is contained in y. Hag. 1,76d, 3-4: "Lo we send a great man as our envoy equal to ourselves until he come."

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

as Peter and Paul might not need letters, but even Paul is aware of the need to provide credentials and the problems associated with having no letter of authority from Jerusalem! Whether or not it happened historically, the manner of the sending of Judas Barsabbas and Silas along with Paul and Barnabas in Acts

15:22-35 provides the model for suck an embassy where a letter would provide the authorization from a recognized authority to stay longer in a place. Where such a delegation was passing through to another place, e.g., Barsabbas, Silas,

Paul and Barnabas en route to Antioch from Jerusalem would need to stay overnight along the route, then this would be covered only in a general way. With this we could compare 3 John 6, which seems to be a surviving example of such a letter: "You will do well to send them on their journey in a matter worthy of God." In such a case delegated apostles would only be allowed to stay one night on their journey, or else they prove that they are not really in earnest and so can be designated "false prophets" (yevdonpoprtg 11:5, 6).

The problem in understanding the text really hinges around this. If false apostles can be called false prophets, does this mean that true apostles are really true prophets? The problem is intensified by the coupling together of apostles and prophets in the section marker: [epi 5@ tv 4n00TOAwv kai mpogntav kata

TO S6ypa tod evayyeAiov obtw moujoate (11:3). I have argued at length that this is a redactional development of an original brief instruction entitled: Tepi 5 tav anootoAwy obtw moujoate, following the model of the peri de section markers in the rest of the text, which elsewhere occur in this simple form with a single subject (6:3; 7:1; [7:4]; 9:1; [10:1]; [10:8]). The current form of the text at the very least signals the presence of a contentious issue since it refers to an authority that the community regards as definitive, the "ordinance of the Gospel" (kata TO Sd6ypa tod evayyehiov). References to "the Gospel" seem to come from the latest redactional layer of the text (e.g., chapters 8 and 15). Are the apostles of necessity "charismatic" figures, that is, endowed by the Holy Spirit for a special task, ranged alongside the "charismatic" prophets, or are they simply delegates for a time?? The evidence is ambiguous, to say the least.

I would like to sidestep for the moment the question of original form and its redaction and concede that, on the basis of the final form of the text, the apostles are understood as connected with the prophets in some way. Not all apostles, then, would necessarily have been prophets, but perhaps prophets coming from outside the community would have fitted in the category of apostles, those arriving and claiming to be delegated representatives of the Lord and so to be received

"as the Lord." Both apostles (mac 5é amdatoAog Epxdpevos mMpdc byac, 11:4) and prophets (nac 5é mpo~rtns adnPivoc Bédwv KabijoBat mpdc bac, 13:1) came from outside the community and claimed to be sent by the Lord. Some apostles claimed, it would appear, also to be prophets and to speak in the Spirit. It was

30. See Draper, "Weber, Theissen and the Wandering Charismatics."

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

fundamental to the role of an apostle to be on the Lord's business, representing one community on a commission to another, and they could usually be authenticated by producing a letter or else they could require the person to move on as quickly as possible. A visit from an apostle would be a temporary one, even if someone were to arrive on a special embassy to this community, with covering letter and acceptable credentials for a specific task that might take longer.?!

But what if the person claimed, like Paul, to have been commissioned by Jesus in person and to be speaking in the Spirit of God? Would they need letters? This is where the problem really lies, since Deut 18:18-22 commands obedience to the word God puts in the mouth of the prophet and forbids that the prophet be silenced. Clearly prophets were arriving in the community(ies) of the Didache often enough for this to need regulating. The regulation agrees in essence with what is found in Matthew concerning false and true prophets.

2.2. PROPHETS

The prophet may not be tested or judged, since God's word is in his mouth and it would be blasphemy to contradict God's word (11:7). Interestingly, the phrase "blasphemy against the holy Spirit" found in Matthew is not found here, but only the warning that testing or judging the prophet speaking in the Spirit constitutes a sin that cannot be forgiven: maoa yap apaptia dpe8hoetar ait 5é

1) duaptia obk ageOoetat.

Matthew 12:31-32 Didache 11:7b ndoa duaptia kai BAacgnpia ndoa yap auaptia apeOrjoetat toicg avOpwroic agpeOijoetat 1) 5é Tod mvebpatos PAacgnpia abtn dé 1) auaptia ovK apeOrjoetat. ovk apeBijoetat Kai d¢ éav ein Adyov kata Tod viod Tod AavOpwrod apeOijoetat adta@ S¢ & av elt KATA TOD MvEevpLATOS TOD ayiou, OK apeOrjoetat abtT@ obte Ev TOUTH TO ai@vi obte év TH péAAOVTL.

Similarity in concept and difference in wording is characteristic of the relationship between Matthew and Didache. The saying in Matthew is given by Jesus in response to the claim of the Pharisees that Jesus casts out demons by Beelzebul

(12:24), so that they fall under the condemnation of Deut 18:19, "whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of 31. 1 am only raising this as a possibility, but the system would have to allow for some occasions when mutual business might take longer than an evening.

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

him." Matthew follows this with a repetition of the saying concerning knowing a tree by its fruits. The Pharisees cannot concede that the words Jesus has spoken prophetically "have come to pass" (Deuteronomy's test of the true prophet) and then argue that he has done it by Beelzebul. This is the force of the # ... # construction in Matt 12:33: f moujoate 16 dévdpov Kahdv kai Tov Kaprov adtod

Kahdv, f noujoate 1d Sév5pov canpov Kal tov Kapndv abtod Gampodv: ék yap tod Kaprnod TO Sévdpov ywwwoxetat. Here the wording in the Didache sounds like a proverbial saying, but it is also followed by a verification, namely, that the prophet's words must come to pass through the "ways of the Lord" (tovc¢ tpdmoug Kupiov) test. While these sayings derive from a common tradition, they do not seem to provide grounds for asserting a direct literary relationship, unless such a relationship has already been established on other grounds.

In any case, in the Didache, if no prophet speaking in the Spirit may be silenced, then not everyone who "speaks in the Spirit" is a true prophet, but only the prophet who has the "ways" or "lifestyle" of the Lord. The parallel way in which "speaking in the Spirit" is used here of the utterances of both the true prophet and the false prophet is interesting, even perplexing. It must indicate some kind of community praxis, in which there is no outward way of distinguishing the utterances formally. Only the outcome of the prophecy in terms of whether the prophet has the "ways of the Lord" (aAN' éav Exn tovs tpdto0Uc kupiov, 11:8b) can enable the community to know. It is significant that the metaphor of the tree and its fruit, which follows this saying in Matthew, is not used, but rather compatibility with "the ways of the Lord." Throughout the Didache there is ambivalence as to whether xUptoc refers to Jesus or to the Lord God,3?

The usual assumption is that it refers here to Jesus's own lifestyle and this seems to be likely but not certain, depending on whether this is older halakic material. Tpdémoc, especially in the plural, seems to refer primarily to the behavior or habits of a person,>> but could perhaps refer to the "ways of God." Certainly, in its use in Matt 12:33 the tree-fruit test must relate to the Lord God vindicating the prophecy of Jesus by fulfillment. And in the use of the same tree-fruit test in 7:21 the fruit image elaborates on the meaning of "doing the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Having the "lifestyle/ways of the Lord" is then more closely defined by four units in 11:9-12:

A. kal nag mpoghtns opilwv tpanelav év mvevpatt 32. Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E (New York: Newman, 2003), insists it always refers to the Lord God, but this seems to be unsustainable in the light of the reference to the "Gospel of the Lord." It is more likely that it fluctuates in usage of the text.

33. See LSJ s.v. III.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

od payetat a adtis ei dé ppye wevdornpogrtng éoti.

B. mac 52 mpogrtns SiSdoKkwv tiv GAnPerav ei & SiSdoxet od rorel, yevdonpogntns éoti

C. nag 5 npogrtns SedoKxipacpévog aAnOivdc TOMY ig WVOTIPLOV KOOLLKOV EKKANGiag ut) Siddokwv dé roteiv Goa adTOs ToLEt od KptOrjoetat é—' Du@vpeta Beod yap Exet thv KpiotvWoavTwWS yap Ertoinoav kai oi Apxatot TpogAtat.

D. 6¢ & Gv einn év mvevpate 56¢ pot dpyvpta if Etepa tiva OvK aKkovoedVe adToD éav dé mepi GAwv votepovvtwv einn Sodvat undeic adtov KptvéeTw.

The first and last units (A and D) concern situations in which the prophet gains some kind of material advantage by his or her prophecy. In the first case (A) he may not order a meal for him/herself and then eat it. It has been suggested that "ordering a table" relates to convening a eucharistic celebration, since prophets are specifically allowed to "give thanks/ eucharistize as they wish" (10:7).34

Aaron Milavec suggests, on the basis of Jewish practice in b. Ber. 48a—b, that the prohibition on the prophet eating from the table he orders would also prohibit him from presiding at the Eucharist, thus effectively neutralizing this privilege.>5

Probably the difference is more apparent than real, if every community Eucharist would have been a full meal as suggested by peta dé 16 EuTtANOPAVvat (10:1) and conversely every full meal of the community would require a Eucharistia. In the last case (D), asking for money is forbidden unless it is for another person in need, This matches the prohibition on apostles asking for money in 10:6.

The two middle units (B and C) relate to issues of teaching. The first requires the prophet to do as he or she says, or be exposed as a false prophet. The second clearly reflects a controversial matter in the community because of its length and complexity. It is only permitted to a prophet who has already proved to be a genuine prophet (Sedoxipaopévoc anOtvdc), presumably on the basis of his or her lifestyle. It must refer to some behavior (mowWv) of the prophet that would

34, See Jean-Paul Audet, La Didache: Instructions des apétres (Ebib; Paris: J. Gabalda,

1958), 450.

35. Milavec, Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 464-66.

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

be scandalous in anyone else but was acceptable for a prophet since it was the mark of Old Testament prophets also. It enacts in some some symbolic way

(ywotrptov) a "mystery of the church in the world" by which the heavenly or eschatological reality of the church's existence is portrayed in temporal terms.36

Much has been made of the idea of a "spiritual marriage" of a prophet and a prophetess, traveling together in an ascetic relationship. This was suggested already by Von Harnack*? and has had an enduring appeal to scholars.38 It is certainly possible, but has problems in that only tested and proven prophets might enact such a mystery, and a prophet arriving with a prophetess from outside the community would not be tested and proven until he and she had passed the lifestyle test. Likewise, the Didache does not show the marks of an ascetic text, unless one interprets another difficult text, namely, the "whole yoke of the Lord" and "concerning food" passages in 6:2-3 as referring to ascetic behavior.

In any case, there is no concrete evidence for such a practice in the text itself, but it has to be inferred from external references.

If the prophets are understood as coming from outside the community in 11:6-12, the true prophets are allowed, unlike the apostles, to settle in the community in 13:1. If prophets are prohibited from asking for a table and eating from it in 11:9 on pain of being declared false prophets, then they are granted the right to food (G&id¢ éott tig tpogijs abtod) from the community if they do settle. If they were prohibited from asking for money in 11:12, they now have a right in 13:3-7 not just to the first fruits of the community, but also to money and clothing and every other possession, at the discretion of the community member (w¢

&v oot 56En, 13:7). This is described as being kata tiv évtoAny, in my opinion.a reference to an interpretation of the Old Testament laws concerning first fruits.>?

The contrast between chapters 11 and 13 seems to me to be so great that it indicates a redaction of an earlier tradition, at a time when prophets have obtained an increased importance in the community. This importance is highlighted in 15:1-2, where they clearly have such a high status and honor that the bishops and deacons are in danger of being despised in comparison with them. Again,

36. Only the Jerusalem Manuscript of the Didache has the word pvotipiov, which is absent from the Coptic and Ethiopic texts, though this may have been because the expression was not understood.

37. Von Harnack, Lehre der zwilf Apostel, 44-47.

38. See especially Georg Kretschmar, "Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Ursprung friihchristlicher Askese," ZTK 61 (1964): 27-67. He is followed by Kurt Niederwimmer, "An Examination of the Development of Itinerant Radicalism in the Environment and Tradition of the Didache," in The Didache in Modern Research (ed. J. A. Draper; AGJU 37; Leiden: Brill,

1996), 321-39, who provides a discussion of the nature and origin of the practice of syzygy. See also Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 179-82.

39, Draper, "First Fruits and the Support of Prophets."

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

this appears to represent a redactional development within the overall text of the Didache, in a time of transition.

In 16:3, the community is warned, "For in the last days false prophets and corruptors will be multiplied and sheep will be turned into wolves and love will be turned into hatred." The couplet oi yevdonpogijtat kai oi popeic seems to be a hendiadys that refers to the same persons. In view of the use of "false prophets" to describe false apostles in 11:6, it could refer to those claiming to be either apostles or prophets. However, in this warning, it is not a matter of exploitation of the community for financial reward, but of false teaching "contrary to the law"

(avopia 16:4), which leads to division, quarrels, and betrayal:

Matt 7:15-16:

Ipoo€gxete and tov wevdonpogntay, oitives Epxovtat mpd¢ bpac Ev évOvnaow mpopatwv, ~owSev dé ciow AVKo Gpmayec. and TOV kapT@v avta@v émyv@oeabe adtovdc.

Did. 16:3: év yap taicg goyatatc hepatic mANOvvOnoovtat oi yevdonpog;Atat kai oi pOopeic kai otpagrjoovtat Ta MpdBata cic AVKOUG Kal 1} yarn OTpagroeTat gic ptlooc.

Such people are aligning themselves to the "world deceiver." It is significant that these "false prophets" are not "wolves disguised as sheep" who come to the community from outside, as in Matt 7:15, but instead "sheep who have turned into wolves," those from inside the community who have turned against it.

2.3. TEACHERS

Of particular significance is that, in both chapters 13 and 15, the mention of the prophets is accompanied by references to teachers, indicating that in some sense they are coupled together in the consciousness of the community. No mention is made of apostles in either chapter. This seems to signal changed community relations both with the outside and in its own internal arrangements. It also raises the question of the teacher as a community functionary: is the teacher a "charismatic" and is the teacher a settled community figure or an itinerant? A further permutation of the question relates to the connection between the function of teaching, expressed in a verbal form, and the office of a teacher, expressed as a noun. It is significant, in other words, that the apostles are never mentioned together with the teachers, while the teachers are only mentioned together with the prophets. It would seem that apostles are not a significant office within the community in the Didache, while prophets and teachers are and both qualify for support from the community. If this represents the final redactional layer of the text, then it must signal a shift in emphasis from outside to inside, from mobile

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

to stable. It could also signal a shift from "non-charismatic" to "charismatic" leadership within the community as opposed to outside it.

If we examine the first of the two occurrences of the title "teacher" in 13:2, then we learn that the teacher has to be verified for his or her genuineness before qualifying for support; s/he must be dAnOivdc. Secondly, no mention is made here of settling as in the case of the prophet. The instruction leaves open the question of whether the teacher comes from inside or outside the community. Thirdly, the instruction on teachers adds ®onep 6 épyatng¢ as a qualification to &Etoc. This may indicate that, while it is his or her utterances in the Spirit that qualify the prophet for support, it is his or her work that qualifies the teacher. In other words, it is not a "charismatic" office as such, if by that is meant Spirit-directed. After this teachers fall out of the instructions on tithing in 13:3-7 and only the prophet is in view.

In the second occurrence of the title "teacher" in 15:1-2, nothing at all is given away about their work, except that they are linked with the prophets and share the performance (Aettovpyovot) of their "public duty" or "ministry" (tiv

Xettoupyiav). For this they receive along with the prophets the honor appropriate to those engaging in public duty (oi tetysnpévor), which threatens to leave the bishops and deacons despised (uu obv bnepidnte abtovc). Nevertheless, the bishops and deacons are described as sharing the same Aettoupyia as the prophets and teachers. This is intended to indicate, I think, that all of the leaders of the community have the same obligation to public service (for instance gifts of money, public buildings, public work) for the good of the community, as would be expected of all those aspiring to public office in the ancient Graeco-Roman world, for which they receive honor. I do not think that the reference is to leadership of public worship described as "liturgy" in our modern sense—leadership of public worship is an aspect of "honor" rather than an aspect of "liturgy."

Otherwise, there are two functional appearances of teaching, which may or may not be carried out by leaders designated as "teachers." The first is the obvious one, that the foundational section of the Didache consists of 5i6ax1 and so requires people who teach it. Such people are nowhere named, but they are mentioned in at least one place in 4:1-2:

Tékvov pov tod Aakodvtdc dot TOV Adyov Tod Heod pvnoBron vuKTd¢ Kai huEépac Tipnjoeic 6 adtov we KUpiovSBev yap H Kupidtnys AaAeitat Exel KUpIdG EoTIV. éx(nthaeic 6¢ Kad' Hepa Ta Mpdowna Tov ayiwv iva énavanaf|c Toic Adyotc avta@v.

Yet the principle here is that of representation: the one sent is as the one who sent him or her. So when the things of the Lord are spoken by those authorized to speak them, the Lord is there. This is closer to the function of the apostle than the teacher. Nevertheless, it is a teaching role and a substantial one: if the saints are to meet every day, this would make substantial demands on the one teaching,

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

demands which would preclude the person from gainful employment. This would explain why the teacher is granted the right to support on the basis of being an épyatne. It would also explain why they receive the same tur as the prophets, though their honour derives from what they teach and not how they derive it

(from the tradition and not from the Spirit as in the case of the prophets). In any case, the continuing tradition of the Two Ways in the Apostolic Church Order makes it clear that teaching "the things of the Lord" should be regarded as a work requiring material support, and this seems to me to underlie the practice of the Didache also:

You shall honour him as much as you are able from your sweat and from the labour of your hands, If the Lord through him has made you worthy to be given spiritual food and drink and eternal life, much the more should you bring him corruptible and temporary food. "For the workman is worthy of his hire" and "You shall not muzzle a threshing ox" and "Nobody plants a vine and does not eat the fruit of it."40

Echoes of this ethos are found also in Barn. 19:9-10, where a series of sayings on giving are linked by, "You shall love as the apple of your eye everyone who speaks the word of the Lord to you." The Life of Shenudi also gives a graphic representation of the kind of teaching role played by the Two Ways, where the Abbot Vita performs what he received from Abbot Shenudi:

Listen attentively to me all of you when I begin and speak of the wonders and the miracles which God has worked by the hand of our pure father, the blessed

Abba Shenudi, which I have seen with my own eyes, I, Visa, his son and his disciple, signs which my holy father has told me, that he has given to me through his pure mouth, without deception or trickery. And what I tell you is only a little

(of what he has done). And surely he always used to teach and say, "The way is Beg and the path twofold, one of life and the other of death." (my translation)4!

As in the Apostolic Constitutions and the Fides CCCXVIII Patrum / Syntagma Doctrinae, the bare bones of the Two Ways provide the framework for the inter40. Alistair Stewart-Sykes, The Apostolic Church Order: The Greek Text with Introduction,

Translation and Annotation (Early Christian Studies 10; Strathfield, Australia: Centre for Early

Christian Studies, 2006), 107-8.

41. Text is taken from Emile C. Amélineau, Monuments pour servir 4 l'histoire de l'Egypte chrétienne aux IVe, Ve, Vle et VIle siécles (Mémoires publiés par les membres de la mission archéologique du Caire 4; Paris: Leroux, 1895), 2:285-96. My translation is based on the French text of Amélineau, but corrected against the Arabic text with the kind assistance of Professor

Gerhard van Gelder of the Oriental Faculty in Oxford.

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

pretive additions of the particular teacher.42 However, all of these sayings are found in the Two Ways teaching used by the Didache as a source, so it is hard to draw anything more than the general conclusion that it continued an existing attitude or praxis towards support for the teacher.

A final contentious context in which the teaching function is mentioned is 11:1-2. Here it is clearly a case of a person coming from outside the community and teaching (S¢ dv obv éAB@v Sida), who represents both promise and peril for the community. The community is instructed to test the teacher on the basis of his or her teaching against the material contained in the instructions so far: tadta mavta Ta mpoeipnyéva.4? Anyone who "turns around" and teaches in such a way as to "break down" or "destroy" must be shunned: éav 5é abtdc 6 diSaoxwv otpageic Sidaoxyn DAnv ddaxiv cig 5 Kataddoat ph adtod dxovonte

(11:2). I have argued that this demonstrates a consciousness of schism and doctrinal conflict, probably over the question of Torah.*4 Only the person who "adds to righteousness" should be accepted wc KUptov. Interestingly, again, is the use of representational language proper to the apostolic function. The whole section clearly relates to Matt 5:17-20, since the concepts of breaking down true and false teaching and adding to righteousness occur in both texts.45

Stempel takes 11:1-2 in combination with 11:3-6 as evidence for the existence of wandering teachers. Even if the existence of the office of the teacher cannot be proven, he regards the function of the teacher at least as the primary role ("eine primare Tatigkeit") in the community.** I have argued that the representational language (wc kvpiov) makes it more likely that this is a redaction of the instructions on apostles that follow. In any case, the language is reminiscent of the reference to the increase of "false prophets" (those who came as apostles include false prophets according to 11:5, 6) in the last days in 16:3, where the same language of "turning" is used twice (kai otpagroovtat ta npdpata eic AVKOUG kai 1) ayann otpagricetat eic pido), together with the sheep and wolves imagery employed in Matthew also for apostles and prophets. Hence, I am inclined to take the reference in 11:1-2 as a reference to apostles and/or to the prophets with 42. Jonathan Draper, "Vice Catalogues as Oral-Mnemonic Cues: A Comparative Study of the Two Ways Tradition in the Didache and Parallels from the Perspective of Oral Tradition," in Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel (ed. T. Thatcher;

Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2008).

43. This echoes the warning against false teaching in 6:1: dpa pr tic of MAavijon and TavtN¢ Ti 6500 Tic SiSaxij¢ Enel mapextdc Geod oe SiSaoxet. Baptism is likewise made conditional on the teaching contained in chapters 1-6: tadta navta npoeindvtec Bantioate (7:1).

44. Jonathan A. Draper, "Torah and Troublesome Apostles in the Didache Community," in Draper, ed., The Didache in Modern Research, 340-63; published previously in NovT 33

(1991): 347-72.

45. See Draper, "Torah and Troublesome Apostles"; idem, "Genesis and Narrative Thrust of the Paraenesis."

46. Stempel, "Der Lehrer in der 'Lehre der Zw6lf Apostel'," 215.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

whom they are associated in 11:3. There is thus no certain evidence for "wandering teachers," and the need to teach the Two Ways, at least, suggests that there were already resident teachers who might be honored "as the Lord" for teaching

"the things of the Lord," and who would receive some kind of support, either from the people they teach (as was the practice it seems in the Two Ways source), or from the community. Having said that, it must, of course be acknowledged that an apostle and a prophet might each be teachers as well, but that would not be their defining characteristic.

2.4. BISHOPS AND DEACONS

The final pair of functionaries that appear in the Didache are "bishops and deacons," mentioned merely together and only in 15:1-2. The same qualifications for office are given for both. So beyond what is contained in their titles we learn nothing to distinguish the one from the other. Nevertheless the titles are indicative: the bishop is an overseer with some kind of responsibility for exercising control; the deacon is a servant to the community with some practical role in the life of the community.

The bishop and deacon are both appointed by the community either by a laying on of hands (ordination) or by raising of hands (election). It is difficult to know which. Either way, it is the community that recognizes and appoints.

They are not charismatic figures in the sense of receiving their office from God or the Spirit. Naturally, therefore, they are described as liable to testing by the community (dedoxtpaopévouc) to which they are accountable (15:1). Further qualities required of these two functionaries also speak much of what is expected of them. In the first place they are required to be "mild" or "gentle" (mpaiic). In other words, their role is to keep the peace among members of the community in which quarreling is frowned on and viewed as defiling the "pure sacrifice" of the community Eucharist. In the second place, they are required to be financially generous (4puUapyvpoug, 15:1). As I understand the situation, the bishops and deacons would be patrons of the community, men and women of social standing in the wider community and of sufficient wealth and property that they could host the eucharistic meal (and much later build churches) and further the work of the community.' In return they would receive the honor due to patrons. The difficulty seen in Did. 15 is that they are not receiving honor but instead contempt in comparison with the prophets and teachers. I do not see the bishops and deacons as emerging early catholic figures of the routinization of charisma,

47. This is how the local synagogues in the Diaspora were organized, as inscriptions show

(see also Rom 16:23: "Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you").

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

but as figures from the earliest communities like the "overseer" or mebaqger in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It is not the position of the bishops and deacons, which is surprising and calls for comment, but the position of the prophets and teachers. The fact that these figures are mentioned coming from outside the community (at least in the case of prophets) and as receiving special honor above the local patrons, would already signal that there is trouble. I have suggested'8 that the war in Palestine in 68-70 c.£. fundamentally changed the situation for the communities, in that Jerusalem was no longer the center of authority and also in that Jewish-Christian refugees from Palestine would have started arriving in large numbers seeking to settle in new places. Some of these may have had first-hand knowledge of the teaching of Jesus found in the so-called "Q" tradition, beyond what was available to the local community teachers and other functionaries. They would have attracted admiration and honor, which undermined the position of the patrons of the community and so endangered its stability.

In conclusion, then, the bishops and deacons are settled figures of the local community, responsible for contributing material and social assets to the community, with the role of oversight and service. They are patrons of the community who have the resources to assist the community and homes large enough to meet in: finance, influence in the wider community which might serve to protect the community and enhance its status in the wider society, education and administrative competence. The possession of their resources depended, of course, on their being settled and influential members of the wider local society. In return for their public contribution of resources, such functionaries receive honor, a prized commodity in the ancient world. Their ascribed honor, however, would be challenged by the acquired honor of charismatic figures, whose resources came directly from God and were not allowed to be tested.

3. SETTLED AND WANDERING FUNCTIONARIES IN THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

The genre of the Epistle of James has remained at the center of studies of this work, since Martin Dibelius*? argued that the work consisted of paraenesis, ethical commonplaces that had no particular order or structure and no 48. See Jonathan A. Draper, "Social Ambiguity and the Production of Text: Prophets,

Teachers, Bishops, and Deacons and the Development of the Jesus Tradition in the Community of the Didache," in The Didache in Context: Essays on its Text, History, and Transmission

(ed. C. N. Jefford; NovTSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 284-312; see also Draper, "Weber, Theissen, and 'Wandering Charismatics," 541-76. This idea is taken up also, at length, by Milavec,

Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life, 462-90.

49, Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (trans. P, Buttolph and A. Yarbro; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972).

See Raymond A. Martin, James (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

discernible tendenz. Recent studies have moved away from his form-critical approach towards seeing a far more coherent purpose and structure than Dibelius allowed.5° However, the Epistle of James gives little away about the nature of its community officials. Only elders and teachers are specifically mentioned.

Prophets and prophecy occur only once and then apparently with reference to the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures as examples of patience in suffering in 5:10.

Even if the reference were taken to be to Christian prophets, which is unlikely, it would tell us little except that the historical time of their active ministry was over since it is couched in the Aorist tense. This makes it unlikely that prophets were active in the community either inside it or from outside. However, as we shall see, there are aspects of the role of the teacher that touch on the typology of the prophet.

Apostles are never mentioned in James, but the office is implied by the letter.

James, whoever the person may be behind the use of the name, sends a letter to another community or communities among the Jewish Diaspora in which he, or the persona he has adopted, clearly has a recognized authority. He would have to send the letter with a delegated messenger who would be his apostle, speaking with the authority of the one who sent him, clarifying the message and taking the response of the community back with him to the author. Such letters could not circulate independently of messengers, arriving anonymously through the post as they might today. However, it is significant that James does not himself claim to be an apostle of Jesus; instead he designates himself simply "James, of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ slave" (1:1). Paul designates himself "Paul slave of Christ

Jesus called apostle" alongside his claim to have been designated as Christ's apostle by a special calling and set apart for the gospel of God in Rom 1:1 (see Phil 1:1).

The emphatic structure of the self-designation in James calls for comment. It may indicate that he considers such apostleship of the Lord to have been designated only to the Twelve, or it may be that his intention is polemical, in which case he is consciously adopting the role of the classical eiron.5! Then calling himself simply a "slave" and making no other claims to be an apostle is designed to puncture the pretences of others who make inflated claims that he and those who support him would consider illegitimate. In any case, the designation is not simply an imita50. E.g., Patrick J. Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (JSNTSup 47; Sheffield: JSOT,

1991); Wiard Popkes, "James and Paraenesis Reconsidered" in Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in their Textual and Situational Contexts (ed. T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm; Oslo: Scandinavian

University Press, 1995), 535-61; David H. Edgar, Has God not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James (JSNTSup 206; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).

51. See Aristotle, Eth.nic. 4.7.14-17. For summaries of the use of irony in classical literature, as this applies to biblical texts, see Douglas C. Muecke, The Compass of Irony (London:

Methuen, 1969); Edwin M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Sheffield: Almond, 1981); Jakob

Jonsson, Humour and Irony in the New Testament: Illuminated by Parallels in Talmud and Midrash (BZRGG 28; Leiden: Brill, 1985).

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

tion of Paul and seems to recall the designation ebed YHWH in Old Testament references to the great prophets and teachers in Israel's past. It also carries with it the claim that as a faithful servant of God and his designated messiah Jesus,

James's teaching carries their authority.52

The role of teacher seems to be prenounced in this short Epistle.53 Following the well-known discussion of the relationship between faith and works, where some are arguing, it would seem, for salvation by faith alone. James counters that faith apart from works is dead and continues with instructions concerning teachers, in which he makes it clear that he himself is a teacher: "we who teach will receive (Anjwoueba) greater judgment." It seems likely that there is a connection between the discussion on faith and works and his warning about teachers. Some teachers then appear to the author to be giving false teaching on this matter, which is causing dissension in the church, since after the instruction on teaching

James asks in 4:1, "What causes quarrels and dissensions among you?" The key Passage on teachers is found in 3:1-18:

Not many of you should become teachers (6:5ao0xaAot), my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness

(ueifov Kpiya AnuyoueGa). For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect (téAe1t0¢), able to keep the whole body

(kai 6Aov Td o@pa) in check with a bridle. If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies. Or look at ships: though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing.

My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water? Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh.

52. See the discussion in Edgar, Has God not Chosen the Poor?, 44-50.

53. Following Dibelius it became common to see James as a rather arbitrary and incoherent collection of traditional material on the form-critical basis that this was the nature of paraenesis. However, more recent work has begun to discover a distinctive over-arching world view in the text, an alternative Christian viewpoint in which the messiah is not a savior by virtue of his death and resurrection but a messiah who will return to "effect a violent purge of 'the wicked' and the restoration of Israel's twelve-tribe kingdom" (see Matt Jackson-McCabe, "The Messiah Jesus in the Mythic World of James," JBL 122 [2003]: 706). It is not irrelevant to our investigation that the same Christology and world view dominates the Didache.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

Who is wise and understanding (soos kai émotrpwv) among you? Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom

(cogiac). But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not be boastful and false to the truth. Such wisdom (cogia) does not come down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. For where there is envy and selfish ambition, there will also be disorder and wickedness of every kind. But the wisdom (cogia) from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy.

And a harvest of righteousness (Sixatoobvn¢) is sown in peace for those who make peace.

The danger with the teacher is that his teaching can guide the whole body: just as the bit in a horse's mouth or the rudder of a boat, his tongue can guide the community the way s/he wants to. It can be poisonous, inflammatory, and harmful because of its eloquence. For this reason the teacher will be severely judged.

Interestingly, there is no reference here to a specific body of accepted teaching that the teacher transmits and against which the teacher could be judged.

However, the emphasis on wisdom signals that the author stands in a particular tradition of wisdom teaching within Israel,>4 and the reference to the "harvest of righteousness" (see 1:20; 2:23) carries the connotation of fulfilling the requirements of the Torah as interpreted by the Christian community, as in Matthew and the Didache, in view of the frequent occurrence of vopo¢ in James (1:25;

2:8-13; 4:11-12). So too does the use of téAetoc, which has a key role also in Matthew and the Didache as we have seen, referring to fulfilment of Torah ("the whole yoke of the Lord" in Did. 6:2).

It is significant that what comes out of the teacher's mouth is judged in as much as it should be blessing not curses, like fresh water and edible fruit rather than like brackish water and inappropriate fruit. The language is reminiscent of Matthew's criteria for judging the prophet, but, significantly, the "fruit" envisaged by James is applied not to lifestyle but to what comes from the "tongue." Nevertheless it is not ultimately the content of the teaching on which they are judged but on the basis of their lifestyle ("show by your good life, etc."). The hallmark

54. As Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus, 63 rightly points out, "Wisdom admonitions concentrate attention on the teaching element." The wisdom instruction in James focuses firstly on the lifestyle appropriate for the believer here and now, and secondly on the eschatological promise for right conduct. Hartin provides an excellent discussion of the wisdom teaching and its relation to Q, but this content of the teaching is not really relevant to our discussion in this paper. Hartin's insistence on both present and future aspects of wisdom is taken even further by Todd C. Penner, The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient

Christian Letter (JSNTSup 121; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) who emphasizes the eschatological framework as determining the direction of the wisdom instruction. Matthew and the Didache have similar tensions between wisdom instruction and eschatological orientation, which suggest that wisdom and eschatology are not opposites but complementary.

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

of the true teacher, true wisdom, is equivalent to a life of purity, peacefulness, gentleness, mercy, sincerity and so on, which are described as the "harvest of righteousness" (3:18)—in other words the lifestyle of the teacher, the criterion also in Matthew and the Didache.

Since the content of the teaching may be tested against the yardstick of blessing God or cursing the neighbor, it probably does not have charismatic prophetic speech in mind.°S It is seen as equivalent to wisdom and not to revelation, which is mediated by the Spirit. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the criterion against which the teacher will be judged is lifestyle as in the case of prophets in the Didache and Matthew.

It could be said that the Epistle itself provides an exemplar of the teaching offered by the teachers addressed in James, since its author includes himself among them in the "we" of James 3:1. Massey Shepherd*® long ago pointed out that the letter seems to be structured around a central macarism in 1:25, and that it stands closely parallel to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (both the "Q" and the "M" traditions), though sometimes closer to the wording of Luke. Shepherd>7 notes the same phenomenon in Ignatius and the Didache, and argues for a dependence of these, together with James, on Matthew. However, given that the parallels are to "Q" and are never exactly parallel in any of these writings, it seems possible that all four writings reflect a widespread and well-known catechetical tradition, that may even pre-date the Jesus tradition in some respect and reflect Hasidic teaching traditions.**

If chapter four is understood as continuing the discussion of teachers, then the "asking and not receiving" relates to their request for financial or material resources from the community. They are understood as wanting the money for the wrong reasons "to spend on [their] passions." This is incompatible with the lifestyle that is a "harvest of righteousness," which is here also linked with the indwelling of the Spirit:

(4:4) Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. > Or do you suppose that it is for nothing that the scripture says, "God yearns jealously for the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"?

55. Though one should note Paul's test in 1 Cor 12:3: "Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says 'Let Jesus be cursed!' and no one can say

'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit."

56. Massey H. Shepherd, "The Epistle of James and the Gospel of Matthew," JBL 75 (1956)

42.

57. Ibid., 48.

58. Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 193-237.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

It seems that James imagines a certain asceticism as necessary for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and therefore for "speaking in the Spirit." Yet the message of the teachers cannot be equated with prophetic speech, since the whole point of the passage is that teachers should control their tongues like a rudder to steer a ship, rather than allow the Spirit to speak freely through them. There would seem to be no question of \ahodv év nvebpatit. However, all of this is somewhat obliquely stated. At best we can say that teachers are the main functionaries who emerge in the epistle and that they are viewed rather ambivalently. They are liable to give wrong teaching, to cause controversy and to be greedy in their appropriation of community resources. They will be judged on their lifestyle as well as the content of their teaching. The content of the teaching provided by the author of the epistle appears to draw on conventional Jewish and Hellenistic wisdom themes.

The only other recognizable functionaries in the Epistle of James are the body of the elders. In this well-known passage, James instructs the sick person to call together the elders, thus indicating an acknowledged group in the community with authority especially over prayer and ministry. They would then, necessarily, be resident and settled in local communities:

Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church (mpeoButépous tij¢ €xkKAnoiac) and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven.

Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest (5:14-18).

James H. Ropes®? gives many rabbinic parallels to the idea of prayer over the sick by a righteous man or rabbi (e.g., b. Ned. 39b; b. B. Bat. 116a). Indeed a group of four rabbis go to pray for R. Eliezer (b. Sanh. 101a). Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine whether the "elders" constitute an officially defined body of functionaries or simply the senior members of the community. It is likely that synagogue organization in the Diaspora would have had a group recognized as "elders," since the later rabbinic texts (e.g., b. Meg. 23b) require a group of at least ten or minyan to constitute a legal assembly. While the quorum may have been a later innovation since it is not uniformly practiced, it seems to me to reflect an earlier understanding that a synagogue is constituted and organized by a group of elders.

59. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James (ICC; Edinburgh:

T&T Clark, 1916), 304.

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

Oil was a widely recognized medium for healing in the ancient world.

Prayer and anointing with oil sound like a reference to liturgical and ritual practice rather than charismatic acts of power in the Spirit. Faith and righteousness, together with the invocation of the "Name of the Lord," are the source of the prayer's effectiveness. It is interesting, however, that their ministry is compared with that of the prophet Elijah engaged in a charismatic and miraculous exercise of power. On the other hand, Elijah's common humanity is emphasized and not his special charismatic endowment ('HAiag &vOpwrog Hv Sporonabiis Hpiv). It is the faith and righteousness of the elders that is effective and not their possession of the Spirit. In any case, the exercise of healing power by the elders perhaps implies activity under the control of the community rather than deeds of power by charismatic figures, since they do not take the initiative but are called in (mpooxareodo8w, 5:14).

In most respects, then, it may be said that James does not fit easily in the same frame of reference with regard to functionaries as Matthew and the Didache, who do share a common framework. There are apostles bringing messages from the outside, from a recognized figure of authority, real or pretended—whether or not this letter comes from the historical James of Jerusalem or not cannot ever be proved or disproved. Apart from that, there are powerful resident teachers who direct the affairs of the community like a horse's bit or a ship's rudder. Then there are settled elders in the community, who are righteous, full of faith, and may in some respects be compared with the prophet Elijah "as a human being with a nature like theirs."

4. CONCLUSION

The wealth and complexity of the data from the three texts is difficult to bring into any neat and coherent pattern for the purposes of comparison. However, there are commonalities and connections as well as differences. The Didache and Matthew express a more clearly comparable set of figures and relations, where charismatic figures are portrayed as active and regarded with mixed feelings, while James seems to fit in an environment more closely related to wisdom than to charisma. Nevertheless, there are points of agreement between all three writings as well.

In both Didache and Matthew, apostles are associated with prophets in some way. In Matthew, Jesus's authentic disciples are sent by Jesus and so are his apostles but they also carry on the role of the true prophets in Israel who went before them, while false prophets also claim to be sent by the Lord to prophesy, perform exorcisms and do miracles in his name and hence claim to be apostles in the sense of bearing delegated authority. In Didache false apostles are called "false proph60. See ibid., 305-7 for examples.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

ets." In both texts these figures seem to be mobile, coming into the community from outside and, while highly honored, they are also feared as potentially dangerous (wolves masquerading as sheep in Matthew or sheep turned into wolves in Didache). The danger seems to be associated with anti-nomism. They engage in acts of power and live a hard and dangerous life. Hospitality should be extended to them but they may not ask for money. They speak in the Spirit and may only be tested by their lifestyle, which should match that of their Lord. Their teaching and lifestyle must be consistent. According to Didache, prophets may settle in the community and must be supported by it. Apostles, on the other hand, in keeping with their nature as delegated representatives on a temporary mission, may not settle or even linger in the community. In Matthew, alternatively, apostles are sent by the risen Lord on a permanent mission to make disciples of all nations.

They may even be the foundations of the church (if Jesus's designation of Peter as the rock on which he will build the church is allowed as an example rather than a one-time designation of authority). Both texts also associate prophets with teachers (at least in Matt 23:34 "sages and scribes" are "sent" by Jesus along with the prophets, while in the Didache teachers are named alongside the prophets in chapters 11:3, 13:1-2 and 15:1-2).

While James mentions neither, this profile of the apostles and prophets in Matthew and Didache matches the description of the teachers in the Epistle of James in significant although indirect ways. In the first place, while prophets are nowhere explicitly mentioned as active in James's community, the teachers' role is associated with God's Spirit "that he has made to dwell in us" in 4:4 (if teachers are still in mind at this point). What is different is the insistence in James that the teachers should be in control of what they say, since the tongue is like a horse's bit or a ship's rudder (3:2-5). In Did. 11:7, on the other hand, "speaking in the Spirit" is not to be controlled, though nothing is said about whether the prophet him/ herself is personally in control of what is being said. Nothing requires that the "speaking in the Spirit" is ecstatic speech or glossolalia. Secondly, the specific problem that is incompatible with the indwelling of God's Spirit in James is a desire to get (money) to spend on their material desires (4:1-3), just as it is for apostles and prophets in Did. 11:6, 12 and seemingly in Matt 10:9. Further, and most significantly, the teachers must be tested by their lifestyle in Jas 3:10-12, as in Did, 11:8 and Matt 7:15-23.

Both Didache and Matthew (with reservations about the use of the title) value teachers and associate them with the maintenance of traditional teaching

(Two Ways, Torah). In both texts, the content of the authoritative teaching that is set on the lips of Jesus and entrusted to the apostles largely consists of "Q" tradition (the Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5-7 given by Jesus to the apostles in the presence of the mixed crowds of Jews and Gentiles, and the material inserted into the Two Ways in Did. 1:3-6 under the rubric "teaching of the Lord through the apostles to the Gentiles"). Moreover, in both texts nothing must be taken away from what has been passed on, though it may be added to: Did. 11:1-2

APOSTLES, TEACHERS, AND EVANGELISTS

allows "adding to righteousness," which Matthew also allows in terms of "greater righteousness" than the Pharisees. Matthew affirms the kind of teaching authority accorded to the scribes and Pharisees but not their lifestyle.

Teachers ("sages and scribes") may be "sent" by Jesus and so perhaps be temporarily mobile as apostles, but they seem to be settled in the communities. In Didache it appears that at least some teachers (or "teaching functionaries") must be located within settled communities, since the daily meeting of the teacher with catechumens in the Didache would require continuity, and Matthew can associate the role of teaching with "a seat." On the other hand, the community of the Didache is warned in 11:1-2 against those who come and teach another teaching

(function as teachers) to destroy the teaching they have already received. In both

Matt 5-7, 28:20 and the "second title" of the Didache, as well as the Two Ways generally, the content of the teaching is associated with "the Lord," while the teaching activity itself is associated with catechesis ("making disciples"). James seems to envisage teachers as settled local functionaries, indeed the most important functionaries in the community, but little is said concerning the body of teaching they present, beyond what is contained in the letter coming from one who is himself a teacher. His teaching is coming from outside the community and anyone delegated to bring the letter to the community would also be functioning as a teacher. Like Matthew and the Didache, James has, as has often been noted, important links with "Q" tradition.

The (Twelve/ Eleven) Apostles may be sent "by the Lord" with authority to teach the Gentiles in Matthew and the Didache. However the word is also used in the latter, it seems, to designate routine representatives passing through on an embassy who may not stay longer than one or at most two days. In addition, we have seen that the Didache associates apostles and prophets in 11:3 and describes false apostles as "false prophets." Similarly, the role of the apostles in Matthew's story of the sending of the Twelve is (inversely) close to that of (false) prophets.

James does not mention prophets or apostles. He does not even explicitly claim apostolic authority for himself, preferring the designation "servant/ slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ." However, as we have noted, the sending of a letter would necessitate the delegation of authority to an "apostle" who could support the written text with verbal explanation and elaboration. Significantly, James does not address his letter to "all nations," but instead to "the twelve tribes scattered throughout the world." It is a moot point whether this represents a limitation of mission to Jews only, or whether the twelve tribes represent the new Israel in a supersessionist sense.

Bishops, deacons, and elders are nowhere in sight in Matthew, and neither are any other settled community functionaries. This may be to do with the nature of the gospel as narrative of the period of Jesus's ministry. In any case, the commission to Peter to be the rock on which the church will be built points in the direction of emerging settled leadership. Didache, as we have seen, knows of bishops and deacons whose qualities are not "charismatic" in the sense in which

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

we have used the word, nor itinerant, since they are elected/appointed by the community and not designated by the Spirit. Their qualities match those one would expect in patrons who would serve (Jeitourgia) the community and receive honor in exchange: humility, generosity, truthfulness, being tried and tested.

These qualities are under threat from the service of the prophets (who seem to come from outside and settle in the community) and teachers, who are receiving the honor due to the local patrons of the community. James knows teachers who seem to be the leading settled functionaries of the community, but also knows local "elders of the church" who form a body and can be called to prayer of "faith" and to anoint the sick with oil. This, however, seems to me less.a "liturgical act" of a designated functionary class than the formal assembly of the senior members of the community, who would have the responsibility for its governance. They may be compared with the prophet Elijah, but only as a righteous man who was

"human like us" and whose prayer was effective.

In sum, this study has shown the extent to which the conditions and relations in Matthew and Didache overlap, in a way that could not be explained by literary borrowing, but rather from their origin in a common milieu of mission and ministry. While Matthew does not speak of the bishops and deacons who appear briefly in the Didache as under threat from the prestige of prophets and teachers, his gospel does envisage the foundation of a "church" and other signs of the emergence of settled community relations. Otherwise, apostles, prophets, and teachers loom large on the horizon of both texts. Teachers and elders appear to provide a settled leadership in the community addressed by James, while the letter and its author provide some evidence of a continuing exchange of leadership and teaching beyond the local community that would require apostolic delegations in the general sense. All three writings appear concerned about false leaders who seek to exploit the community financially, as well as to give false teaching, and all three see the lifestyle of the leader as the appropriate test of authenticity.

THE IDEAL COMMUNITY ACCORDING TO MATTHEW,

JAMES, AND THE DIDACHE

Wim J. C. Weren The Gospel according to Matthew, the Letter of James, and the Didache originate from local religious communities that were Jewish-Christian in nature.

Their contemporary situation was characterized by the fact that they—each in their own way—were looking for an identity of their own and a joint ethos that bound the members of these communities together and simultaneously differentiated them from other Jewish and pagan groups in their environment. The communities were aware of the tension between their own ideals and the complex daily reality. Their course was not only determined by developments within their own circle, but also by strategic choices and developments in other groups they felt related to and by groups that they saw as their rivals or even as their direct opponents.

, In this contribution, I will explore what images of the ideal community in Matthew, James and the Didache played a role in this process. I will present the results of a semantic analysis of three topics: a) the way in which the community refers to itself; b) the community's relationship to God and Jesus; and c) the concept of perfection.

The following lexemes are central: éxxAnoia, 8edc, Inood<s Xptotéc, and tée10¢. I will explore what connotations these terms acquire because, within the document in which they occur, they are incorporated into a wider semantic field that also includes words that derive from the same root or that are related to each other with respect to their meaning. This semantic field also contains contrasting concepts and antonyms.! In this semantic analysis, I will assume that a text is not an isolated phenomenon, but operates in a communicative context and has

1. See Hubert Frankemdlle, "Das semantische Netz des Jakobusbriefes. Zur Einheit eines umstrittenen Briefes," BZ 34 (1990): 174. Louw and Nida's lexicon, in which the New Testament vocabulary is grouped in semantic fields, is a helpful tool: Johannes P. Louw and Eugene

A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2 vols.;

2nd ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1989).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

a pragmatic function. At the end of this contribution, I will try to synthesize the results and determine how the perceptions of the ideal community that emerge from Matthew, James, and the Didache relate to each other.

1.'EkkAnoia AS A TERM WITH WHICH THE COMMUNITY REFERS TO ITSELF

Matthew, James, and the Didache have in common that the Christian community is referred to as éxxAnota. In non-biblical Greek, this term is applied to a congregation of people who belong to a particular group, especially a sociopolitical society. In the Septuagint, éxxAnoia is the translation of Srp ("assembly, convocation of the people [especially of Israel]")? and refers to the congregation of Israel as a nation or religious community. In addition to éxxAngoia, the term ovvaywyt is also attested in the Septuagint. There it sometimes also reflects 97 but usually my ("congregation [of Israel]").3 Therefore, éxkAnoia and ovvaywyh in the Septuagint can, to a certain extent, be considered synonyms occurring side by side without any conflict of meaning.

1.1. MATTHEW

In Matthew, éxxAnoia occurs three times. Matthew is the only evangelist who uses this word. In 18:17, he brings éxxAnoia in connection with the assembly of a local Christian group taking disciplinary measures against a member who is a threat to the community. The assembly protects the cohesion of the group and clearly distinguishes itself from outsiders, who are referred to as "tax collectors" and "Gentiles." In 16:18, €kxAnoia is applied to all the Christian communities together. In translations, the difference is usually signaled by the use of the term

"church." It is explicitly referred to as the church of Jesus, which is based on its faith in him as the Son of God. Within this universal community, Peter has the power to keep the Torah alive by taking decisions on what is allowed and what is forbidden. In doing so, he must take Jesus's interpretation of the Law as a point of departure, and not the teachings of the scribes and the Pharisees (16:12;

23:13), The word éxxAnoia thus indicates a community of like-minded people that considers itself to be an intra-Jewish group and therefore distinct from the Gentiles but also from other Jewish groups who do not perceive Jesus as the focus of their faith and actions.

In contrast to the Septuagint, Matthew creates a distinction between éxkAnoia and ovvaywyn. The term éxxAnoia is reserved for the disciples of Jesus, and ovvaywyr is used exclusively for local centers of Jewish religious life which,

2. KBL, 829.

3. KBL, 682-83.

THE IDEAL COMMUNITY

in his time, was strongly dominated by the Pharisaic movement; the relations of his own communities with this movement were strained.

The situation depicted here can further be specified on the basis of some terms used in Matthew for socio-religious groups and classes of people:

+ The terms \adc and oikog Topar\ both indicate the people of Israel as a nation and as a religious community (on the basis of Old Testament 0", Aadc has the connotation of "people of God"). Matthew observes a particular distinction between the people and its leaders. Whereas the leaders are hostile to Jesus, there is a close relationship between Jesus and the people: he must save his people from their sins (1:21), he is the shepherd of his people Israel (2:6), he is a light that has dawned on the people who sat in darkness (4:16), and his ministry is primarily aimed at the lost sheep from the house of Israel (15:24; see also 10:5-6). Even after "the people as a whole" (mac 6 Aadc), incited by the chief priests and the elders, has declared before Pilate that it takes the responsibility for the execution of Jesus (27:25), the chief priests and the elders continue to fear that the people will be receptive to the message of his disciples that he has risen from the dead

(27:64). The use of these terms thus indicates that Matthew's community shows an openness for the people of Israel and that the gospel of Matthew does not offer any grounds for the idea, which later came to prevail, that the Christian community saw itself as the new Israel.4

¢ In 8:11-12, the expression "the children of the kingdom" is still an honorary title or a prerogative of the people of Israel, but in 13:38, this epithet is transferred to Jesus's disciples. This does not imply that the community saw itself as the circle of people in which the kingdom of heaven had been fully realized> and which would therefore be sure of eschatological salvation.® Rather, the community is aware of being a corpus mixtum and realizes that a separation of the good and the bad can only be made on the basis of ethical criteria at the final judgment.

4. Often Matt 21:43 is taken as evidence that the Matthean community saw itself as the nation that replaced the rejected Israel. However, the statement in this verse is aimed against the Pharisees (see 21:45) and must not be read as a condemnation of the entire Jewish people.

The very vague term "people" does not necessarily refer to a people other than Israel, nor must that people be identified with the church or with the Gentiles; if that had been the case, Matthew would have chosen the term éxxAnoia or ta E8vn. See Wim J. C. Weren, "The Use of Isaiah 5,1-7 in the Parable of the Tenants (Mark 12,1-12; Matthew 21,33-46)," Bib 79 (1998):

1-26.

5. For an opposing view, see Henry Wansbrough, "The New Israel: The Community of Matthew and the Community of Qumran," SNTSU. Serie A/25 (2000): 8-22.

6. For an opposing view, see Petri Luomanen, "Corpus Mixtum: An Appropriate Description of Matthew's Community?" JBL 117 (1998): 469-80. This article is critically discussed by Robert H. Gundry, "In Defense of the Church in Matthew as a Corpus Mixtum," ZNW

(2000): 153-65.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

1.2. JAMES

The term éxkAngia is also used by James, but only once (5:14), in a passage in which the elders of the community pronounce a prayer over a sick person and anoint him with oil with the hoped-for effect that the Lord will cure the sick person. The elders here play a role in healing the sick, whereas in Matt 10:8 such a role is reserved for the twelve apostles. In Jas 5:14, éxxAnoia refers to a local

Christian group.

In 2:2, ovvaywy?) bp@v is mentioned, the only time that ovvaywyn occurs in this letter. Given the possessive pronoun, the word ovvaywy? is used here for an assembly of a Christian community and is synonymous with éxxAngia as used in 5:14. The use of these two terms as synonyms also occurs in the Septuagint, but not in Matthew.

Text-critically, it is disputed whether ovvaywyr in 2:2 is accompanied by the definite article. If this is the case, the emphasis is on the cvvaywyr) as a building; if not, the term refers to an assembly of the community members.' It is beyond the scope of this paper to speculate on the possibility that the Christian group gathers in a local synagogue that is also used by other Jewish groups. However, it is clear that the use of cvvaywyr does not raise the slightest suggestion of a polemic attitude towards Jewish groups challenging the Christian community's right to exist.

In the prescript (1:1), the addressees of the letter are described as "the twelve tribes in Dispersion." What image does this characterization create of the communities to whom this letter was directed? In answering this question, I will focus on the composing parts of the description used. "Dispersion" can be interpreted metaphorically (the Christian communities are living "in foreign parts" since their true homeland is the heavenly kingdom; see Phil 3:20; Heb 11:13; 1

Pet 1:1, 17; 2:11), but also literally (the addressees live in Dispersion, in areas outside Palestine, among non-Jews; see John 7:35, where the Dispersion is a geographical reference). I prefer the second option. Within this interpretation, the term Dispersion contributes to a further specification of James's readers: it refers to followers of Jesus who thought their Jewishness essential to their identity, irrespective of their ethnic origin. Following many Old Testament and early Jewish texts, the author of the letter sees the Dispersion as a situation that is far from ideal and, with this term, evokes hopes of a future restoration of the one Israel.8

This image is confirmed by his referring to "the twelve tribes." The first meaning of this term is the people of Israel as the physical descendants of the 7. See Luke T. Johnson, The Letter of James (AB 37A; New York: Doubleday 1995), 221pe

8. See Donald J. Verseput, "Genre and Story: The Community Setting of the Epistle of James," CBQ 62 (2000): 99-101.

THE IDEAL COMMUNITY

twelve sons of Jacob. As a result of the spreading of the people over areas outside the country of Israel, the term also became charged with the hope that God would reunite this people. In some eschatological texts (e.g., Matt 19:28 // Luke

22:30; Rev 7:4-8; 21:12), this reunification does not take place until the end of time. By calling his readers "the twelve tribes in the Dispersion," the author tells them that they belong to the one Israel, if not physically, at least in a spiritual sense. Because this letter further focuses on the internal problems of the community and treats these issues without raising disputes with Jewish groups outside the community, the readers possibly included those who had no trouble linking their faith in God and/or Jesus with their belonging to the one Israel.9

1.3. DIDACHE

In the Didache, éxxAnoia occurs four times. In 4:14 ("in the assembly [év éxkAnoiq] you shall confess your faults"), a meeting in a local house-church is meant, probably for joint prayer (émi mpooevyriv), which requires a clear conscience. In 11:11, xxAnoia occurs in a statement on a prophet who acts in a way that is incompatible with what he teaches to others. On the basis of the criterion formulated in 11:10, a prophet who does not practice what he preaches should be considered a false prophet. In 11:11, however, an exception is made to this rule.

There are also prophets who will be judged by God alone, not by the community.

It is suggested that the prophet in question does not do less than what he asks others to do, but in fact more. In the light of 6:2, it is likely that this extra effort consists of bearing the entire yoke of the Lord. That such a prophet may not be disqualified appears from the positive descriptions in 11:11: he is "proved true and acts on behalf of the earthly mystery of the church." "ExxAnoia here refers to the church everywhere in the world. Apart from the local community, éxxAnota thus also refers to the universal church, in both the Didache and in Matthew.

The term further appears in two eucharistic prayers to God:

9:4 "May your church be gathered into your kingdom from the ends of the earth."

10:5 "Be mindful, Lord, of your church, to preserve it from all evil, and to perfect it in your love. And, once it is sanctified, gather it from the four winds, into the kingdom which you have prepared for it."

In these prayers, the church of God (see ov) throughout the world is meant. The words of the prayer in 9:4 are repeated almost literally in 10:5, but this second

9. For an opposing view, see Sophie Laws, "Epistle of James," ABD 3:623, where the twelve tribes in the Diaspora are seen as the ideal description of the community in its role of the new, true Israel in the world.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

prayer contains two new elements: a) the church is not yet perfect, it must be protected from evil by God and has not yet been fully sanctified; b) nonetheless,

God has prepared his kingdom for it. As concerns contents, these prayers are related to Jewish prayers before and after meals in which God is asked to reunite

Israel. There is also a connection with James's hope that the Christian communities living in the Dispersion will participate in this united Israel. In the Didache, the term &xxAnoia does not have the connotation, encountered in Matthew, of contrast with the wider Jewish community or certain movements within it.

A certain awareness of the own distinct identity is expressed with the term Xptotiavoc in 12:4. This word is used in the context of warnings against profiteers who do not work themselves but live off the community, and may have been chosen to contrast with xpiotéumopos in 12:5 ("someone who is trading on Christ").

1.4. CONCLUSION

The analysis of éxxAnoia in Matthew, James, and the Didache shows that this term is used to refer to separate house-churches as well as to the totality of such communities, the universal church. In Matthew, the concept has a polemic connotation and is used to emphasize the contrast with other Jewish groups to which the Matthean communities felt related but whose claim of being the authentic guardians of Israel's heritage they disputed. Matthew held the view that this position pre-eminently belongs to his own communities. The dispersion of the communities to areas where Jews are a minority is central in James and the Didache. Within that situation, the emphasis is on the future restoration of the one Israel, which, also for the Christian communities, is both a comfort and a challenge.

2. THE COMMUNITY IN ITS RELATIONSHIP TO GOD AND JESUS

2.1. MATTHEW

In his attempt to give the community an own identity, Matthew emphasizes that it must not be led by human precepts (15:9; see also 16:17,23)—of which he accuses Jesus's opponents—but must be guided by the God-given revelation conveyed by Jesus (11:25-27; 16:17). The power to understand this revelation and know the secrets of the kingdom (13:11) is also a gift of God.

The community has been planted by God (15:13), its members are "children of God" (5:10, 45), and they consider God to be their only Father (23:9). Their ultimate goal is also with God: theirs shall be the kingdom (5:3, 10) and as "children of the kingdom" (13:38) the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father (13:43; see also 25:34), on the condition that they attune their

THE IDEAL COMMUNITY

actions to the ethical requirements bound up with the road that leads to life (e.g.,

6:33; 7:13-14).

The community is also bound to Jesus. The church is his church (16:18); its members are the good seed sown by the Son of Man (13:37) and they must perceive Jesus's words (7:24—25) and the belief that he is the Messiah, the Son of the living God (16:16-17), as the foundation on which their community is built.

In the gospel according to Matthew, whose literary genre is related to the biographies from the Greco-Roman world, Jesus is the main character of the story. He is almost continuously surrounded by his disciples.!° Although occasionally "the twelve disciples" are mentioned (10:1; 11:1; 20:37), the group of disciples cannot be limited to twelve persons, as is shown, in addition to a few broad descriptions of the group of disciples (5:48; 12:50; 16:24), by the fact that pavGavw ("to learn") and paSntevw, verbs related to pants, indicate that becoming a disciple is a possibility that is open to a larger group of people.!!

The meaning of pa8nti)¢ is co-determined by the frequent combination with di5aoxKakoc. Jesus's disciples have one teacher and they all are his students (23:8).

They must not only be loyal to Jesus's teachings, but also have a deep personal relationship with him that they value so highly that it even takes precedence over 10. Ma8nti¢ only occurs in the New Testament in the Gospels and in Acts (a total of 262 times; 72 times in Matt, 46 times in Mark, 37 times in Luke, 78 times in John, and 28 times in Acts). The general meaning of paSnrtic is "learner, pupil, apprentice" (LSJ, 1072). See also

Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wérterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der friihchristlichen Literatur (6th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), cols. 985-86: "1. d. Lehrling, d.

Schiller; 2. d. Jiinger, d. Anhanger [. . .] oft m. Angabe dessen, dem man anhangt, meist im

Gen." The term paSnti< is gender-neutral and can refer to a man as well as to a woman. Greek also has the terms paOAtpia and pantpic to refer to female disciples (e.g., Acts 9:36; Gos. Pet.

12.50; Acts Paul 2.9).

The Hebrew equivalent of pa®nth¢ is TOYN (in Aramaic: N7N9N), a substantive that is derived from the verb 1905. In the Hebrew Bible, 7°29n only occurs in 1 Chr 25:8. Ma®nt1\¢ does not appear in the generally accepted text traditions of the Septuagint. However, this word does occur in three alternative readings, witnessed by A, with an obscure meaning (Jer 13:21;

20:11; 26:9). In the Septuagint, the Hebrew term used in 1 Chr 25:8 is reflected by the participle pavOavovtec.

The term 17n5n is quite common in the rabbinical literature, in which a disciple is someone who is taught by a rabbi and who is initiated by his master into the Written and Oral

Torah. In the learning process, the emphasis is on the development of a loyal attitude towards the Torah, not on the personal relationship with the teacher. A student can join subsequent masters and, when fully qualified, he can become a teacher himself. The profile of the ynbn in the rabbinical literature is related to that of the student in the philosopher's schools in the Hellenistic world.

11. The substantive panic is connected to the pa6-stem verbs pavOavw ("to learn, to acquire a habit of / to be accustomed to / to perceive / to understand") and paOntevw ("to be a follower or a disciple of someone"), the transitive meaning of which is "to cause someone to become a disciple or a follower."

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

family relationships and that they take their cue from him as the example for their own actions (they endure everything "for his sake," they act "in his name").

They are therefore not to be called "rabbi" (23:8) and they are not to follow other teachers such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees, whose teachings are rejected as wicked (16:12). When—fully taught—they themselves start to teach, they will continue to be bound by Jesus's teachings (5:19; 28:20) and must resist the ambition to develop into leaders of their own school with their own teachings.

That the disciples are reported in Matthew as having little faith, troubled by doubt, does not make them unfit for the task to continue Jesus's mission.

Although the Pharisees fear that the disciples are capable of even worse deception than Jesus (27:63-64), according to the evangelist, there is not the slightest risk that they will disseminate deviant doctrines. This danger is simply non-existent because God has given them the ability to understand what Jesus is telling them and to know the secrets of the kingdom (13:11, 51; 16:12; 17:13). During their worldwide mission trips, they can moreover be ensured that Jesus, who is also called Emmanuel (1:23), will remain bound to them (28:20).

In Matthew, Jesus is thus the heart of the community. Matthew's concept of the community is strongly colored by the way in which he portrays Jesus.

2.2. JAMES

The close relationship between God and the community is such a frequent subject in James's letter that Frankemélle is of the opinion that the entire letter is theocentrically oriented: "Gottes Handeln auf die Menschen hin bildet Mastab und Erméglichung fiir das von Jakobus angezielte neue Handeln der Christen, ebenso ist Gottes Sein vorgegebenes Ideal fiir menschliches Sein."!3 This assertion is based on a large number of textual data, a few of which I will mention here. The author assumes that his readers believe that there is only one God

(2:19), who is also the only lawgiver and judge (4:12). To this one God, he gives the titles of "Lord" (1:7; 3:9; 4:15; 5:4, 10, 11, 15) and "Father" (1:17, 27; 3:9).

The communities originate from God: he has chosen the addressees (2:5), he has planted his word in them (1:21), and he bestows the wisdom from above (1:5;

3:15, 17) and grace (4:6). The eschatological salvation is also in his hands: he has promised the crown of life to those who love him (1:12) and he is able to save and destroy (4:12). He is already bestowing this life on the members of the community, who are the first fruits among his creatures and thus have a special status

(1:18). The communities must therefore submit to God (4:7-8) and choose the friendship with God over friendship with the world; in doing so, they follow in 12. See Wim J. C. Weren, De broeders van de Mensenzoon: Mt 25,31-46 als toegang tot de eschatologie van Matteiis (Amsterdam: Bolland, 1979), 188-94.

13. Frankemidlle, "Das semantische Netz," 182.

THE IDEAL COMMUNITY

the track of Abraham, who is God's friend and their father. They must not be carried away by their own desires, as a result of which they fall prey to all kinds of temptations, which are not of God's making (1:13-18). Two ways emerge here, one of which leads to life and the other to death (see Matt 7:13-14 and particularly the doctrine of the Two Ways in the Didache).

The author pays relatively little attention to the figure of Jesus. In 1:1, he calls himself "a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." The double proper name "Jesus Christ" also occurs in 2:1, again accompanied by the title of "Lord."

This title is also applied to Jesus—without his name being mentioned—in 5:7, 8, 14 in connection with his coming in the eschatological age. In total, Jesus's name is only mentioned twice. This is remarkable since the letter contains many statements that show a striking correspondence to words, which, in Matthew or Q or in other collections such as the Gospel of Thomas, are spoken by Jesus. In the letter, the words are not explicitly attributed to Jesus. The author presents these words as if they are his own. This may be connected to the fact that the idea that Jesus should be the only teacher is totally missing here. In fact, many teachers are mentioned, and the author seems to count himself among them, given the use of the first person plural in 3:1. James also reflects the idea that the members of the community are the bearers of a special knowledge, which they owe to God, but which is conveyed by teachers who are active in the community.

2.3. DIDACHE

The author of the Didache is also fully convinced of the close tie between God and the community. Not only is the community in his hand, he is also the Creator of the world, the almighty Lord (Séonotn¢ navtoxpatwp), who has made all things and who provides mankind with food and drink (10:3; see also 1:2).

Within this broad orientation on all mankind, the community occupies a special place, because it moreover is provided by God with spiritual food and drink and eternal life. The statement in 10:2 shows a connection with Matt 11:25: God has made his holy name to dwell in the hearts of the faithful and has granted them revelation through his servant Jesus. Thus, the community is a bearer of special knowledge that opens the way to eternal life. According to 4:9-10, the community is convinced that it was called into existence by God and that it is inspired by his Spirit. God is not influenced by someone's social status. The community consists of men and women from various social strata, but they are now united by their joint focus on the fear of the Lord and their hope in the same God. The social differences within the community are leveled on the basis of the idea of the one God who is above all.

The name "Jesus" is mentioned in 9:2, 3 and 10:2, always in combination with the epithet "your servant" (maic cov), with which David is also referred to.

In 9:4, the name "Jesus Christ" is part of a doxology addressed to God. As in

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

James, "Lord" is used to refer to both God and Jesus.!4 In the phrase "to bear the entire yoke of the Lord" (6:2), "the Lord" probably refers to God and to doing his will, which is to be found in the Torah.

The relationship between the community and Jesus is further clarified along three lines: e Unlike James, the Didache sometimes explicitly attributes a statement to Jesus (9:5: "the Lord has said") or refers to "his gospel" (8:2; 15:4) or "the gospel" (11:3; 15:3).

* Activities like baptism (9:5) or missionary work (12:1) happen "in the name of the Lord," and office-bearers in the community, like bishops and deacons, must be worthy of the Lord (15:1); the addressees must receive itinerant teachers and apostles "as the Lord" (11:2, 4), but they must beware of prophets who do not reflect the ways of the Lord (11:8). e The community's eagerly looking forward to eschatological salvation is expressed in the eucharistic prayers and, in the final chapter, which is often seen as an appendix, is linked to the eagerly awaited coming of Jesus (16:1,

7, 8).

2.4. CONCLUSION

In each of the three documents, the community's profile contains a focus on God and Jesus. In James and the Didache, the focus on God is very prominent, whereas, in Matthew, the close relationship to Jesus is elaborated. In each of the three documents, this relationship is the source of special knowledge, which enables the community to find the way to eternal life and to distinguish itself from surrounding groups.

3. THE CONCEPT OF PERFECTION

The adjective téAgtog occurs nineteen times in the New Testament; in Matthew we find this term three times (5:48 [twice]; 19:21), and in James five times

(1:4 [twice], 17, 25; 3:2). The word also appears in the Didache (1:4; 6:2). In each of the three documents, this term is used to describe the ideal behavior of the community. The word has a broad lexical meaning. It indicates that something or someone is complete, without defect, and in that sense perfect.!5 Sometimes the term means full-grown, mature; téAeto¢ specifically indicates that someone is

14, In the Didache, "the Lord" refers to God in 4:1 [twice]; 4:12, 13; 10:5; 14:3 [twice]; to Jesus in 8:2; 9:5 [twice]; 10:6; 11:2, 4, 8; 12:1; 14:1; 15:1, 4; 16:1, 7, 8; see also papavaGd in 10:6.

15. LSJ, 1769-70.

THE IDEAL COMMUNITY

ethically perfect.!© In some places in the Septuagint, téAetoc reflects DON ("complete, intact, incontestable, blameless") and expresses unconditional devotion to God and not to the idols.!7 God himself is never called perfect, but his work, his word, and his law are perfect.!8

In this paragraph, I will discuss how the general meanings of té\eto¢ are semantically colored in Matthew, James, and the Didache, also in light of the wider semantic field in which the word occurs there.

3.1. MATTHEW

In 5:48, Jesus calls on his disciples to be perfect as (or: because) their heavenly Father is perfect. This appeal is an allusion to God's appeal to Israel in Lev

19:2!9 and forms the conclusion to the six antitheses (5:21-47), in particular the sixth of that series (5:43-47). That God is perfect means, according to 5:45, that he takes care of all people without distinguishing between the good and the evil or between the righteous and the unrighteous. In this way, he is an example on which the community members must model themselves: they must try to become children of God (5:9). What they must do to achieve this is expressed in the opening sentence of the sixth antithesis on the basis of the commandment of love from Lev 19:18 (@yamnoeic tov MANGiov cov, here without the addition wc ceavtdv), to which is linked the statement that one should hate one's enemy. This addition, of which there is no known parallel in Scripture or in early Jewish literature, creates an antithesis within 5:43 between "neighbor" in the sense of fellow believer, and "enemy" in the sense of a person from outside the community of faith. This more limited meaning of mAnoiov contrasts sharply with Lev 19, where loving one's neighbor also includes loving the alien (compare Lev 19:18 with 19:34). In his comment on the thesis from 5:43, Jesus chooses the same broadening approach that can be found in Lev 19. His listeners must not limit the concept of mAnoiov to those whom they love (5:46; see also 5:47: "their brothers and sisters") but must also treat outsiders as their brothers and sisters, also if they are hostile to the community. In principle, this means that the community must break down the walls that separate them from other groups. The love towards the neighbor is free from all discrimination and requires equal treatment of insiders and outsiders. The Christian community's ethos thus defined is said to go far beyond that of the "tax collectors" and the "Gentiles" (mepioodv = "beyond the customary

16. L&N 1:746: "perfect in the sense of not lacking any moral quality"; Bauer, Wérterbuch, col.1614: "auf sittl. Gebiet volkommen."

17. KBL, 1031-32; see also Gerhard Delling, "téAetoc," TWNT 8:68-89.

18. Luke L. Cheung, The Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics of James (Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003), 181, n. 22.

19. See also Deut 18:13 in the version of the Septuagint: téAe10¢ gop évavtiov Kupiov Tob

Qe00 cov.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

measure"), Whether this does justice to these groups' own norms and values is a question that is not addressed in this text. The community's inside perspective determines its view of the outsiders.

Within the Sermon on the Mount, the appeal in 5:48 to be perfect is related to 5:20 where Jesus demands a righteousness that differs qualitatively from the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees (neptooevon meiov in 5:20 parallels neptoo6v in 5:47). While 5:43-47 is focused on the difference between the community and the world of the Gentiles, in 5:20 the difference with (other)

Jewish groups is at the forefront. This is probably a polemic against the allegation voiced by these groups that Jesus is deficient in observing God's Torah.

Matthew's community turns this allegation around: not they but the others are deficient. Only the exceptional righteousness to be practiced by the disciples gives access to the kingdom of heaven. This suggests that access to the kingdom is denied to the scribes and the Pharisees. The disciples' exceptional righteousness implies that they must abide by Jesus's interpretation of the Torah. His explanation of the Law is characterized by the following principles: a) the Torah, which expresses God's will, must be maintained fully, to the smallest detail; b) within the Torah, there is a certain hierarchy of values; minor commandments can be distinguished from the weighty ones, but that minor commandments are less important does not mean that they are unimportant;?° c) whoever neglects the minor commandments will be allotted a lower position in the kingdom of heaven. The sanction in 5:19 (a lower position in the kingdom of heaven) does not correspond to the much weightier one mentioned in 5:20 (no access to the kingdom). The deficiency of the scribes and the Pharisees therefore cannot be that they ignore the minor commandments. This is confirmed in 23:23 where, on the basis of an example (paying tithes), they are said to observe such matters of the Law strictly. Jesus's reproach is that, as a result of their fixation on the minor matters of the Law, they fail to observe the fundamental values of the Torah, such as justice, mercy, and faith. Jesus's disciples do allow themselves to be inspired by these fundamental values. They do not limit the Torah to these fundamental values, but consider them as guidelines for their interpretation and observance of the other provisions of the Law. Thus, they do the one without failing to do the other.

Being perfect, therefore, means to be faithful to the Torah as interpreted by Jesus regarding contents and intention. The way in which Jesus opens up the 20. David C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social

Setting of the Matthean Community (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh:

T&T Clark, 1998), 132.

THE IDEAL COMMUNITY

Torah enables a way of life that can be characterized as "perfect," but which is out of reach if people are led by the opinions of rival Jewish groups.?!

The term té\etoc further occurs in the story of the rich young man (19:1622). The correspondence between 19:17 ("if you wish to enter into life") and 19:21

("if you wish to be perfect") suggests that this is a case of Zweistufenethik: whoever wishes to enter into the life must observe the commandments (summarized on the basis of Exod 20:12-16 and Lev 19:18), but who wishes to be perfect, must meet extra requirements (selling one's possessions, giving the proceeds to the poor, and following Jesus). Konradt has rightly pointed out that being perfect is not a second, supplementary track but—as in 5:17-20—consists of putting the Torah into practice, as interpreted by the Matthean Jesus, who perceives the second table of the Decalogue and the commandment of love as the perspective that brings the intention of all other provisions of the Torah to light. Applied to the specific context of the young man, this yields the following conclusion. In his particular situation, the commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" implies that he must sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. His statement that he has observed all commandments focuses on quantity, not on quality. He is not deficient because he has overlooked this or that commandment but because—like the scribes and the Pharisees—he does not fulfill the Torah on the basis of the fundamental norms emphasized by Jesus. Konradt summarizes his view of 19:16-22 as follows: "Nachfolge und Befolgung der Tora im Sinne und auf der Basis ihres von Jesus er6ffneten

Verstandnisses sind fiir Matthaus zwei Seiten derselben Medaille."22

We can now formulate the meaning of té\etoc in Matthew as follows: being perfect implies that the community abides fully by the Torah as the central Jewish identity characteristic and is thereby led by the interpretation given by Jesus rather than that given by the Pharisees.*? Matthew expects that this perfect life will have a positive effect on the community's Jewish and Gentile environment

(5:13-16).24

21. Martin Meiser, "Volkommenheit in Qumran und im Matthausevangelium," in Kirche und Volk Gottes (ed. M. Karrer et al.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), 203: the scribes and the Pharisees are depicted as "negatives Gegenbild der Jiinger." Matthias Konradt,

"Die volkommene Erfiillung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Phariséern im Matthausevangelium," in Das Gesetz im friihen Judentum und im Neuen Testament (ed. D. Sanger et al.;

NTOA 57; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 152, refers to "die abgrenzende Identitatsstiftende Funktion des Volkommenheitsethos im Kontext von Gruppenkonflikte."

22. Ibid., 141.

23. Ibid., 152: "Bei Matthaus ist die durch Jesus erméglichte volkommene Erfiillung des

Willen Gottes, die die Gemeinde gegeniiber der pharizdischen Variante jiidischen Lebens als die wahre Sachwalterin des theologischen Erbes Israels auszeichnen soll."

24. Meiser, "Volkommenheit in Qumran," 204.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

3.2. JAMES

In James, téAetoc is a key word that is connected to other important terms in the letter, such as Epyov (1:4; 2:22), vopog (1:25) and oogia (1:5, 17).25 TéXe10¢ here belongs to a word group that also includes other teA-root words?§ and a number of terms whose meaning at least partly overlaps with téAetoc.?7 This word group is contrasted in this letter with another group containing words that indicate that someone has a double attitude, such as Siyuxoc, "double-minded" or "double-souled" (1:8; 4:8), akataotatog (1:8, "unstable"), and adxkataotaocia

(3:16, "disorder").28

The author values the contents of the first word group positively and the second negatively. He uses a taxonomy that is determined by a certain knowledge and perception of reality, as is shown by his repeated use of words connected to "knowledge." The principal word reflecting this is "wisdom," but more terms indicate that he departs from a certain knowledge of reality that springs from a fundamental and undivided focus on God and leads to life.2? He frequently draws his readers' attention to what they know and urges them to devote themselves to God without any compromise and to abandon the attitude that is rooted in the inclination to follow one's own desires and that inevitably leads to death.2°

25. See the combination of teAei6w and Epyov (2:22), vdpog (1:25; see the combination of tehéw and v6jtog in 2:8 and the syntagm dXo¢ 6 vépog in 2:10), and copia (1:5, 17). See Josef

Zmijewski, "Christliche "Volkommenheit': Erwagungen zur Theologie des Jakobusbriefes,"

SNTSU, Serie A/ 5 (1980): 73.

26. For example, dmoteA€éw (1:15), tedéw (2:8), teAetow (2:22), and téAo¢ (5:11).

27. This series also includes 6\0¢, "whole" (2:10; 3:2, 3, 6), OA6KANpoOs, "complete in every part" (1:4), év undevi Aettpevos, "falling short in nothing" (1:4) and amas, "generously" (1:5).

Cheung, Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics of James, 177, extends this series with kaBapéc, dulavtoc, Guepmtoc, GomAog and words with the root amoor Sikat-.

28. Studies on perfection in James: Martin Klein, "Ein volkommenes Werk": Volkommenheit, Gesetz und Gericht als theologische Themen des Jakobusbriefes (BWANT 139; Stuttgart:

Kohlhammer, 1995); Patrick J. Hartin, "Call to Be Perfect Through Suffering (James 1,2-4):

The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount," Bib 77

(1996): 477-92; idem, A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999); Matt A. Jackson-McCabe, Logos and Law in the Letter of James: The Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, and the Law of Freedom (NovTSup 100; Leiden:

Brill, 2001).

29. In James, the following words belong to the semantic domain of /knowing/: éniotapat

(4:14) and émotrpwv (3:13), yrv@oxw (1:3; 2:20; 5:20), ofa (1:19; 3:1; 4:4, 17) and oiopat (1:7).

Knowledge is aimed at wisdom and truth (oogia in 1:3; 2:20; 5:20; copdc in 3:13; dAyGeta in 1:18; 3:14; 5:19).

30, Mark E. Taylor, "Recent Scholarship on the Structure of James," Currents in Biblical

Research 3 (2004): 102: "one purpose attempted by the author is to convince the implied reader to adopt a certain 'system of convictions' . .

. regarding how to perceive and order the realm of human experience."

THE IDEAL COMMUNITY

19] From the worldview of the author, the contemporary socio-religious situation of the readers is far from ideal: he depicts them as people who are deficient where faith coupled with an impeccable way of life is concerned. This deficiency does not only touch upon the personal integrity of the community members, but also injures the cohesion within the group.

Right at the beginning of the letter, perfection is presented as the goal of Christian existence. Given this goal, the temptations that every believer is confronted with can be perceived positively. They have an educational value and form a decisive stage on the road to perfection. According to James, successfully resisting the temptations leads to steadfastness, steadfastness leads to a flawless life, to a faith that shines out in good deeds, and this leads to perfection (1:3-4).

Perfection is thus a growing process. Its culmination is not reached until the eschatological age, with the coming of the Lord, when those who held out in times of trouble will receive "the crown of life" (1:12). The faithful cannot complete the road to perfection through their own efforts; they draw strength from the wisdom and mercy that God bestows when they ask God for them in their prayers.

There is an alternative way, which is diametrically opposed to the way to life or salvation. This way also has different stages, and temptations also form the crucial test. People end up in this way if they do not allow themselves to be led by the wisdom given by God, but by their own desires. Such people will not be able to stand their ground in times of trouble, but become inconstant and fall into sin, and once sin is fully grown, it breeds death (1:14-15).3! The author cuts short the idea that God, who enables people to complete the way to life successfully, also stands at the beginning of the way to death. In contrast to ideas already prevailing in Scripture (for example, in Gen 22:1; Num 14:20-24), he argues that God does not cause the temptations. He thus throws the imperfect upon their own resources, liberty, and responsibility.

Does the dichotomy of these two ways bear witness to a deterministic view of reality? In James, this is not the case. The author takes it as a matter of course that all community members stumble many times (3:2), but they can confess their sins to each other and thus obtain forgiveness (5:15-16). It is therefore possible to abandon the way to death and strike into the way of life. The opposite is also possible: people can stray from the way of life and lapse into sin and the way to death. In other words, it is not guaranteed beforehand that the faithful will achieve ultimate salvation, nor is it certain that sinners will persevere in wickedness. This dynamic view is the pendant of Matthew's view that the community is a corpus mixtum and cannot be identified with the community of salvation at the end of time.

31. The way of the imperfect is described with a verb from the teA-root, viz., amotedéw: even imperfection is "perfect"!

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

The two ways contrast sharply and are made concrete in different ways in the rest of the letter. In the table below, this is elucidated on the basis of some antithetical statements. ee ee sh Ee

THE WAY OF THE PERFECT

THE WAY OF THE DOUBLE-MINDED

faith + temptations + steadfastness + life desires + temptations + sin + death listening to the word but failing to act on it (1:23) synergy of listening to the word and acting on it (1:22) faith without works (2:14-17) or works without faith (2:18-26) synergy of faith and works (2:22) observing one commandment and breaking another (2:11) observing and fulfilling the perfect law of liberty (2:8, 10) partiality and discrimination: respecting the rich and despising the poor

(2:2-7) solidarity with others, especially the poor (1:27) knowing how to bridle one's tongue and thereby the whole body (3:2) speaking with a double tongue (1:26; 3:9-10) allowing oneself to be led by earthly wisdom, which is unspiritual and devallowing oneself to be led by the wisdom given by God (1:5) ilish (3:15) the God-given wisdom goes hand in hand with a virtuous life (3:13-18) earthly knowledge goes hand in hand with a life full of sin (3:14-15) friendship with God and enmity with friendship with the world and enmity with God (4:4) the world (4:4) Is there a link in James—as there is in Matthew—between being perfect and keeping the Torah, and if so, what does the author understand by the Torah? Is the whole Torah meant, down to the smallest detail, or does he reduce the organic whole to a few fundamental provisions, such as the love commandment and the second table of the Decalogue? To be able to answer this question, we must find out how vouposg ("torah" or "law") functions in this document.

This term occurs ten times in the letter (1:25; five times in 2:8-12 and four times in 4:11). In the first chapter "the word of truth" (1:18) gradually passes into "the perfect law" (1:25). Like wisdom, that word is a gift of God, who has planted the word (with baptism?) in the members of the community and has thus given

THE IDEAL COMMUNITY

them the new status as the first fruits among his creatures. This new position has practical consequences: they must not only listen to the word, but also act on it.

After a comparison with someone who glances at himself in a mirror, this exhortation is taken up again, but "the word" is replaced by "the perfect law." This suggests that the word of God can be identified with the Torah. This does not preclude that the "word of truth" also concerns the Christian message, but, in the opinion of the author, this message does not in any way conflict with the law.

The relationship between the word of God and the law is confirmed by 2:11, where two quotations from the Decalogue are introduced with the remark that the person who spoke the one commandment also spoke the other (6 yap ein@v ... eimev kai); that nobody other than God could be meant here appears from 4:12, where it is said that God is the only lawgiver.

The content of "the perfect law" is shown in 2:1-13, where the author raises the concrete problem of community members showing bias by looking up to a wealthy person and looking down on a beggar. This behavior is criticized with a choice of arguments: it is incompatible with the faith in Jesus Christ (2:1) and with his message (cf. 2:5 with, e.g., Luke 6:20); it is inconsistent with the way in which God himself treats the poor (2:5); it is impossible to understand why the members of the community fawn upon the wealthy because they themselves are treated badly by the rich (2:6b-7).

What is crucial here is that favoritism infringes the law. This may need some explanation. Johnson has pointed out that 2:1 and especially 2:9 contains allusions to Lev 19:15 in the version of the Septuagint.*? In the Septuagint, this verse reads as follows: ob moujcete Gdixov év Kpioet od AHpyH MpPdownov NtwXod OvdE

Bavpdoeic mpdownov Svvaoctov, év Stkatoovvy Kptveic TOV TANoiov Gov. The intertextual relation between the two documents is shown clearly by the fact that LapBavw mpdownov in Lev 19:15 corresponds to mpoownoAnpyia in Jas 2:1 and with mpoownoAnpntéw in 2:9. The following arguments can be added to this: e in both cases, there is a poor man (mtwyxdc¢ in Lev 19:15 and Jas 2:2, 3, 5, 6);

¢ Aap Pavw mpdowmov (in the Septuagint a translation of Hebrew 035 NW3) is echoed by émPAérw in Jas 2:3; in both cases, terms connected with the administration of justice play a role

(Lev 19:15: picts and xpiva; in Jas 2:4 dtaxpivw and xpitat); ¢ both in Leviticus and in James, impartiality is needed in two directions, both towards a poor man and towards a powerful man.*?

32. Johnson, The Letter of James, 221 and 231; see especially 228: "the very term prosopolempsia (2:1) is [...] a word choice that deliberately echoes Lev 19:15." See also: Luke T.

Johnson, "The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James," JBL 101 (1982): 391-401.

33. This latter aspect is emphasized by Gerd Theifen, "Nachstenliebe und Egalitat: Jak

2,1-13 als Héhepunkt urchristlicher Ethik," in Der Jakobusbrief: Beitrdge zur Rehabilitierung der "strohernen Epistel" (ed. P. von Gemiinden et al.; Beitrage zum Verstehen der Bibel 3; Miinster: Lit, 2003), 120-42; in this study, he argues that New Testament ethics culminate in James's

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

Apart from correspondences, we also come across an important difference: the addressees of the letter do exactly the opposite of what is prohibited in Lev 19:15

(they despise the poor) and are led by conventional opinions about honor and shame, while Lev 19:15 wants to keep the administration of justice free from these socially and culturally accepted codes. The author reproaches the community for its inconsistent attitude, which is directly opposed to its ethos as described in 2:5-7.

The case presented in 2:2-4 forms the background to observations about the royal law in 2:8-13. The central verse here is verse 10, in which the author advances the thesis that wanting to fulfill "the whole law" implies that each separate provision must be observed (see also Matt 5:19). The law is an organic whole and all these individual provisions are equally important. According to Keith,>4 this general principle is explained in 2:11 on the basis of two quotations from the second table of Decalogue ("you shall not commit adultery" and "you shall not murder").35 These two examples clarify that whoever infringes one provision breaks the whole law. One cannot observe one provision and ignore another. In 2:11, the unity of the law is inferred from the fact that the words of the Decalogue all originate from God and that there is only one lawgiver.

How does this observation on the unity of the Torah relate to the two antithetically parallel statements in 2:8-9? According to Keith, the general rule from verse 10 is applied here to the contemporary situation of the addressees.*© The syntagm "the whole law" of verse 10 corresponds to "the royal law" in verse 8.

The particles pévtot. .. dé signal a sharp contrast between the statement in verse

8 and that in verse 9 ("if you really fulfill the royal law . . ., but if you show partiality'). Or in different words: "if you really fulfilled the royal law . . ., but you do not since you are guilty of partiality."37 That the addressees, according to the author, do not meet the ideal depicted in verse 8 is shown by the fact, mentioned in verse

9, that they do not treat everybody in the same way. He thus accuses them of a selective observance of the Torah.

In concreto, the addressees drive a wedge between two provisions from Lev 19. These two provisions are the commandment from Lev 19:18, cited in verse 8, to love one's neighbor as oneself and the commandment from Lev 19:15 to treat letter: "Kein neutestamentlicher Autor hat so eindeutig wie er das Liebesgebot als Verpflichtung zur Gleichbehandlung verstanden und es gleichzeitig relativ offen fiir AuRenstehende formuliert" (120-21).

34, Pierre Keith, "La citation de Lv 19,18b en Jc 2,1-13," in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition (ed. J. Schlosser; BETL 176; Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 243-45.

35. This order (committing adultery and murdering) also occurs in Deut 5:17-18 in the Septuagint; Luke 18:20; Rom 13:9; the reversed order in the masoretic text and in Mark 10:19 and parallels; Matt 5: 21, 27; Did, 2:2.

36. Keith, "La citation de Lv 19,18b," 246.

37. Theisen, "Nachstenliebe und Egalitat, " 128.

THE IDEAL COMMUNITY

all neighbors equally, to which Jas 2:9 alludes. They assume that the "royal law" coincides with Lev 19:18 and isolate this provision from the commandment in Lev 19:15. The author tries to induce his readers to abandon this opinion and to replace it by his own view, which can be described as follows:

¢ the "royal law" does not coincide with the love commandment but comprises "the whole law" (verse 10); e the love commandment is the summa of the whole law, namely, in the sense that this commandment presents a norm that is central to the fulfilling of all other norms of the law;38 ¢ the love commandment implies that every person is treated equally;

¢ the two provisions from Leviticus, which have the term "neighbor" in common, must be understood in conjunction;39 e the concept of "neighbor" then acquires a broad and open meaning, whereas it would be arbitrarily restricted if the love commandment is isolated from the commandment to treat everybody equally.

In the framework of this study into the concept of perfection, we can now conclude that, in James, the way of perfection means that the whole law is fulfilled in every respect. That is why he calls the (whole) law perfect and royal.4°

James's interpretation corresponds to that of Matthew,*! although a few differences in emphasis can be observed. Matthew is abundantly clear that ritual prescriptions are not exempted; in James, this is not explicitly mentioned, but neither is it excluded.4? James emphasizes, more strongly than Matthew, that striving to be perfect is not only a task of the individual Christian but also has consequences for the life of the community as a whole. Matthew gives the Christian idea of perfection a profile of its own by contrasting it with the opinions of groups outside the community (tax collectors and Gentiles, the scribes and the Pharisees) which, in his view, are deficient. James, on the other hand, takes a stand against the alternative view held within the community itself that fulfilling the perfect law would merely come down to obeying the love commandment."

38. TheiBen, "Nachstenliebe und Egalitat," 135: "Gehandelt werden soll nach der Norm, die sich in einer bestimmten Schriftstelle findet: nach dem Liebesgebot."

39. According to Keith, "La citation de Lv 19,18b," 239, the two statements must be combined on the basis of the hermeneutical rule known as gezerah shawah.

40. According to Theifen, "Nachstenliebe und Egalitat," 132-34, the phrase "royal law" can refer to the quality of the law itself, to the quality of the lawgiver, and to the quality of those who keep this law. He argues in favor of a combination of these three possibilities.

41. The same results are to be found in Benedict T. Viviano, "La Loi parfaite de liberté:

Jacques 1,25 et la Loi," in Schlosser, ed., Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, 213-26; Keith, "La citation de Lv 19,18b," 235-37.

42. Viviano, "La Loi parfaite de liberté," 221.

43. It is remarkable that many exegetes support the same reduction and argue that James wants to contrast the perfect (Christian) law of the love commandment and the Mosaic law.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

3.3. DIDACHE

With the Didache, we enter a world that is different, at least partly. The term téXetoc occurs twice in this document (1:4; 6:2); furthermore, the use of the verb teetdw in 10:5 and 16:2 is important.

In 1:4, téAetog occurs in a passage that partly consists of logia from the Jesus tradition and therefore is usually called the evangelical section (1:3b-2:1). On the basis of text-critical and literary-historical arguments, Van de Sandt comes to the conclusion "that the section was inserted into Did. 1-6 at the time when the earlier Two Ways form was incorporated in the Didache as a whole."*4 In the final redactional form of the Didache, this section has the nature of an explanation of 1:2 where we find a summary of the Torah on the basis of the double love commandment (Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18) and the Golden Rule, which itself belongs to the doctrine of the Two Ways. The evangelical section contains a series of radical requirements. Although the statement on perfection is not the conclusion of that series (as in Matt 5:48) but is linked to one particular exhortation ("if someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn your other one to him too"), it may safely be assumed that the qualification téAetog refers to the whole series and that someone is considered to be perfect if he or she makes radical choices that exceed what is ethically customary.

TéAetog occurs again in 6:2-3. In translation, the text of this passage is as follows: "If you can bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect, but if you cannot, do what you can. As for food, bear what you can, but be very much on your guard against food offered to idols, for it is [related to] worship of dead gods." In this case, too, Van de Sandt is of the opinion that these sentences are a redactional addition and originally did not form part of the tradition of the Two

Ways which we find in chapters 1-5.45 In his view, Did. 6:2-3 is from the same hand as 1:3b-2:1.

The fact alone that the redactor incorporates the doctrine of the Two Ways in his text indicates that he considers this doctrine important for the Christian community or communities at which his booklet is aimed. He applies the contents of this doctrine fully to his readers. This is shown by the fact that he considers the person who is able to bear "the entire yoke of the Lord" as perfect.

What exactly is meant by "the yoke of the Lord" (6:2) is disputed. To this question, two answers are possible:

I refer, for example, to Zmijewski, "Christliche 'Volkommenheit," 74, who argues that the "perfect law" refers exclusively to the love commandment "und nicht auf das alttestamentliche

Gesetz" (italics his).

44. Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (CRINT 3/5; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002), 40.

45, Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 238-39.

THE IDEAL COMMUNITY

¢ This expression refers to the exhortations bound up in the doctrine of the Two Ways and probably even the entire Torah, of which this doctrine is a particular elaboration. In this option, "the Lord" refers to God, who was mentioned shortly before, in 6:1. e Another possibility is that "the Lord" refers to Jesus. An argument in favor of this option is that 6:2a calls forth associations with Matt 11:29, where

Jesus exhorts his disciples to take up his yoke. Still, there is a remarkable difference: in the Didache, the yoke is heavy whereas in Matthew the yoke is called light. Within this second option, the yoke also refers to the Torah, but then the Torah as interpreted and lived by Jesus.

In 4:16, it says: "You shall not abandon the commandments of the Lord but shall keep what you have received, without adding or subtracting anything." The Torah must thus be seen as an organic whole and must be observed fully. It is remarkable that the didachist in 6:2b keeps open the possibility that not everyone observes all the provisions of the Torah. It is sufficient that they do what they can.

The following verse shows that he wants to relieve certain community members from the obligation to keep the dietary laws, but immediately adds that everyone must refrain from eating food offered to idols. To keep the whole Torah should be the norm (whoever accomplishes this is perfect), but certain groups may have to settle for less. This is a Zweistufenethik, in other words, within the community there are two distinct classes, which nevertheless can live together on the condition that nobody practices idolatry.

It is an obvious guess that the group that keeps the whole Torah and is qualified as perfect may have consisted of Christians with a Jewish background and that the group that did not have to observe the dietary laws strictly consisted of community members with a Gentile past. In a recent monograph, Slee has argued, following Draper among others, that the doctrine of the Two Ways already functioned within Judaism in the framework of teaching proselytes who, on the basis of this doctrine, were encouraged to break with their Gentile past, especially by turning away from idolatry.* This doctrine fulfills a similar function in the Didache, but here the issue is the admission of Gentiles to a community that consists largely of Jewish Christians. Of this category of newcomers, no full observance of the Torah is required. However, they must try to keep as many of the dietary laws and, as a minimum requirement, abstain from food offered to idols, otherwise no joint meals would be possible; especially the celebration of the Eucharist would suffer. According to Slee, the newcomers from the world of the Gentiles must not resign themselves to their imperfect state, but try to grow into people who do meet the ideal of full observance of the Torah. Slee bases her argument on 16:2 where teeta, a word related to téAe1oc is used ("the whole

46. Michelle Slee, The Church in Antioch in the First Century CE: Communion and Conflict JSNTSup 244; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

time of your belief will be of no profit to you unless you are perfected at the final hour"; see also 10:5).

3.4. CONCLUSION

In Matthew and James, the concept of perfection is elaborated along the same lines, although there are differences in emphasis. The didachist takes up a position of its own, not because the ideal of perfection is interpreted differently here, but because he does not (yet) fully apply this ideal to all community members and, for the time being and by way of compromise, considers a less stringent regime acceptable for Christians from the world of the Gentiles.

4. FINAL OBSERVATIONS

In this contribution, I have tried to establish, on the basis of three topics, what perception of the ideal community emerges from Matthew, James, and the Didache. The results can be summarized as follows: e The community is referred to as €xxAnoia. This term does not only refer to the local house-church but also the totality of such communities, the universal church. e The three documents suggest that the community has special knowledge that it has received from God and that co-determines the selection of norms and values that are recommended in these documents and of negative values that are challenged in them. As a result of this special knowledge, the community has a profile of its own that distinguishes it from other groups.

That this special knowledge is conveyed by Jesus is made explicit in Matthew, who presents Jesus in his role of teacher as the only one who interprets the Torah in a legitimate way. In some instances, the didachist indicates that a statement was made by Jesus or can be found in "his gospel." James expresses the statements in his letter as his own and does not explicitly refer to Jesus as their source or inspiration.

In all three documents, being perfect is a prerequisite for all community members. The three documents also have in common that being perfect is perceived as a growing process, which will not culminate until the eschatological age.

* Being perfect means that the whole Torah is fulfilled, in all respects. In none of the three documents is the Torah reduced to the commandment to love one's neighbor or to the ethical provisions in the second table of the Decalogue. In James, such a reduction is even one of the misconceptions against which the author speaks out strongly. In Matthew and James, the requirement of full observance of the Torah applies as a prerequisite for admission to the Christian community. Matthew indicates that ritual prescriptions must also be observed (15:1-20). James is not explicit on this, but it may

THE IDEAL COMMUNITY

not be concluded that he would want to make an exception for such rules.

The didachist, however, suspends the requirement to keep the dietary laws for non-Jewish applicant Christian community members to the time of the eschatological age and, in the meantime, settles for the minimum requirement that they abstain from food offered to idols. Because he does not apply the same ethical norm to all community members, he in fact uses a Zweistufenethik.

In none of the three documents is circumcision mentioned as a prerequisite for admission to the Christian community. Given the absence of evidence on this point, it may not be assumed that there is evidence of absence: the fact that circumcision is not mentioned does not mean that this ritual was not advocated. In neither Matthew nor the Didache, where baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is mentioned, nor James, where baptism is not explicitly mentioned (however, see 1:18), are there clear indications for the view that baptism has replaced circumcision.

The Gospel of Matthew contains a fierce polemic against the Pharisaic movement; the reproach that, in their case, the necessary concord between preaching and doing is missing is also leveled against certain members of the community (the false prophets) in Matthew. James and the Didache are also polemically orientated, but the authors of these documents mainly oppose people with divergent views within the community. e James and the didachist view the future restoration of the one Israel as an event that is also salutary for the Christian community, whereas Matthew is of the opinion that his community is the authentic guardian of Israel's heritage and that Jewish groups that also claim this prerogative will not share in the eschatological kingdom. However, the latter view does not imply that he perceives the church as replacing Israel or that Israel has lost its special position as God's people.

The above results show that, as regards contents, the three documents are closely related where the construction of ideals that the Christian community must meet is concerned. In fact, they express three variants of the same basic idea, namely, that belonging to the Christian community provides the best situation to share in the eschatological salvation and that the way to life requires, in practice, fulfilling

God's will, which can be found in the Torah given by him (and authoritatively interpreted by Jesus).

The differences are likewise striking. Most differences originate from the fact that one document raises issues that are missing in the other documents or are less prominent. These differences can be explained by the fact that the three documents do not belong to the same literary genre. Matthew is the author of a gospel, which, as a genre, is related to the Greco-Roman biographies, in which the person portrayed is the central figure; James's letter belongs to the genre of the Diaspora letter and does not focus so much on that which binds the members of the community but rather on matters that divide the minds at a par-

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

ticular moment; the Didache is a text with instructions for the initiation into the Christian community and, as such, focuses on the minimum requirement that applicant Christian community members with a non-Jewish background must meet, and also takes a stand against preachers and leaders with different views than those of the author.

In one instance, a difference of opinion was encountered as regards the question of whether the Gentiles can be admitted to the Christian community.

It is tempting to seize upon this difference for a reconstruction of the historical, social, and religious setting of the three documents. Do they originate from the same environment or even from the same area and do they go back to the same period? If so, how can it be explained that they differ so much on this one matter?

Or does the difference reflect gradual development in which the original orientation on the whole Jewish Torah is put in perspective to open up the community to people from the world of the Gentiles? Do Matthew and James represent an older phase in this process and the didachist a later period? The answers to these questions go beyond the scope of my contribution, which is based on a semantic and intertextual analysis, and requires the application of methods from historical criticism and the social sciences. My observations are therefore open for supplementation and any corrections from different research perspectives. Conversely, these different research perspectives may profit from the picture, sketched here on the basis of semantic research, of the ideal community in Matthew, James, and the Didache.

POVERTY AND PIETY IN MATTHEW, JAMES,

AND THE DIDACHE

John S. Kloppenborg eiprvn dé mact kai mpaypata é¢ TO Eunadtv dveotpappéva:

Huei pév oi mévytes yeAOuev, avidvtat dé Kai oipwWfovorv oi MAOVLOL.

Lucian, Cataplus 15 Armenfrommigkeit—the notion that the poor and the pious were equated in biblical tradition prior to the first century c.z.—provides a common exegetical resort when discussing such texts as James, Matthew, and the Didache. In regard to the Didache, Jean-Paul Audet opined that in Did. 3:7-4:4, which Audet called an "instruction aux pauvres," the author encourages the addressees to identify with the dixatot and Gytot (4:2), who "ne sont pas autres, évidemment, que les mtwxoi, pauvres"—the pious poor of the Psalms.!

A propos of the conceptual background of James, Martin Dibelius argued that in post-exilic Israel the term '4nawim connoted not merely the socially disadvantaged but had come to refer, on the one hand, to the nation itself insofar as Israel was weak in relation to its strong neighbors and, on the other hand, to a special group within the people of Israel who enjoyed divine favor by virtue of their humble status. Both in prophetic literature and in the Psalms the castigation of the rich and powerful for their ill-treatment of the poor was taken to imply conversely that the poor were advantaged:

The more piety was understood as humbling oneself before God's will, the more poverty could function as intrinsically fertile soil for piety. As a result, "poor" and "pious" appear as parallel concepts (Ps 86:1-2; 132:15-16), and the typical enemy of the poor is also the enemy of God (Ps 109:31).2

1. Jean-Paul Audet, La Didache: Instructions des apétres (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1958), 317.

2. Martin Dibelius, James:

A Commentary on the Epistle of James (revised H. Greeven; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 39.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

Following Isidore Loeb's famous 1890 article on the "literature of the poor,"

Dibelius concluded that those who called themselves poor might have been economically disadvantaged. But that was not the main point: "the pious thought of themselves as the poor because poverty had become a religious concept."> James's desire was to be poor, i.e., pious, and thus not to participate in the contaminating elements of the world. "He wanted all Christian to continue to belong to the "poor".

... He wanted to barricade every door through which the spirit of the world might enter."4 The salient feature of "poverty" in this view is not so much its economic or social aspect as its religious and moral ones. Theoretically a wealthy person could be numbered among the "poor" if she or he put trust in God.° The identification of poverty with piety continues to be invoked in order to account for James. Ralph Martin described "piety of the poor" as a "handy phrase" and argued that in some way not quite clearly defined these groups ['the poor'] represented people who trusted in God for help, and so their poverty was equally a "poverty in spirit" in the sense of Matt 5:3; 11:5 (cf. Luke 4:18), and their religious outlook was similar to that of the pious ones in the Lukan nativity stories (Luke

1-2).6

3. Dibelius James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 40 (emphasis his); Isidore Loeb,

"La littérature des pauvres dans la Bible," REJ 20 (1890): 179-80: "du moins le déndment du

Pauvre n'est pas l'essence méme de sa pauvreté." Ernst Bammel, "ntwxdc, ttwxeia, TTwXEdw,"

TDNT 6: 896, on the use of mtwyd¢ in the Psalms of Solomon: "Where used, 1twx6c¢ is always the chief term and it thus represents an essential aspect in the selfunderstanding of the community which expresses itself in the Ps. Since this is undergoing various forms of affliction, mrwyéc¢ can include material poverty, though this is not the essential characteristic of the community nor does the climax of the statement lie here. mtwydc is in this sense the relic that brings to light a piety which is seeking release from a powerful ideology of poverty"; on James: Peter H.

Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 111: "This election [of favoured groups] is based on the OT passages in which God is said to care for the poor , .

. and the resulting fact that 'poor' became a term for the pious... ."

4. Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 48.

5. James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 1089: "Not every rich man is doomed to be damned (e.g., Joseph of Arimathea, Mark 15:43-47), and not every poor man is sure to be saved, but for the purposes of this chapter [James 2] there is a deep difference between the rich, in general, and the poor, in general, and there is, in general, an equation of the poor and the world's despised." Recently Johannes Un-Sok Ro

(Die Sogennante "Armenfrémmigkeit" im Nachexilischen Israel [BLAW 322; Berlin: de Gruyter,

2002]) has argued that "poverty" has no socio-economic connotations at all, but refers in postexilic literature to "spiritual poverty (humility, openness to the divine, etc.)."

6. Ralph P. Martin, James (WBC 48; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1988), lxxxv.

POVERTY AND PIETY

By the time of James, mtwy6¢ was a technical term for the class of pious and humble people who put their trust in God for redemption and not in material wealth."

The conflation of piety and poverty has been both embraced and strenuously resisted by theologies of liberation, although on ideological rather than historical or exegetical grounds. Some claim that the "poor" enjoy an epistemic privilege such that only the poor are able to understand fully the moral message of the Jesus movement and to appropriate it. This of course is not a historical or exegetical assertion. Rather, it claims either that the poor are somehow able to escape from the ideological framework of bourgeois or privileged discourse, or that the epistemic perspective of the poor is ideological only in the benign sense of that term. Hence, they enjoy unencumbered access to truth.8 Both views are in fact quite problematic philosophically. But the notion of an epistemic privilege of the poor is also problematic insofar it conflates the world's "poor," both historically and translocally, into a single group, irrespective of the specifics of cultures, ideologies, economies, and social practices that serve to differentiate these "poors" one from another.

On the other hand, Elsa Tamez stresses the negative ideological consequences of the identification of poverty and piety: if we make the poor and the pious synonymous then real economic oppression and God's concern for this very class of people are lost. The rich become the piously poor and the poor rich in piety, and the economic order and the unjust power stay as they are. Thus the rich always come out ahead: they are rich in real life and piously poor before God and thus heirs of God's reign.?

While Tamez's comments are also not exegetical, they underscore the potential ideological entailments in Armenfrommigkeit as an exegetical construct. It might be that this construct is historically justified, irrespective of how it might also mask the bitter reality of poverty. On the other hand, Tamez's observations should alert us to the possibility that Armenfrémmigkeit commended itself to modern North Atlantic interpreters precisely because it stressed values (morality and piety) as a key to the construction of Christian identity and suppressed other features (material poverty) that by the early-twentieth century had come to belong to other realms of cultural discourse and hence were supposed to be irrelevant or peripheral to genuinely "religious" claims.

7. Ibid., 65.

8. Delwin Brown, "Thinking About the God of the Poor: Questions for Liberation Theology from Process Thought," JAAR 57 (1989): 267-81.

9. Elsa Tamez, The Scandalous Message of James: Faith Without Works is Dead (rev. ed.;

New York: Crossroad, 2002), 36.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

Richard Bauckham endeavors to avoid the masking of genuinely economic concerns in the discourse of the early Jesus movement and at the same time is aware of the rhetorical function of discourse on poverty. According to Bauckham, James stresses the exemplary status of the twxoi—not merely the "working poor" (mévntat) but the destitute and indigent. James's addressees are neither the rich nor the poor, but rather those living between these extremes, those who might be tempted to identify with the élite via mechanisms of patronage.!0 Against this, James insists that [the poor] are not only members, for the kingdom they will inherit God has promised, like the crown of life (1:12), to 'those who love him'. . .

. But they are the paradigmatic members, in some sense the model to which all other members must conform. Thus, just as Old Testament Israel's election was not for herself alone, but for the sake of the nations, so God's choice of the poor is not for the sake of the poor themselves only but also for others.!!

Bauckham recognizes the rhetorical use of the figures of the "poor" and the "rich" and argues that while James has no expectation that his addressees will or should impoverish themselves by adopting a beggarly existence, they should embrace a "counter-cultural" view in which "all must adopt the humility of the poor towards God and the humility of the poor (i.e., their not claiming superiority) towards others."!? Ultimately this amounts to a social praxis in which economic and social disparities are leveled by promoting generalized reciprocity and an acknowledgement of the equality of rich.and poor—an acknowledgment that aims at ameliorating material disparities.

In what follows I would like both to develop and qualify elements of Bauckham's approach. He has successfully avoided concealing the economic realities of poverty behind a notion of piety. And he is aware that the discourse on poverty—at least in James—is in the first place rhetorical, rather than a description of social reality. That is, use of the rhetorical sygkrisis of the beggar and the rich man should not naively be interpreted to mean that James directly addresses either beggars or the ultra-rich; nor does the seeming privileging of a beggarly existence serve to encourage the addressees' embracing of such an existence. On the contrary, the sygkrisis serves other functions. Whether Bauckham's proposal—that 10. Richard J. Bauckham, James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (New

Testament Readings; London: Routledge, 1999), 188: "Thus, when James addresses his readers/hearers in general, he speaks of both the poor and the rich as other people (2:2-7, 14-16; in 4:13-5:6 he employs rhetorically direct address to two different groups of the rich in turn).

This certainly does not mean that he expected no poor people to belong to the communities he addresses (1:8; 2:15), but that he expected the majority not to be poor."

11. Ibid., 193.

12. Ibid., 195.

13. Ibid., 196.

POVERTY AND PIETY

James holds out the poor as moral exemplars—is an adequate reading must be examined more carefully. But before turning to the function of the sygkrisis of rich and poor in James, Matthew, and the Didache, it will be useful to discuss the construct of Armenfrémmigkeit.

1. DISCOURSE ON POVERTY AND WEALTH

Discourse on poverty and riches is a frequent feature of biblical, indeed, all Near Eastern, literature. The discourse is highly variegated, appearing with differing nuances in legal, prophetic, sapiential, and hymnic texts.

In the Tanak the focus of legal texts is advocacy on behalf of the poor ('ebyén, dal, mahsé6r and 'Gni): that legal judgments concerning the poor not be subverted

(Exod 23:3, 6; Lev 19:15); that the poor be allowed to use the produce that grows on fallow land (Exod 23:11) and to reap the corners of fields (Lev 19:9-10; 23:22); that loans be extended to the poor even if a sabbatical year is approaching (Deut

15:7-11); and that the wages of poor laborers not be withheld (Deut 24:14).

The treatment of the poor in Wisdom texts somewhat more varied. On the one hand, there are complaints against those who prey upon the poor (Prov 30:14;

Job 20:19; 24:4, 9, 14) and contrasting definitions of piety that involve assisting and advocating for the poor. For example, when Job defends his character, acts of benefaction toward the poor are key elements in his auto-representation:

When I went out to the gate of the city, when I took my seat in the square, the young men saw me and withdrew and the aged rose up and stood; the nobles refrained from talking and laid their hands on their mouths . .

. because I delivered the poor ('ani) who cried, and the fatherless who had none to help him.

The blessing of the wretched came upon me and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy; I put on righteousness and it clothed me; my justice was like a robe and a turban; I was eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame; I was a father to the poor ('ebyénim), and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know.

(Job 29:7-9, 12-16) Similar usages are found in Proverbs, where the benefaction of the poor is a mark of the true sage:

He who oppresses a poor man insults his maker, but he who is kind to the needy honors him (14:31).

He who is kind to the poor lends to the lord, and he will repay him for his deed

(19:17).

He who has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor

(22:19).

A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; the wicked have no such understanding (29:7).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

Nevertheless, poverty is not treated as a virtue. On the contrary:

A rich man's wealth is his strong city; the poverty of the poor is their ruin (10:15).

The ransom of a man's life is his wealth, but a poor man has no means of redemption (13:8).

The days of the poor are hard, but a cheerful heart has a continual feast (15:15)

Wealth brings many new friends, but a poor man is deserted by his friend (19:4).

All a poor man's brothers hate him; how much more do his friends go far from him! He pursues them with words, but does not have them (19:7).

There are, of course, constructions in which poverty is seemingly valued above wealth:

It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor than to divide the spoil with the proud (16:19).

Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a man who is perverse in speech, and is a fool (19:1).

Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is perverse in his ways (28:6).

Better is a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king, who will no longer take advice, even though he had gone from prison to the throne or in his own kingdom had been born poor (Qoh 4:13-14).

It would be wrong, however, to conclude that such contrasts constitute an exception to the generally negative view of poverty. These statements are directed to the rich, not the poor, and function to warn the rich against excessive or abusive behavior. Poverty is nowhere romanticized as virtuous; on the contrary, the extremity of poverty is used here rhetorically to underscore the even greater dangers of arrogance, hybris, foolishness, and other sapiential vices.

A different view of poverty is also encountered in wisdom literature, one that traces poverty to indolence. This should not be surprising, since the social location of wisdom discourse is in the upper scribal sectors, which idealized study and mental exertion, Thus, Proverbs warns that those who are lazy are punished with poverty (res) (Prov 6:9-11; cf. 24:34) while hard work is idealized as something that brings profit (Prov 14:23; 21:5). Sirach lists as one of the three hateful kinds of persons the "beggar who is proud" (Sir 25:2; cf. Syriac Menander

354-8),14 and suggests that death is a welcome relief to the needy (42:2; cf. Syriac

Menander 99-104). Syriac Menander opines that poverty in old age is "the dregs of all evil" (435-36; cf. 427-28).

14. Tjitze Baarda, "The Sentences of the Syriac Menander," in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983-85), 2:602.

POVERTY AND PIETY

Nevertheless, generosity towards the poor remains a virtue and Proverbs expresses the view that, paradoxically, benefaction leads to an increase, not a decrease in wealth:

One man gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want (Prov 11:24).

He who oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to want (Prov 22:16).

In the corpus of prophetic writings, the terms 'ebyén, dal, and 'ani occur in the context of complaints and threats concerning the rapacious activities of the rich, who abuse and devour the property of the poor (Isa 3:14-15; 10:2; 11:4; 32:7; Jer

2:34; 22:16-17; Ezek 16:49; 18:12; 22:29; Amos 2:6—7; 4:1; 5:11-12), forecasts of an idyllic state in which the poor are treated equitably (Isa 11:4; 14:30; 26:5-6;

29:19 ) and expressions of God's advocacy on behalf of the poor (Isa 25:4; 41:17;

58:7; Zeph 3:12).

An important source of statements on poverty is found in the Psalms of Lament, which not only depict the poor as the victims of the evil and the rich

(10:2, 9; 37:14; 109:16), but also represent God as the defender of the poor:

"Because the poor ('Gni) are despoiled, because the needy ('ebyén) groan, I will now arise," says the Lorp; "I will place him in the safety for which he longs." (Ps 12:5) This poor man ('Ani) cried, and the Lorp heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles (Ps 34:6).

As for me, I am poor ('Gni) and needy ('ebyén); but the Lorp takes thought for me. You are my help and my deliverer; do not tarry, O my God! (Ps 40:17)

For the Lorp hears the needy ('ebyén), and does not despise his own that are in bonds. (Ps 69:33) But I am poor ('Ani) and needy ('eby6n ); hasten to me, O God! You are my help and my deliverer; O Lorp, do not tarry! (Ps 70:5)

He raises the poor ('Ani) from the dust, and lifts the needy ('eby6n) from the ash heap. (Ps 113:7).

It will be noticed that 'ani is frequently paired with 'eby6n, and that both appear to refer to straitened social and economic circumstances. The 'ebyénim are said to be despoiled by the strong (Ps 35:10); they are "brought down" by the wicked

(Ps 37:14); and Ps 132:15 promised that God will "satisfy her poor ('ebyén) with bread," which suggests that "poor" refers in fact to those who lack basic essentials. There is nothing here to suggest that the "poor" are idealized as those who patiently and piously endure misery. Pleins is right to conclude that the term ['ebyén] simply points out severe economic deprivation. This condition may evoke the concern of God and the community, but the poverty of the

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

'ebyén in and of itself is not considered a virtue or a way of life to be pursued for religious reasons.

!> 1.1. ANAWIM Piety?

The term 'andw (mostly in the plural '"andwim), which appears predominantly in the Psalms (9:13, 19; 10:12, 17; 22:27; 25:9; 34:3; 37:11; 69:33; 76:10;

146:6; 149:4) and Isaiah (11:4; 29:19; 32:7; 61:1) became the special focus of attention in the late-nineteenth century. Heinrich Graetz's commentary on the Psalms conjectured that the Psalms of complaint reflected the discourse of a social "class" of impoverished Levites, disadvantaged by the Aaronite priesthood.!" A similar view was soon promoted by Isidore Loeb, even though he did not endorse the identification of the "poor" with the Levites. According to Loeb, during the Babylonian exile there arose among the Jews a class of persons claimed to the servants of God in a special way, and believed themselves to be more faithful to Judaism than any other Jews. We know them from deutero-Isaiah or Pseudo-Isaiah, who described their situation vis a vis their coreligionists, expressed their sentiments, thinking, and hopes. They had taken a vow of poverty and humility, believed that they would atone for the sins of the Jewish people, and would suffer for them in order to earn their deliverance.

They regarded themselves as the heart and core of the nation, as it were a living symbol of the Jewish people.... [After the exile] these courageous souls probably formed associations or confraternities, called "the pious," "the righteous," "the holy ones,"

"the poor," "the humble." They seem to have been especially numerous and influential during the Syrian dominion, but they were not dissolved under the Hasmoneans and occupied an even more important place in primiym« tive Christianity.!8

Independently of Loeb, Alfred Rahlfs also rejected Graetz's theory that the "poor" represented a party of Levites, but concluded that the 'a@ndwim were a "party" that arose during the Exile, convinced that Israel itself had become "the poor." The Servant of the Lord of Deutero-Isaiah served as a personification of this party:

Die Anawim = Knechte Jahwes sind eine Partei innerhalb des Volkes, aber nichts fiihrt darauf, sie als Leviten oder iiberhaupt als Angehdrige eines bes15. J. David Pleins, "Poor, Poverty," ABD 5 (1992): 404.

16, On what follows, see the survey by Gerhard Lohfink, "Von der 'Anawim-Partei' zur

'Kirche der Armen': Die bibelwissenschaftliche Ahnentafel eines Hauptbegriffs der 'Theologie der Befreiung'," Bib 67 (1986): 153-76.

17, Heinrich Graetz, Kritischer Commentar zu den Psalmen: Nebst Text und Uebersetzung

(Breslau: S. Schottlaender, 1882-83), 20-37.

18. Isidore Loeb, "Les dix-huit bénédictions," REJ 19 (1889); 23.

POVERTY AND PIETY

timmten Standes zu fassen. Die Anawim sind vielmehr die Frommen, die entschlossenen Anhanger Jahwes im Exil tiberhaupt. Ob diese Partei sich selbst den Namen Anawim als Parteinamen beigelegt hat, ist nicht sicher auszumachen. Méglich ware es.!9

By the early-twentieth century doubts were expressed about whether the 'nawim represented a "party" rather than simply a "direction" (Richtung) or tendency in Israelite piety. Wolf Wilhelm Graf Baudissin contended that one could speak of a "party" of the poor in the Maccabean period at the earliest.2° But the tendency in Israelite piety to identify the poor with the virtue of humility came with Deutero-Isaiah's characterization of Judah as God's 'andwim (Isa 61:1). The exile was interpreted as a humbling act of God that constituted Israel's identity. Thereby poverty, once a negative term, received a positive valuation. For Baudissin, as Pleins puts it, "poverty and humility eventually dovetail as theological concepts: they are the precondition for experiencing the compassion of God."2!

Max Weber's Das antike Judentum, published in 1921, also saw the Exile and Deutero-Isaiah as pivotal in the transvaluation of older views of poverty into something positive, equated with "the plebian virtue of humility."22 Weber, however, emphasized the Maccabean period as the period of ascendancy of the 'anawim:

The "pious," the Hasidim as they were called especially in early Maccabean times, the '@nadwim as they were also named in the Psalms now became the main champions of a newly developing Jewish religiosity. They represent primarily an urban demos of town-farmers, artisans, traders, and as typical of antiquity, often stand sharply opposed to the wealthy urban and landed sibs both secular and priestly. .

.. New was only the form and intensity of the struggle. This was essentially due to the urban character of the demos. Whereas the pious in pre-Exilic prophecy still represented a mere object of charity as preaching by the prophetic and Levitical and especially Deuteronomistic circles, they now became vocal and came to feel themselves to be the chosen people of Yahwe in contrast to their opponents. In our sources their religious mood is brought to clearest expression by the Psalms.?3

It is obvious that Weber's equation of the '4@nawim/pious with the urban proletariat is precisely the kind of identification against which Tamez protests, since

19. Alfred Rahlfs, 'ani und 'anaw in den Psalmen (Géttingen: Dieterich, 1892), 83.

20. Wolf Wilhelm Graf Baudissin, "Die alttestamentliche Religion und die Armen," Preussische Jahrbiicher 149 (1912): 219.

21. Pleins, "Poor, Poverty," 411.

22. Max Weber, Ancient Judaism (trans. H. H. Gerth and D. Martindale; New York: The Free Press, 1952), 370.

23. Ibid., 382.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

it obscures from view those much further down the economic ladder than the urban working poor—smallholders who typically farmed plots too small to support a family and day laborers who suffered from chronic and structural underemployment,"4 not to mention various expendables. Weber's view also makes possible the claim that Tamez finds so problematic—that moderately wealthy urban dwellers could claim to be among the "poor" by virtue of the fact that they did not belong to the hated civic élite.

For his part, Antonin Causse located the "poor" further down the social ladder than Weber. He argued that the Psalter was not a book written by or for the priests; on the contrary, "[il] est oeuvre du peuple, il a été écrit par «les pauvres» et pour «les pauvres»" as a book of consolation and edification.?> These poor truly dwelt in the countryside of ancient Palestine, in the unknown village, in the village on the hillside, in the village in the valley. It is there that they suffered, prayed, hoped. They were the peasants, labourers, and shepherds like their fathers. Every day they toiled, cultivated the rocky soil under the scorching sun; every night they came back to their homes and, under the oriental night, breathed out complaints of their souls; they called on God for help.?®

Key to the piety of the "dndwim, however, was how it surpassed "infinitely" that of the sacerdotal institutions of Judaism:

Forgiveness and deliverance we not obtained through exterior acts, by ritual expiation, by sacrifices for sins as in the levitical Torah. The Ebionites had understood the great emptiness of the religion of external signs and magical forms. What God demanded of the faithful is to love justice and kindness and to walk humbly before him.27

24. John S. Kloppenborg, "The Growth and Impact of Agricultural Tenancy in Jewish Palestine (III Bce—I ce)," JESHO 51 (2008): 33-66.

25. Antonin Causse, Les «Pauvres» d'Israél (Prophétes, Psalmistes, Messianistes) (Strasbourg: Librairie Istra, 1922), 80.

26. Ibid., 81: "[iJls ont vraiment habité la dans les campagnes de I'ancienne Palestine, dans le village innommé, le village au flanc de la colline, au creux du vallon. C'est la qu'ils ont souffert, qu'ils ont prié, qu'ils on espéré. C'étaient des paysans, laboureurs et bergers comme leurs péres. Le jour ils ont travaillé, cultivé le sol rocailleux sous le soleil brdlant; le soir ils sont rentrés dan leur maison, et sous la nuit d'Orient, ils ont exhalé le plainte de leur ame; ils ont appelé Dieu a leur secours."

27. Ibid., 129-30: "Ici l'expérience religieuse dépasse infiniment le cadre des institutions cultuelle du judaisme. Le pardon et la déliverance ne sont pas obtenus par des actes extérieurs, des expiations rituelles, des sacrifices pour le péché comme dans la tora lévitique. Les ébionim ont compris la grande vanité de la religion des gestes et des formules magiques. Ce que Yahwe demande au fidéle c'est d'aimer la justice et la bonté et de marcher humblement devant lui," referring to Ps 32:1, 2, 5; Mic 6:8.

POVERTY AND PIETY

This was a completely interiorized piety, replacing the formalism of cultic practices, assured of God's bounty and justice, dependent upon God, and faithful to the Torah.28

Striking in these descriptions of the piety of the poor is the almost complete neglect of attention to economic factors; indeed, the characteristics of the "poor" have more to do with sturdy, individualistic north-European (and probably Protestant) values than they do with the situation of the economically dispossessed of the Levant.29

The stress on "poverty" as an interiorized piety reached its apogee in the work of the Catholic Albert Gelin who saw the beginnings of Armenfrommigkeit in the eighth century, in Zephaniah, who transvalued the terms 'ani and 'andw, once terms denoting failure, into positive terms indicating God's protection.

Man must be poor before God, just as he was already poor in the presence of Asshur. Specifically, this meant the rooting out of all pride... .

Spiritual poverty has rarely been so beautifully described: total openness to God, absolute humility, respect, obedience, consciousness of guilt, or better, still, compunction. All this points to perfect faith.>°

Because of this highly theologized view of poverty, when Gelin came to the literature of the Jesus movement he could argue that Jesus did not intend to "beatify a social class" or "canonize" poverty. On the contrary, what he advocated was

"spiritual poverty'—openness to God.*! This for Gelin made sense of the fact that the Twelve were "small landowners." Jesus did not condemn wealth, had well-off friends, and "was accustomed to social amenities" such as banquets.??

Indeed, Gelin declares that "in those days no segment of the population corresponded to our suffering proletariat.">4

Like Gelin, Augustin George saw the full flowering of Armenfrémmigkeit to exist only with Jesus himself. "If we understand the expression to mean that the poor of the Old Testament arrived at a mystique of renouncing temporal goods, we must admit that this kind of detachment simply does not exist in the Old

Testament. This is the new contribution of Jesus. Until he came, poverty in any 28. Ibid., 127-35.

29. §. T. Kimbrough, "A Non-Weberian Sociological Approach to Israelite Religion,"

JNES 31 (1972): 201-2 traces Causse's stress on individualism not to his Protestantism but to the influence of Lévy-Bruhl's theory of anthropological development from prelogical (and collectivist) thinking from the Stone Age to the emergence of the individual and ethical teaching based on personal responsibility in the VI/V B.c.E.

30. Albert Gelin, The Poor of Yahweh (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1963), 30, 34.

31. Ibid., 107-8.

32. Ibid., 102.

33. Ibid., 105.

pA eS.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

meaning of the term, was considered an evil. . . .">4 The experience of poverty in the Old Testament indeed led the poor not only to accept their condition, since

God "loved" the poor, but also to put their trust in a God who would deliver them. Although poverty was an evil, it was also valorized, according to George, and turned into "spiritual poverty which is a submission in faith, an accepted smallness, a religious humility."35 George insists that this is not an idealization of poverty, but that in fact is what his description amounts to: "Poverty did have an indisputable religious richness for [the people of the Old Testament]: it called them to open themselves to God and prepared them to receive both the demands and the gifts of Jesus."3° It was Jesus and the Jesus movement that took the final step of calling for the renunciation of worldly goods in the service of God.

The descriptions of Gelin and George are rather blatant instances of the interpretations against which Tamez inveighs: the transfiguration of material poverty into a virtue by placing it in a theological teleology that runs from the rationalization of material deprivation as a catechetical state that fosters the "higher" value of dependence on the divine to a voluntary embracing of renunciation as something inherently virtuous.

Despite the strong legacy of scholarship that wishes to find an equation of poverty and piety, and notwithstanding Tamez's reservations concerning the conflation of poverty with piety, strong exegetical objections have been registered against the notion of Armenfroémmigkeit. Kuschke's 1939 study of rich and poor in post-exilic literature concluded that 'ani simply referred to the powerless, oppressed poor and that it was impossible to conclude to what extent the pious

('dnawim) were poor ('ani) in a social sense. "Auf jedem Fall haben wir es nicht mit einer "Partei der gottlosen Reichen' und einer 'Partei der frommen Armen' zu tun, die sich gegenseitig Klassenkampfe geliefert hatten."57

Even the word 'dnawim seems to have the same semantic range as 'Ani. In the Psalms the 'a@ndwim are without food (22:27), landless (37:11), and in bonds

(69:33). God will not forget the poor (9:13, 19; 10:12, 17; 69:33). And Ps 147:6 contrasts them with the wicked (ré3a'im). The situation is not significantly different in the prophetic corpus, where the 'anadwim appear in parallel with dalim

(Isa 11:4; Amos 2:7) or 'ebyénim (Isa 29:19; 32:7; Amos 8:4). In Isa 61:1 they are exiles to whom liberty and release is offered. As Pleins notes, the social and 34. Augustin George, "Poverty in the Old Testament," in Gospel Poverty: Essays in Biblical

Theology (ed. A. George, et al.; Chicago, Ill.: Franciscan Herald, 1977), 15.

35. Ibid,. 17.

36. Ibid., 19.

37. Anton Kuschke, "Arm und Reich im Alten Testament mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der nachexilischen Zeit," ZAW 57 (1939): 57. Cf. Pleins' comment on Deutero-Isaiah: "the general and terribly concrete situation of political and economic oppression indelibly stamps

Second Isaiah's concept of poverty. This is not a theology of humility in the more detached or spiritualized sense" (Pleins, "Poor, Poverty," 409).

POVERTY AND PIETY

economic connotations of 'dndwim are less clear in Zeph 2:3 ("Seek the Lord, all you humble ['dnawim] of the land, who do his commands; seek righteousness, seek humility ("dnawa}"). But "this is the only passage in the entire Hebrew Bible where the term "dndwim seems to have the less concrete meaning of "humble," although even here this is not altogether certain."38 It is in fact possible that 'anawim is simply a variant of the plural of 'ani, despite the fact that the xx does not render these two substantives in the same way.9 Pleins concludes:

If 'dnawim, then, is nothing more than a plural form of 'ani, the meaning of 'dnawim must be sought in conjunction with all the 'ani texts. Three things will follow from this. (1) The term 'anawim will be understood to denote concrete socioeconomic forms of poverty: it cannot be viewed as a condition that occurs by chance or by not being upright; rather, it is the product of oppression.

... (2) The religious connotation of "humbleness" will be rejected, although it will not be necessary to lay aside the biblical idea that God is concerned for the oppressed, and we can still see that the poor are depicted as those who do call on God in their oppression .

. .; in other words, the relation between God and the poor is a matter of justice, not based on piety. . .

. (3) The statistics for word distribution will be combined, making 'ani/'4nawim the predominant word for poverty in the Hebrew Bible.4° In later Judaean literature it is no clearer that poverty and piety are equated. In the Psalms of Solomon, God is depicted as the hope and refuge of the poor (5:2,

11; 10:6; 15:1; 18:2); in the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs poverty is an evil to be relieved by the benefaction of the well-to-do.4! There are forecasts of the escha-_

38. Pleins, "Poor, Poverty," 411, emphasis added. Similarly, Bammel, "ntwx6c, ntwxela, ntwxevw," 890: "Only in Zeph. 3:12 is there as yet a true religious estimation of the poor; here

God will leave only a 'am 'Ani wadal (Aad npavc Kai tanetvdc), and this will trust in Him."

39. The Lxx translates 'dndwim as npaic ("mild", "gentle") at Num 12:3; Ps 25:9 (twice);

34:4 [33:3]; 37:11 [36:11]; 76:9 [75:10]; 147:6 [146:6]; 149:4; as tametvdc ("humble") at Isa 11:4;

32:7; Amos 2:7; Zeph 2:3; Prov 3:34; as mtwx6c ("poor") at Isa 29:19; 61:1; Amos 8:4; Ps 69:33

[68:33]; Prov 14:21; and as névng ("poor") at Ps 9:13, 19; 10:12 [9:33], 17 [9:38]; 22:27 {21:27}.

In contrast, 'dni is rendered overwhelmingly as nrwx6c in Lev 19:10; 23:22; 2 Kgs 22:28;

Job 29:12; 34:28; 36:6; Ps 9:23, 30, 35; 12:5 [11:5]; 14:6 [13:6]; 22:24 [21:24]; 25:16 [24:16]; 34:6

[33:6]; 35:10 [34:10]; 37:14 [36:14]; 40:17 [39:17]; 68:10 [67:10]; 69:29 [68:29]; 70:5 [69:5];

72:2 [71:2]; 72:4 [71:4]; 74:21 [73:21]; 86:1 [85:1]; 88:15 [87:15]; 102:1 (101:1];109:22 [108:22];

140:12 [139:12] or tameivdc at (Ps 18:27 [17:27]; 82:2 [81:3]; Prov 3:34; Qoh 10:6; Isa 14:32;

32:7; 49:19; 54:11; 58:4; 66:2; Jer 22:16) or névng (Deut 15:11; 24:14, 15; Ps 9:12, 18; 72:4 [71:4];

74:19 [73:19]; 109:16 [108:16]; Prov 31:9 [24:77]; 31:20; Zech 7:10; Isa 10:2); Prov 14:21) and less frequently as mpavc (Job 24:4; Zeph 3:12; Zech 9:9; 26:6).

40. Pleins, "Poor, Poverty," 413.

41. T. Iss. 3.8; 5.2; 7.5; T. Ash. 2.5, 6; T. Jos. 3.5; T. Benj. 4.4; 4Q424 III, 9-10. The statement of T. Gad 7.6, that a poor man who is not envious is richer than all does not amount to a valorization of poverty.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

tological elevation of the poor in T. Jud. 25.4 and Sib. Or. 8.208. 1 Enoch 92-105 conducts a strenuous campaign against the wealthy and the powerful claiming that these oppress the righteous (96.8).42 Yet it is noteworthy that neither mévng nor ntwx6¢ appears in the Epistle. Although it is obvious that the authors of the Epistle do not classify themselves among the rich, and do consider themselves to be Sixatot, there is no claim that poverty and piety or righteousness are necessarily connected.

The writer of 4QInstruction positions both himself and his addressees among the poor with the repeated address, "you are poor" DANK VAX, 4Q415 6 2;

4Q416, 2 III, 12; ANX& WRI, 4Q416 2 III, 2; ANK Wr, 4Q418 177 5).43 The content of the instruction, as Benjamin Wright has observed, indicates that the "poor" are actually poor. "The sage of 4QInstruction . . . intends his advice to rescue the mevin from the oppressive results of poverty, such as falling into the hands of creditors, lenders, and others who would take advantage of him."44 For 4QInstruction, poverty is not a virtue or an ideal, nor do the poor have an advantage over the rich simply by virtue of their economic state:

4QInstruction teaches that the poor are indeed considered insignificant in the eyes of others, and they are not justified before God by the fact of their poverty. ... The poor who sin require God's forgiveness (4Q417 2 I). God will, however, raise up the poor who have been wronged (4Q418 126 —interestingly enough, not explicitly by the rich). One fragmentary line might indicate that the sage of 4QInstruction prefers a way of life characterized by poverty: 4Q416

2 II, 20-21 reads, "Do not esteem yourself for your poverty (AI70NA3) when you are (anyway?) a pauper (W7)), lest vacat you bring into contempt your (own way) of life."45

Even this last quoted text seems to suggest, on the contrary, that poverty in itself should not be a badge of pride.

While 4QInstruction may be pre-Qumranic in origin and hence not necessarily represent precisely the diction of the Yahad, other texts with a strong claim to represent the self-understanding of the Yahad indeed use terms for poverty. 4Qplsa* (4Q161 8-10 III, 3-4), commenting on Isa 10:33-34, interprets the 42. George W. E. Nickelsburg, "Riches, the Rich, and God's Judgment in 1 Enoch 92-105 and the Gospel According to Luke," in George W. E. Nickelsburg in Perspective: An Ongoing

Dialogue of Learning (ed. J. Neusner and A. J. Avery-Peck; JSJSup 80; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 52146.

43. Text: John Strugnell, et al., Qumran Cave 4, XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2 (DJD 34;

Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 44. Benjamin G. Wright, "The Categories of Rich and Poor in the Qumran Sapiential Literature," in Sapiential Perspectives: Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. J.

Collins et al.; STDJ 51; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 113.

45. Wright, "Categories of Rich and Poor," 122.

POVERTY AND PIETY

destruction of the tall trees as the defeat of the Kittim at the hands of Israel, the "gentle of the [earth] (pax »3»)." (similarly, 1QM XI, 13: enemies will be delivered up into the hand of the poor [D°"18 772]). Yet the current state of Israel is due, according to the pesher, to the depredations of the evil. Catherine Murphy comments, They are reduced to that state because of the rogues who hatch plots to destroy the hungry and thirsty (Isa 32:5-7; 4QpIsa' 26 1-3 [4Q163]; see 4Qplsa€ 6 27 [4Q165]). In their current deprivation they long for the day when God will reverse their fortunes and provide them with the bread they need and the water for which they thirst (4QpIsa' 23 13-19), when God will free them and provide justice (4QpIsa° 8-10 11-14; 18-19 1-6).46

A similar use of poverty is attested in 4QpPs? (4Q171 Il, 9-12):

And the poor (5"2) shall possess the land and enjoy peace in plenty [Ps 37:11].

Its interpretation concerns the congregation of the poor (D°3"1N7 ATY) who will tough out the period of distress and will be rescued from all the snares of Belial.

Afterwards, all who shall possess the land will enjoy and grow fat with everything enjoyable to the flesh.47

Like 4Qplsa? this pesher indicates that "poor" became a self-designation of the Qumran group. Yet there is no indication that the group's poverty (= piety) is the ground for its hope of eventual triumph. Similarly, the speaker of the Hodayot— perhaps the Righteous Teacher—frequently refers to himself as *3y W53 (XIII, 13,

14) or JW3N WD) (XI, 25; XIII, 18). This designation, however, points to actual poverty as is made clear by XI, 24-25:

For I find myself at the boundary of wickedness and share the lot of the scoundrels. The soul of the poor person lives among great turmoil, and the calamities of hardship are with my footsteps.

Mansoor concludes appropriately that while 'ebyén seems to have become a favorite self-designation of the sect, the term also points to "the permanent social, economic and political state of the person or the group in question."

46. Catherine M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community

(STD]J 40; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 238.

47. Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study

Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997-1998), 1:343.

48. Menahem Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction (STDJ 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 49. "These words [739 and W] have in themselves no special religious meaning, even if the nuance of 'humble (meek)' may sometimes be included. They denote a man (or a people) as actually 'afflicted' and 'destitute' because of his suffering, his being oppressed, helpless, etc." (ibid., 134).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

By the first century B.c.£., then, there is ample evidence of discourse about the impoverished. Poverty is nowhere treated as a state to be sought and those in the state of poverty were not thought to be privileged by virtue of their poverty.

Of course, as in other instances of Near Eastern literature, God or the king were routinely represented as concerned with the plight of the poor and able to intervene to mitigate their dire situation.*9

It is true that documents such as the Epistle of Enoch tend to treat the rich as inherently wicked, but these documents do not conversely consider the poor to be naturally advantaged. And it is true that "the Poor" became a self-designation at Qumran; but this term should not be robbed of its social and economic aspects and turned into a cipher for "the pious"; on the contrary, it points to the actual disadvantagement of the Righteous Teacher and the Yahad relative to their enemies.

2. THE POOR IN THE TWO Ways, MATTHEW, AND JAMES

Of the various terms that might be used to describe poverty (4mAovtoc, dmopos, évderc, Tevixpdc, Névns, MtwxXd¢), Matthew and James prefer mtwyxd¢ and never use any of the other lexemes. The Didache uses mévng once (5:2), évdeiv once (5:2), and mtwxd¢ twice (5:2; 13:4). It has been common to argue for a significant distinction between mévng and mtwydc, the former referring to the working poor and the latter to the destitute. The text most commonly cited to support this distinction is Aristophanes' Plutus 549-550:

Xpepwrog: OdKovv Srnov Tij¢ Mtwxelacg neviav Papéev elvar dderery; Ilévng: 'Yueicg y' oinep kai OpacvPovrAw Atovodatoy elvat Spotov. AAA' odx obpds TodTO nénovGev Biog od pa Av-, ObSE ye LEéAAEL. TItwXOD Lev yap

Biog, Sv ob héyerc, CAv éotiv pndév Exovta: tod dé névNtos Cv Perdopevov kai toic Epyoig mpoogxovta, neprylyveoBat 8 adt@ pndév, pt) pévtor und? émtAeimtety, Chremyulus: Well, don't we say that poverty (penia) is a sister of beggary

(ptdcheia)?

Poverty: Ah, according to you Thrasybulus and Dionysius are one and the same.

No, my life is not like that, nor by Zeus will ever be. For the life of the beggar, whom you describe, is to live never possessing anything. But the 49. Chester Charlton McCown, "The Beatitudes in the Light of Ancient Ideals," JBL 46

(1927): 50-61.

50. See Arthur Robinson Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (London:

Thames & Hudson, 1968), 64-65, who also notes the "Greek tendency to hyperbole and variation of language for its own sake" and conjectures that the higher frequency of mtwxO¢ in "Greek-Oriental literature as compared with classical has been taken to reflect a higher incidence of dire poverty in this period" (ibid., 65).

POVERTY AND PIETY

life of a poor man is to live by scrimping and being attentive to his work: he has no surplus, but there is no shortfall either.

Relying on Aristophanes it is usual to suppose that the early Jesus movement, by preferring mtwx6¢ in its discourse, had in view not the working poor but the utterly destitute.>! The validity of this distinction is, however, undermined by the observation that the Septuagint constantly uses mtwx6¢ generically to refer to the poor. For example, 4 Kgdms 25:12, referring to the deportation of the population from Judah, states that "the captain of the guard left some of the ntwyoi of the land as vinedressers and plowmen," where mtwxoi cannot mean "beggars."52

Moreover, Ps 39:18, 69:6, 85:1 and 108:22 use the phrase éy@ 58 ntwxéc eit Kal mévnc, where the two nouns must be synonymous; if the mtwyéc signified a status much lower than that of mévnc, one should expect éyw 5é névng eit, Kal trwYX6c,

"I am poor, nay, a beggar." Additionally, Prov 22:22 reads pi anobidlov mévNnta, TtwXd¢ yap éotiv, "do not rob the penés, for he is a ptdchos." It makes little sense to render this, "do not rob the poor for he is a beggar."54

If the Septuagint tended to assimilate ntwy6¢ to mévng, ordinary Greek usage could include the destitute among the poor. In the Symposium, Plato describes

Penia (poverty) as coming to the door to beg (203A) and Erds, Penia's child, as "rough and squalid, and has no shoes, nor a house to dwell in [and] always in distress," that is, as a beggar (203CD). Ievia is a much more comprehensive category than is suggested by Aristophanes' distinction. Rosivach in fact notes,

51. Thus John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish

Peasant (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1991), 270-73: "The beatitude of Jesus declared blessed, then, not the poor but the destitute, not poverty but beggary" (ibid., 273), referring to Gildas H.

Hamel, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine: First Three Centuries C.E. (University of California Publications: Near Eastern Studies 23; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California

Press, 1990), 170: "A mévng remained on a somewhat equal footing with the rich, at least in religious and political matters. He had a voice in the community and was conscious of supporting the whole edifice of society. If the névn¢ was the opponent of the movotoc he was also on the same side of the fence. Both névnc¢ and m\ovotoc determined each other's identity, whereas a mTwx6c was on the margins and recognized by everyone as such. Poor and rich belonged to the same world and placed themselves on a common, ever-sliding scale, but beggars could not. The mtwx6¢ was someone who had lost many of all of his family and social ties."

52. The mt has p38 NIM.

53. L. Gregory Bloomquist, "The Rhetoric of the Historical Jesus," in Whose Historical

Jesus? (ed. W. E. Arnal and M. Desjardins; ESCJ 7; Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier University

Press, 1997), 107. The two nouns appear in synonymous parallelism elsewhere: 1 Sam 2:8; Job

34:28; Ps 11:6; 34:10; 36:14; 40:2; 69:6; 71:4; 71:12, 13; 73:21; 81:3, 4; 85:1; 108:16, 22; 112:7;

139:13; Prov 31:20; Isa 10:2; Ezek 16:49; 18:12; 22:29; Amos 4:1; 8:4; Ps Sol 5:11.

54. Benjamin G. Wright and Claudia V. Camp, "'Who Has Been Tested by Gold and Found Perfect?' Ben Sira's Discourse of Riches and Poverty," Henoch 23 (2001): 154 note that the Lxx translator of Sirach "often seems to regard the two roots [mtwxand tametv-] as synonymous," citing Sir 13:20-23 where 7130/tanetvotn¢ appears in parallel with [v18/ntwx6c.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

The passage from Wealth quoted above is taken .

. to show that beggars (ptékhoi) were a distinct underclass, as it were, beneath the penétes, but this is not quite correct, since, properly speaking, all non-wealthy, including beggars, were penétes. The word ptdkhos is rarely used to describe actual real beggars.

Rather it is used most often in two contexts, first to elicit sympathy in describing people who have lost everything . .

. and second as an exaggerated synonym for penés, particularly as a term of abuse.°>

If the distinction between mtwy6c¢ and névng is not overdrawn, then the language of the early Jesus movement appears for the most part conventional when viewed against the background of other Judaean literature.

2.1. THE DIDACHE AND THE "POOR"

I will begin with the Two Ways document of the Didache for two reasons.

First, whether or not Did. 1:1-2; 2:2-6:1 is thought already to belong to the Jesus movement, it reflects virtually nothing of the tradition of Jesus's sayings that was eventually enshrined in Q and Matthew and which, as I have argued elsewhere, was known to James.°° The catena of Jesus-sayings in 1:3-2:1, which betrays knowledge of Luke and either Matthew or Q,°7 is almost universally acknowledged to be a later addition to the Two Ways. As will become clear, the references to the poor in Matthew and James are due in large measure to Q sayings concerning poverty.

Second, the Didache is very lean when it comes to references to the poor.

Did. 13:4 recommends that if a prophet is not available in the community to be the recipient of first fruits, these should be given to toig mtwxoic.>8 This provi55. Vincent J. Rosivach, "Some Athenian Presuppositions About 'The Poor'," GR 38

(1991): 196, n. 5.

56. On the slight evidence of "christianizing" of the Two Ways document prior to the addition of 1:3-2:1, see John S. Kloppenborg, "The Transformation of Moral Exhortation in Didache 1-5," in The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History and Transmission (ed. C.

N. Jefford; NovTSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 97-98. On James and the Jesus tradition, see John

S. Kloppenborg, "The Reception of the Jesus Tradition in James," in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition (ed. J. Schlosser; BETL 176; Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 93-139; "Emulation of the Jesus Tradition in James," in Reading James with New Eyes (ed. R. L. Webb and J. S. Kloppenborg; Library of New Testament Studies 342; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 121-50.

57. See John S. Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did 1:3b-2:1," in The Didache and Matthew: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (ed. H. van de

Sandt; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005), 105-29.

58. Did. 13:4, which uses the second person plural instead of the second person singular of 13:3, 5-6, has been regarded as a later, though still old, gloss: Audet, La Didache: Instructions des apotres, 458; Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1998), 192.

POVERTY AND PIETY

sion is evidently an imitation of Num 18:8-32, which mandated a tithe to be paid to the priests and Levites, and Deut 14:28-29, which adds kai 6 mpoonAvtoc Kal 6

SpPpavoc kai H} xApa fh év taic téAEo(v Gov as additional recipients of the tithe.

The only other explicit references to the poor comes in the Two Ways section in 5:2, in a lengthy list of the partisans of the "way of death," which includes those who "show no mercy to a poor person" (od« éAeodvtes NTwyX6v), who "do not make an effort for the oppressed" (od novodvtec émi Katanovovpévw), who "turn their backs on the needy person" (4nootpepdpevot tov évdedpevov), who oppress the afflicted (katanovodvtec tov OAiBdpevov), "advocates for the rich"

(mAovoiwv mapaKAntot) and the lawless judges of the poor (nevijtwv dvopot Kpttai). The explicit condemnation of friends of the rich coupled with the condemnation of their neglect of the poor and oppressed recalls much of the polemic of the Epistle of Enoch, which in turn developed the language of the Psalms and prophetic complaints against the wealthy. Neither the call to support the poor nor complaints against the abuses of the wealthy, however, is terribly novel when viewed in the context of the discourse of the Tanak on wealth and poverty. None of these suggests that piety is a special mark of the poor.

The point in the Two Ways document that has been thought to reflect 'dnawim piety is Did. 3:7—4:4. Jean-Paul Audet called this section an "instruction aux pauvres.">? Citing Causse,®° Audet saw the typical features of '4nawim piety: the appeals to patience, mercy, and fidelity to the Torah; warnings against anger and hybris; and the encouragement to seek the company not of the arrogant but of the dixatoi-Gytor (4:2). Even though none of the terms for "poor" appears in 3:7-4:4, Audet concluded that the addressees "ne sont pas autres, évidemment, que les ntwxoi, pauvres, plus directement reconnaissables sous ce nom dans exhortation sur l'auméne" (4:5-8).6! Niederwimmer for his part calls the section "the 'andwim sayings," evidently because this section employs language typically associated with 'a@ndwim piety.°?

It should be said, initially, that it seems very unlikely that 3:7-4:4 or the Two Ways in general intends to address the "poor." The immediately preceding section, Did. 3:1-6, is concerned to articulate an aetiology and genealogy of vices, arguing that there is a direct and necessary connection between lesser vices such as anger not expressly proscribed by the Torah, and murder, part of the Decalogue. This kind of discourse, which seeks to establish family resemblances among certain behaviors, and which operates from and seeks to illustrate the theoretical claim of the unity of the Torah, belongs to a fairly sophisticated moral speculation, hardly consonant with addressees far down the social ladder. The 59. Audet, La Didaché: Instructions des apétres, 311.

60. Causse, Les «Pauvres» d'Israél.

61. Audet, La Didaché: Instructions des apéotres, 317.

62. Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, 100-102.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

advice not to associate with the bynAoi (3:9; cf 5:2, bwos, dAaloveia) but instead with the Sixatot also implies addressees who, on the one hand, like the Epistle of Enoch identify the wealthy and arrogant with the wicked,® and on the other, have some degree of choice in their associations, and could avoid contact, e.g., with wealthy benefactors and the elite of Roman society. The counsel not to show partiality in correction (ov An wy Tpdawnov éAéyEat Eni napantw@paoty; 4:3) likewise points to persons who might from time to time enjoy authority over others.

Comparison of the Didache's Two Ways with that of Barnabas suggest, first, that the téxvov section (Did. 3:1-6) was inserted in the source common to the Didache's Two Ways, the Doctrina Apostolorum and the Canons of the Holy

Apostles.64 Second, comparison of Did. 3:7-4:4 with Barn. 19.2-7 indicates that either the didachist or his source rearranged extensively, extracting some of the material to create Did. 2:2-7 and rearranging the remaining sayings of Barnabas to form two small clusters of imperatives, 3:7-10 and 4:1-4.

While the sayings in Barnabas are rather chaotic, the Didache is much better organized, with the first cluster (3:7-10) stressing humility, quiet, and acceptance of fate, and the second recommending reverence for teachers and the fostering of strong inner-group solidarity. In fact submission to teaching is common to both clusters, since 3:8 valorizes an awe-filled posture towards oi Adyot ods HKovoac.

The allusion is to Isa 66:2b, kai émi tiva émBrAEyw GAN' H Eni TOV Tametvov Kai Hobxtov Kai tpépovta tods Adyous pov,®> "but this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and quiet and trembles at my word," which suggests that oi Adyot are meant to be divine words, conveyed through the voice of a teacher.

That is, both units are concerned with the student's posture vis a vis teaching.

Comparison of Did. 3:7-10 with Barnabas indicates considerable expansion, as well as rearrangement. For Barnabas' lapidary imperative, Eon mpauc, the 63, On arrogance as a stereotypical vice of the rich, see Vincent J. Rosivach, "Class Matters in the «Dyskolos» of Menander," CQ 51 (2001): 129 and Aristotle, Rhet. 1378b26: attiov Sé tij¢

Sovijg toig UPpiCovory, Sti olovtat Kak Sp@vrec adtol dnepéxer pGdAov. Sd oi véor kal of TAovoLoL LBptotai: bnepéxetv yap olovtat DPpiCovrtec, "the cause of pleasure for those who act in an insulting way is the idea that, by ill-treating others, they are able more fully to demonstrate superiority. For this reason the young and the rich are given to insults: for they suppose by acting in an insulting fashion they are showing their superiority."

64. Thus Niederwimmer, The Didache:

A Commentary, 124 n. 1. Interestingly, P.Oxy.

1782 has a series of wedge-shapes signs at the ends of fol. 2r.20 followed by horizontal dashes

(fol. 2r.21), thus separating 2.7 from 3.1; see Richard Hugh Connolly, "New Fragments of the Didache," JTS 25 (1924): 152. Niederwimmer (The Didache: A Commentary, 37) thinks that the copyist wished to signal that nothing was missing from |. 20 and that a new section began after I. 21 (i,e., 3:1-6). Audet (La Didache: Instructions des apétres, 55): "It est beaucoup plus naturel de supposer une addition projectée, puis omise aprés coup pour une raison ou pour une autre."

65. 1 Clem. 13.4 cites Isa 66:2b but uses mpavic instead of tanewdc: émi tiva émBEyw AN'

| ml TOV Mpadc Kal ovxiov Kal Tpé"ovTa TOdS Adyous LOU.

POVERTY AND PIETY

Didache provides a full motive clause: énet oi mpaeic¢ KANpovoprjoovat TH yi, citing Ps 36:11 Lxx, oi 58 mpaei¢ KAnpovoproovow yy (MT: PINIW 7 OID).

Van de Sandt draws attention both to the wording of the Doctrina, esto autem mansueti quia mansueti possidebunt sanctam terram, and to the pesher on Ps

37:11 in 4QpPs? II, 9-11, and the pesher on Ps 37:21-22:

And the poor (0112) shall possess the land and enjoy peace in plenty [Ps 37:11].

Its interpretation concerns the congregation of the poor (D°3"3N7 77Y) who will tough out the period of distress and will be rescued from all the snares of Belial.

Afterwards, all who shall possess the land will enjoy and grow fat with everything enjoyable to the flesh. . .

. (4QpPs? II, 9-11) The wicked borrows but does not pay back, while the just man is sympathetic and gives. For those who are blessed [by him shall pos]sses the land, but those who are cursed by him [shall be cuJt off. Its interpretation concerns the congregation of the poor [to whom is] the inheritance of the whole.

. .[. . .] They will inherit the high mountain of Isra[el and] delight [in his] holy mountain.

(4QpPs? III, 8-11).

Both pesharim refer to Ps 37:11 and as the second pesher makes clear, the Yahad expected to inherit the temple (=the high mountain of Israel).67 Van de Sandt sees this "patriotic" or "national-political" interpretation also in the Doctrina. Yet it is crucial to note that neither Did. 3:7 nor Matt 5:5 follows this interpretation, as van de Sandt himself notes.® Ps 37:11 is not given the political interpretation it has in 4QpPs?.

Niederwimmer proposes that the didachist expresses the belief typical of 'anawim piety that "those who are oppressed and without possessions .

. . will eventually (an eschatological hope, but not for the near future) be the possessors of the (holy) land" and that "the humble and pious person [who] .

. . accepts everything that befalls him or her without grumbling" (3.10) will be compensated.®? But nothing in particular in 3:7-10 indicates poverty; on the contrary,

66. Trans. Garcia Martinez, Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:343-45.

67. Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (CRINT 3/5; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002), 134.

68. On Matt 5:5, William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (A Critical and Exegetical

Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 198897], 1:450) consider the possibility that tiv yfv refers to the Land of Israel but reject this on the grounds that elsewhere Matthew uses # yij to mean "the earth." "It would seem to follow, then, that in Mt 5.5 'to inherit the land' has been spiritualized, and 5.5b is no more concrete than any of the other promises made in the beatitudes. It is just another way of saying, 'The one who humbles himself will be exalted (in the Kingdom of God)" (Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on... Matthew, 450-51).

69. Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, 100, 102.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

when mpaic is paired with ovxtog (and paxpoOupia), as it also is in Hermas, Mand. 5.2.3; 6.2.3 and 1 Clem. 13.4, its primary referent is not to economic states but to mildness or gentleness. The economic associations of 'nawim are not carried over into Greek.

Rather than expressing beliefs about the redemption of the poor, Did. 3:7-8 strings together virtues associated with moral instruction. A similar set of adjectives is found in T. Dan 6.9 (in what may be a Christian insertion): ott [6 matip tov EBvav] yap dAnOij¢ Kal paxpdBvp0¢, MpGog Kai tametvdc, Kai ExdiddoKwv

51a tv Epywv vopov Oeod, "for [the father of the nations] is true and patient and mild and lowly and teaches through his works the Law of God." Didache

3:7-10, like 4:1-4, aims to inculcate the virtues of a student. 'Andwim piety has nothing to do with this unit.

2.2. MATTHEW AND THE POOR

Most of Matthew's uses of "poor" are also quite conventional. Matt 19:21

(editing Mark 10:21) advises almsgiving to the mtwxoic as a means of obtaining "treasure in heaven" in a manner not significantly different from the advice proffered by Sirach or Tobit:

LvykAetoov eAenuoovyny ev toic tapteiot cov, kai abtn éEedeitai oe ék naons

KAKWOEWS,

Store up almsgiving in your treasury, and it will rescue you from all affliction.

(Sir 29:12) :

EXenpoobvn yap ék Bavatou pv_etat, Kai adti dnoKa8apiel Macav duaptiav: oi noodvtes ELennoovdvac Kai Sucaroobvag MANHGOHoovtat (wij.

For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin. Those who perform deeds of charity and of righteousness will have fullness of life.

(Tob 12:9),70 Almsgiving as a means of relieving poverty is also presupposed in the exchange in Matt 26:9-11. Also conventional is the sentiment expressed in Matt 11:5 (from 70. Sir 3:30 ndp pPoyiCopevov dnooPéoet KSwp, Kal ELennoobyn erdoetat apaptiac,

"Water extinguishes a blazing fire: so almsgiving atones for sin"; 17:22 EAenpoovvn avdpdc we

Fppayic pETadTOd, Kal xaptv dvOpdnov wg Kdpnv Ovvtnproel, "A man's almsgiving is like a signet with the Lord and he will keep a person's kindness like the apple of his eye"; 29:12 avykhe1oov éAenpoovvny ev Tog Taptelorg Gov, Kai aiitn sedettal oe &K TAONS KAKWOEWS,

"Store up almsgiving in your treasury, and it will rescue you from all affliction"; 40:17 Xaptc we napaderoog év evhoyiatc, Kal EAenpoobvn eic tov aid@va Stapevei, "Kindness is like a garden of blessings, and almsgiving endures for ever"; 40:24 dSehoi kai BorPeta eig Kaipdv OAiyews, Kai brep Apupotepa ELenproovvn pboerat, "Brothers and help are for a time of trouble, but almsgiving rescues better than both."

POVERTY AND PIETY

Q 7:22) that the ntwxoi will be favored by God's saving actions. There is an obvious allusion to Isa 61:1, D13Y Twa "Nk MAY NWN / Expioév pe edayyeoacHat

Mtwxoic, and now a remarkable parallel in 4Q521 2 II, 12, "the Lord will heal the wounded and will enliven the dead and give good news to the poor (o"1v 12).

Less conventional is what is expressed in Matt 5:3, adapted from Q 6:20.

Q 6:20b: paxapior of nrwxoi, St [[dpetépa]] gotiv fh Bacueia tod Beod.7!

Matt 5:3: paxaptor oi ntwxoi TO mveduati, Sti adTa@v gottv 1} Baocireia THV ovpavav.

As is well known, it is usual to argue that Matthew has redactionally ethicized what in Q is referred to as the social or economic state of poverty. This conclusion is obvious from the attributes that Matthew added to Q's beatitudes and from the extra beatitudes added. Davies and Allison resist this conclusion, pointing out that "there are no explicit imperatives" except in 5:11-12, and that the qualities enunciated by the makarisms are not frequent in New Testament catalogues of virtues.'? But Davies and Allison themselves concede that ntwxoi t@ mvevpati, like mm "3p of 1QM XIV, 7, means "humble."73 Likewise, oi npacic

(5:5), oi metv@vtec¢ Kai Suy@vtec tiv dtkatoobvnv (5:6), oi éerjpovec (5:7), oi Ka8apoi tj kapdia (5:8), and oi eipnvomovoi (5:9) all point to ethical, not to social or economic states. That these statement are not framed as imperatives is quite irrelevant to their illocutionary function: it should be obvious that makarisms such as Ps 1:1 (paxdpiog avijp, d¢ odk Enopevd8n év PovAf doeBav kai év 65@ apaptwA@v obk Eotn Kai éri Kabédpav Aowav oOvK ExABt0eVv) or 40:2 (LaKdptoc

6 ovviwv éni mtwxdv Kai névnta: év Hepa TovNpG PvoeTat adTov 6 KUptoc) have an implied imperative, as Davies and Allison themselves admit.74

The issue for Davies and Allison is whether Matthew's makarisms are "entrance requirements"'> or "eschatological blessings,"7® that is, whether their

"primary function ... is moral" or "whether a moral dimension excludes a promissory or conciliatory dimension.""7 Put this way, the answer seems clear: surely the beatitudes both recommend certain behaviors and promise rewards to the 71. Reconstruction: James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds.,

The Critical Edition of Q: A Synopsis, Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas, with English, German and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 46.

72. Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on... Matthew, 1:439.

73. Ibid., 1:444.

74. Ibid., 1:439.

75. E.g., Georg Strecker, Die Bergpredigt: Ein exegetischer Kommentar (Géttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 34.

76. Robert Guelich, "The Matthean Beatitudes: 'Entrance-Requirements' or Eschatological Blessings," JBL 95 (1976): 415-34.

77. Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on ... Matthew, 1:440.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

faithful. The tension that exists within the string of Matthaean makarisms— between "blessed are those who mourn" (5:4), which has no obvious imperatival function, and "blessed are the gentle," which does—can be resolved by noting that the markarisms that are "purely ethical" (5:5, 7-9) are those that Matthew has added to Q; two of the makarisms taken from Q have been edited to enhance their ethical dimension (5:3, 6); the remaining two (5:4, 11-12) already included the nuance of patient endurance of adversity and so were left more or less unchanged. The key point is that Matthew's editing has shifted Q's makarisms, which concerned social conditions, into ethical discourse.

Some commentators seem desperate to retain a strong economic perspective for Matthew's beatitudes.78 Yet Matthew has relatively little to say about the poor or poverty generally."? When speaking of money, he uses high denominations (ta diSpaypa, 17:24; taXavtov/ta, 18:24; 25:15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28; otatrp, 17:27).

And where he speaks of alimentary and other means of support, for example in the mission instructions, in 10:10, he changes Q 10:7's GEtog yap 6 épyatn¢ tod ju080d adtod to Tic Tpo*is abtod, signaling a shift from the payment of day laborers (pyatat)—that is, payment to persons outside to household—to the maintenance of workers within the household.8°

Matthew's relocation of Q 12:51-53 and 14:26-27; 17:33 to the end of the mission discourse also shows his interest in the household: Q 12:51-53 predicts division within the household, now apparently the direct result of the admonition to fearless confession (Matt 10:26-33 = Q 12:2-9, also relocated), while Q

14:26, which speaks of "hating parents"®! is moderated to "loving parents more 78. E.g., Michael Crosby, House of Disciples: Church, Economics, and Justice in Matthew

(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1988), 152-55, who rejects the view that Matthew "waters down" the original by "spiritualizing" the beatitudes, and dismisses this with the dubious characterization that "the Hebrew mentalitiy did not 'spiritualize' or 'materialize'; it united the two" (ibid.,

154).

79, W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 213: "nowhere does Matthew reveal an emphasis on poverty and ascetic rejection of wealth."

80. 1 am indebted to Giovanni Battista Bazzana, "Early Christian Missionaries as Phyisicians: Christian Sources in the Context of Greco-Roman Medical Practice," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Context Group, Ashton Pa., March 15-18 (2007) for this observation: "What is implied in Matthew's change of the Q wording? At first sight it is clear that the saying 'the laborer deserves his nourishment' has lost a good deal of its significance: which laborer would have worked without salary and only on the promise to receive some food? He would have been immediately equated to a slave. It is worth remarking that probably this is the exact meaning implied by the Matthean redaction of our passage: the redactor intended to depict Jesus' missionaries not as paid laborers but as members of God's household who perform their duty without expecting any wage." See also A. E. Harvey, "The Workman is Worthy of His Hire: Fortunes of a Proverb in the Early Church," NovT 24 (1982): 209-21.

81. Reconstruction: Robinson, Hoffmann, and Kloppenborg, Critical Edition of Q, 450.

POVERTY AND PIETY

than me." Matthew's redaction of chapter 18 likewise stresses the household as a locus: Matt 18:6 adds tov motevdvtwv cig gué to Q 17:2's TOV pUKPOV TOUTWV, thus making clear that Matthew is speaking to members of the households of the Jesus movement. The use of Q 17:3-4 on forgiveness in this context likewise indicates Matthew's strong interest in establishing rules for interaction among "brothers" (18:15, 21). The concluding parable, Matt 18:23-35, takes the metaphor of relationships of domestic slaves within a (large!) household to illustrate relationships within the Jesus movement. And the quartet of parables in 24:4551; 25:1-13, 14-30, 31-46, two of them taken from Q and relocated here, stress faithful household management and the distribution of tpogi év kaip@ (24:45) to fellow domestics, attentiveness to the moral demands of the householder

(25:1-13),82 and faithful service of domestic slaves to an absentee owner (25:1430). It is only in the final parable, 25:31-46, that there is any hint of interest in the benefaction of the poor, here characterized as the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, ill, and imprisoned. However, these are further qualified as évi tobtwv tov adeApa@v pov tdv éAaxiotwv (25:40), which can only refer to members of the Jesus movement.§3 Hence, Matthew's concern is not primarily with the poor or dispossessed outside the Jesus movement, but with negotiating relationships within the Jesus groups.

In view of Matthew's concentration of the moral economy of the household of the Jesus movement, his ethicizing of the makarisms is perfectly intelligible. In fact, given his general neglect of the "poor" as a social category, it would be odd for him simply to have taken over Q's makarisms unchanged. The makarisms thus become a catalogue of virtues that draw upon and transform the older list of makarisms from Q, adapting Q's discourse about the inversion of the social states to discourse concerning maintenance of the households of the Jesus movement.

2.3. JAMES AND THE DISCOURSE ON THE POOR

As is well known, James offers a dense configuration of discourse on wealth and poverty, contrasting 6 tametvéc and 6 mAovotoc in 1:9-11; the mAovotoc and the mtwx6c in 2:1-7, and attacking oi mhovoto1 and wealth in 5:1-4. James also employs the mpairoot twice, in 1:21 and 3:13. In neither case, however, does the term connote either material poverty or oppression as it does in Ps 34:3 [33:3]

82. See here Karl Paul Donfried, "The Allegory of the Ten Virgins (Mt 25:1-13) as a Summary of Matthean Theology," JBL 94 (1974): 415-28, who notes the stress on the virtues of prudence (25:4, 9), preparedness, and especially the acquisition of good works.

83. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21-28 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 271-73, 27982 argues that the "least of these my brothers" are the itinerant radicals of the Jesus movement who, according to 10:40 are to be "received" as the Lord.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

and 147:6 [146:6], translating 'andwim. On the contrary, as the context makes clear, mpaitns connotes a favorable disposition to receive teaching:

1:21

516 dnoGépevot nacav punapiav Kai nepicoeiav kakiag év mpadthnTtt, SéEaaOe Tov Eugutov Adyov Tov Suvapevov Goat Tag uxac bpa@v.

Therefore put away all filthiness and abundance of evil and accept with gentleness the implanted logos which is able to save your souls.

3:13:

Tic copds kai émothpwv év dpiv; Sekatw ex Tic KaAij¢ Avaotpog;gs Ta Epya adtod év mpaitynti cogiac.

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by his good conduct his works through the gentleness of wisdom.

This usage of mpaitng is fully in accord with ordinary Greek usage, especially in connection with virtues of the wise,*4 and with its use in Psalms such as 25:9

[24:9] and Prov 16:19, where the term appears in the context of the reception of teaching, or in the Sentences of Sextus, where it is a mark of a sage, or in Hermas,

Mand. 11.8, where gentleness is the mark of a true believer rather than a false prophet:

Ps 24:9: ddnyrjoet mpaeic év Kpioei, didaEget mpasic dd0v¢ adtod.

He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way.

Prov 16:19: Kkpeioowv mpabOvpog peta TameivWoews f S¢ Staipeitat oxdAa peta bBpiotav.

= It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor than to divide the spoil with the proud.

Sent. Sextus 453: dpxywv pév émtdeve mpaiic elvat, apyouevoc 5é peyardogpwv.

Begin by making a practice of being gentle, beginning with (being) generous.

Hermas, Mand. 11 [43].8: np@tov pév 6 Exwv TO nvedpa TO dvwHev Tpaiic éoTt Kai Hovxtog Kal Tanetvo~pwv kal dnexdpevog and mMaong Movnpias Kal émBupiag pataiag tod ai@vog tovTov.

84. Friedrich Hauck and Siegfried Schulz, "npaic, mpaitns," TDNT 6: 646: "It is a mark of the high-minded (eya68vpog, Epictetus Fr., 12) and noble (Plato, Phaedr. 243C; Leg.

5.731D), of the cultured (nadevtiKds &vOpwroc HéAwv elvat doxet mpadtHta), and therefore of the wise (with Kdapto¢ and Hobyto¢g in Stobaeus 2.115.10), who remains calm even in face of abuse (Epictetus, Ench. 42); Socrates is a model here (Plato, Phaedr, 116C). Hence the gentleness of leading citizens is constantly extolled in encomiums, and it has a prominent place in depictions of rulers. Rhetoric counts it among the commoda animi. For Lucian it is an adornment of the soul like Sucatoovvn, evoéPeta, émteixera etc., Somnium, 10."

POVERTY AND PIETY

In the first place whoever has the spirit that comes from above is gentle and quiet and humble, and abstains from all evil and the empty desires of this age.

Turning to the discourse on rich and poor, one of the central debates in the interpretation of James is his posture towards rich and poor. On the face of it, it would appear that James identifies solidly with the poor against the rich, declaring that the rich will perish (1:10-11; 5:1) and that the poor and humble will be elevated

(1:9-11). Peter Davids, invoking the notion of the piety of the poor, argued:

It is clear first of all that James has great sympathy for the poor and that the term is virtually identical in his mind with "Christian," probably due to the community's circumstances and the traditional piety-poyerty link. . .

. Each place [Jas 1:9, 12; 2:5; 5:7] identifies the community with the poor and oppressed group.85

Earlier Dibelius had concluded similarly:

Ja[me]s can express his sympathy with the poor with so little reserve because for him being poor and being Christian were coincidental concepts, not only by virtue of his archaizing dependence on the literature [of the poor], but also by virtue of is own personal conviction.This can be stated with all confidence because the entire document bears witness to a pietistic-patriarchal thoughtworld which was especially propitious for the revitalization of the attitude of the Poor; antipathy toward the world, mistrust of "secular" affairs, warning against arrogance, humble submission before God.86

Windisch took this even further, declaring that James was a representative of Ebionite Christianity." Conversely, for Dibelius the rich mentioned in the letter are either non-Christians or "people whom he considers no longer to be included in a proper sense within Christendom."88

There are several problems with the notion of James's identification with the poor via the construct of Armenfrémmigkeit, however. In the first place, the scene in 2:1-5 involving the rich man and the mtwx6c in rags is not constructed to lead to the conclusion that the mtwx6c belongs to the Jesus-group in virtue of his piety. On the contrary, the focus of this unit is to argue that the mpoownoAnpyia displayed (or imagined to be displayed) by his addressees amounts to a violation

85. Davids, Epistle of James, 45.

86. Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 44.

87. Hans Windisch, Die katholischen Briefe (3rd ed.; rev. by H. Preisker; HNT 15; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951), 36.

88. Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 87-88. Compare Tamez, Scandalous Message of James, 25: "The rich (plousios) in the letter do not belong to the Christian community, or at least the author does not think that they should belong to it."

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

of the Torah. Moreover, as Kelly points out, the use of Abraham, proverbially a wealthy man, as an exemplar of piety in 2:21 is odd if James were really committed to the proposition that the rich are inherently evil.8? Likewise the complaint against merchants in 4:13-17 does not concern their wealth but their arrogance.

Rather than treating the mtwyxéc in James as a description of either the intended addressees, or the ideal condition of those addressees, or even claiming with Bauckham that James's discourse on the "poor" aimed at encouraging emulation of certain characteristics of the poor—openness, humility, dependence—it is worth considering the fact that the contrast of rich and poor was a standard rhetorical trope in Graeco-Roman moralizing literature. Philostratus names as apxata cogiotiKr the contrast of rich and poor and the figure of the rich man or tyrant,?° and one of Stobaeus's topic in his anthology is obyKptoig meviac Kal movtov. When Petronius, speaking through Trimalchio, wishes to lampoon rhetoric, he has Trimalchio ask Agamemnon to deliver the speech (controversia) that he practiced in school that day. Agamemmnon begins, pauper et dives inimici erant, at which point Trimalchio interrupts and proceeds with an attack on rhetoric.

Example of this sort could be multiplied almost indefinitely; the point is clear, however, that the contrast of rich and poor was a standard rhetorical figure.

The question to be raised, now, is the function of this contrast.

Lucian of Samosata's Cataplus offers a telling example of the use of this trope. The story features three of the day's dead, whom Hermes has brought down to Clotho and Charon. They are Megapenthes, a tyrant, Micyllus a penniless cobbler, and Cyniscus, a Cynic philosopher. After Megapenthes makes a run for the mouth of the cave and is run down by Hermes, assisted by Cyniscus, and after Megapenthes unsuccessfully tries to bribe his way back to life, Clotho reveals to him how it will turn out after his death. The picture is not a pretty one: he was slain by the new ruler, who took his daughter as a concubine; his slave

89. Francis Xavier Kelly, "Poor and Rich in the Epistle of James" (Ph.D. diss., Temple

University, 1973), 208.

90. Philostratus, Vita sophistarum 481:'H pév d) apxaia cogrotixi) Kal Ta POGo@owpEVa droriWepévny Sujet abta dnotadny kal & piKoc, Stehéyeto pev yap nepi avdpeiac, Stekéyeto

Sé nepi Sikardty Tog, hpowv te népt kal Bedv Kai San Aneoynpatiorat 1) Sa Tod KdopOv.

St pet' éxeivny, iv odyi véav, dpxaia yap, Sevtépav Sé paAov mpoapntéov, Tove TEV TAG bretumm@oato Kal Tobe MAOVGIOVE Kal TOdE dpiotéag Kai tobs tupavvouc Kal Tac &¢ Svopa bnoéoetc, &¢y' dg i lotopia dyet. "Now ancient sophistic, even when it propounded philosophical themes, used to discuss them diffusely and at length; for it discoursed on courage, it discoursed on justice, on the heroes and gods, and how the universe had been fashioned into its present shape. But the sophistic that followed it, which we must not call 'new,' for it is old, but rather 'second,' sketched the types of the poor man and the rich, of princes and tyrants, and handled arguments that are concerned with definite and special themes for which history shows the way."

POVERTY AND PIETY

is sleeping with Megapenthes' wife; his retainers had no real loyalty and one of them poisoned him. In short, Lucian paints Megapenthes as a pathetic figure, petty and grasping, cowardly before death, and shackled by his attachments.

Micyllus, by contrast, is happy to die:

By Zeus I see that everything is quite spendid here. For that all should be equal in rank and that none should be different from his neighbour seems indeed very pleasant to me. And I infer that here those who are in debt do not have their goods seized, that there is no paying of taxes, that above all there is no freezing in winter nor sickness nor getting beaten up by those who are more powerful.

All are at peace and the tables are turned, since we who are poor are laughing, but the rich are in distress and lamenting. (Lucian, Cataplus 15)?!

Micyllus does admit that he once considered Megapenthes to be iod8ed¢ Tic, somone who was like a god, impressed by his finery. Now he sees Megapenthes for what he is. Throughout Cataplus and Dialogues of the Dead, Lucian holds forth the ideal of iootipia, a society without stratification.?? But this state, for Lucian, only exists in Hades.

This is not the end of the story, since in Cataplus, the rich tyrant is punished by Rhadamanthos by not being permitted to drink the waters of Lethé and thus forced forever to remember "what he was and how much power he had in the upper world" (28). In Menippus, Lucian has the oi mAovatot kai toKoyAvPot, lined up in Hades, each with neck irons, and the town council of Hades passing a special decree against the rich:

Whereas the rich have committed many lawless deeds in like, plundering and doing violence and in every manner humiliate the poor, be it resolved by the senate and the people that when they die their bodies be punished like those of the other malefactors, but their souls be sent back up into life and enter into donkeys until they shall have passed 250,000 years in the said condition, transmigrating from donkey to donkey, bearing burdens, and being driven by the poor; and that thereafter it be permitted for them do die."

91. kal vi) Ar'- Sn Kaha ta nap' bpiv navta dpG@- 16 te yap iootipiay dnaow elvat Kai undéva tod mAnoiov Stagépey, bnephSiotov épol yobv Soxei. tekpaipopat dé nd' anarteioBar

Ta xpéa Tove SgeiAovtac évtadba uNdé PSpouc bnoTedeiv, Td dé pEyLoTOV, UNdE pryobv Tod

XEtu@voc pndé vooeiv und' dnd tov Svvatwrépwv panileoBat. eiprivn 5 nao1 Kai mpaypata é¢ TO Eunadtv aveotpappéva: Hpeic pév oi mévntes yed@pev, Avi@vtat dé Kai oilpwlovaty ol

TAOvGIOL.

92. The notion of iootipia is frequent in Lucian, Phaleris 1.3.7; Cataplus 15.11; Contemplantes 18.10; Piscator 34.9; De Mercede Conductis 16.9; Imagines 9.24; Saturnalia 7.29; 13.5;

31.5; 32.20; Apologia 11.35; Dialogi Mortuorum 1.4.4; 8.2.1; 30.2.12.

93. Lucian, Menippus 20: Ere15i) moAAa Kai napdvopa oi mhovotot Spi napa Tov Biov apnatovtes kai Bialépevor kai navta Tpdnov Tov Mev Tw KaTAPpoVvodvVTES, 5256x0w TH

Bovlf kai tO Srp, éredav ano8avwor, ta pev oopata adToV Koddleo8at kabanep kal Ta TOV

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

Addressing the question of what Lucian was out to accomplish in these satires, Baldwin argues that the extent to which Menippus and Diogenes monopolize these dialogues [viz.

Dialogi Mortuorum] and the consistent attitude they adopt against the rich is deliberately created by Lucian for a purpose and this purpose is to establish a programme of social criticism unmistakably associated with the Cynics.94

Yet in the Saturnalia, when Cronosolon, a priest of Cronos, points to social inequities and asks Cronos to make a more equitable distribution of property (11) and to "abolish this inequality" (19), Cronos rejects a redistribution but writes to the rich to ask them to share a bit more in order to forestall an outcry for redistribution (31). The context for this, of course, is the Roman Saturnalia when slaves and the poor were feted by the rich which, as Baldwin points out, "served only to emphasize the injustice and inequality of 'normal' conditions."9

Although Lucian was quick to lampoon the rich and to paint vivid pictures of the pathetic nature of their existence and even the punishments that might await them, it seems unlikely that Lucian proposed isotimia as anything more than a theoretical ideal. That is, there is little to suggest that Lucian actually identified with the plight of the poor or that he addressed the poor, still less that he imagined isotimia as a real social possibility. Although Lucian came from a poor family (Somnium), he addressed his peers—educated urbanites. The best he could do was to undermine the self-evident value that these peers attached to the pursuit of wealth and the honor that could come with this. The most his

Cronosolon was able to extract from Cronos is a temporary inversion of status hierarchies at the Saturnalia. But as Victor Turner has shown, role inversions of this sort, because they are limited to festivals, in fact reinforce status hierarchies, rather than subverting them.% Mary Douglas has drawn attention to the relationship between joking—and Lucian's satire belongs generally to joking—and social structure:

My hypothesis is that a joke is seen and allowed when it offers a symbolic pattern of a social pattern occurring at the same time. As I see it, all jokes are expressive of the social situations in which they occur. The one social condition necessary for a joke to be enjoyed is that the social group in which it is received drwy novnp@y, tag Sé yoxdc avanepgbeioas dvw cig tov Biov KatadvedBat ic tode Svove, dxpic dv év t@ toLovTw Staydaywot popiddac Etav névte Kal eikoowy, Svor & Svwv ytyvoptevot kal dxSopopodvtes kai O1d TOV nevyTwv ELavvdpevol, TodvTEdBEV SE Aomndy gEeivat adtoic ano8aveiv.

94. Barry H. Baldwin, "Lucian as Social Satirist," CIQ NS 11 (1961): 201.

95. Ibid., 203.

96. Victor Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Chicago: Aldine,

1969).

POVERTY AND PIETY

should develop the formal characteristics of a 'told' joke: that is, a dominant pattern of relations is challenged by another. If there is no joke in the social structure, no other joking can appear.97

The joke, then, renders explicit the social situation in question and exposes its frailty and contingency. For this reason the joke is hardly a strong instrument of social deconstruction and reconstruction, since it in fact only assumes what is already perceived at some level as problematic in social structures and puts a spotlight on these. Joking serves as a kind of social safety valve that relieves pressures and ambivalences, without actually undoing the structures that cause those pressures. Had Lucian's satire been able really to deconstruct the social hierarchies of antiquity, it is doubtful that his works would have survived, since they would likely have been suppressed.

Returning to James, I suggest that the sygkrisis of rich and poor that is belabored there is not designed to address the poor, whether the working poor or the destitute, but rather James's peers. To judge from the level of his Greek and from the scenario of a patron appearing in a synagogé advertising for clients in chapter

2,98 these addressees likely belong to urban, reasonably well educated groups of diaspora Judaeans. Although the sygkriseis in James 1 and 2 are not "jokes," they have a "joke structure," as Douglas has also termed the parables of Jesus: the comparison exaggerates difference—thus selecting not a névng but a mtwx6c, and describing in elaborate detail the clothing and rings of the rich man and the rags of the poor man in chapter 2. James concludes with an equally graphic and exaggerated depiction of the fate of the rich, "weeping and howling" at their losses.

The picture is not at all unlike Lucian's depiction of the fate of the rich in Hades, who both cling in vain to their wealth but also appear as objects of derision and laughter by the poor.

James, of course, does not wish to defer a notion of isotimia to the afterlife.

In the dark of Hades and when all are reduced to skulls, it is hard to distinguish

Helen of Troy from anyone else, as Menippus finds out in Dialogi Mortuorum.

James, however, seemingly proposes that something like isotimia should begin in the assembly, and in fact argues in 2:1-13 that anything less amounts to mpoownoAnpyia, which in turn puts the lie to his addressees' claim to be Torah observant. Thus he not only uses the rhetorical topos of rich and poor in order to expose the inequality that was already generally lamented in Graeco-Roman society, at least among Hellenistic moralists, but brings to bear an argument from the 97. Mary T. Douglas, "Jokes," in Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology (London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975), 98.

98. See Nancy J. Vyhmeister, "The Rich Man in James 2: Does Ancient Patronage Illumine the Text?" AUSS 33 (1995): 265-83; John S. Kloppenborg, "Patronage Avoidance in the Epistle of James," HvTSt 55 (1999): 755-94.

99. Douglas, "Jokes," 99-100.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

Torah, especially the Holiness Code, to buttress his attack on differential treatment of persons.

I think it doubtful, however, that James's use of the comparison of rich and poor in fact "undermined the system." Status hierarchies were simply too deeply ingrained in Greek and Roman society, and supported by a nexus of legal, economic, familial, and political provisions. What he could accomplish, however, was to produce a kind of "joke," which exposed again the fragility and contingency of status hierarchies, and to undermine the self-evident nature of the categories and distinctions required to maintain such hierarchies. This is not "revolutionary" discourse; as with Lucian it probably amounted to a plea for increased benefaction of the poor by the rich, as indeed James himself recommends in 2:14-26.

3. CONCLUSION

This paper has been critical of the construct of Armenfrémmigkeit on ideological grounds—that is masks real poverty—but especially on exegetical grounds, that there is very slender evidence of an equation of poverty and piety in Israelite discourse. If this is so, it is even more problematic to invoke Armenfrémmigkeit in order to account for the discourse of the Didache, Matthew, and James on poverty.

The Didache's use of npaidtng and the citation of Ps 37:11, far from belonging to discourse about the poor, concerns the correct posture of the learner.

Discourse on poverty in both Matthew and James begins with Q 6:20b, which used the rhetorical figure of the mtwx6c¢ to deconstruct the more dominant cultural discourse on the relationship between wealth and the blessings of the deity, and hence to valorize the status of town and village dwellers in Jewish Palestine.

Matthew absorbed Q 6:20b into discourse on the management of the Christian household and the virtues appropriate to that household. This involved ethicizing Q. James also employs Q 6:20b, and is in fact speaking of the poor. But he uses the trope of the mtwxdc¢ not because he addresses the indigent among them, or identifies with them, still less that he "equates the poor with the believers" or even holds them out as a model for emulation, but because, like Lucian, he wishes to problematize for educated Judaean urbanites one of the dominant ideological structures of Graeco-Roman society and the mechanisms of social exchange

(patronage) that flow from those structures.

JEsus TRADITION IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND THE

DIDACHE: SEARCHING FOR CHARACTERISTIC EMPHASES

Jens Schroter

1. MATTHEW, JAMES, AND THE DIDACHE AS EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS

In contemporary discussion about the beginnings of Christianity there is growing awareness of the complex developments that eventually lead to a "parting of the ways" between "Judaism" and "Christianity." It is widely acknowledged that Judaism was by itself a multi-faceted phenomenon, and that the early Christian writings are deeply ingrained with Jewish traditions. The distinction between "Judaism" and "Christianity" may, therefore, be productive from a heuristic viewpoint, but by the same time misleading with regard to the actual situation of the communities of Jesus's followers in the first decades and also as description of the perspective of at least some early Christian texts, including Matthew,

James, and the Didache.

Against this background, the symposium in Tilburg, 7-8 April 2003, has brought the relationships between two of these writings, namely, Matthew and the Didache, into sharper focus. Although the papers read at this symposium! differ in some aspects, e.g., whether the relationship can be specified as literary dependence,' there is general agreement that both writings have to be interpreted as originating from a common milieu of early Christianity with close connections

1. See Huub van de Sandt, ed., Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same

Jewish-Christian Milieu? (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005).

2. Whereas Joseph Verheyden argues that the Didache reveals knowledge of Matthew's

Gospel, Jonathan A. Draper denies such a relationship. See Joseph Verheyden, "Eschatology in the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew," in van de Sandt, ed., Matthew and the Didache,

193-215; Jonathan A. Draper, "Do the Didache and Matthew Reflect an 'Irrevocable Parting of the Ways' with Judaism?," ibid., 217-41. The discussion becomes even more complex if one includes the study of Alan J. P. Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache

(JSNT 254; London: T&T Clark, 2004), who develops a complicated model of relationships between Matthew and the Didache in several stages.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

to Jewish traditions.3 If now the letter of James is included as well, the matter becomes more complex.4 The three writings that are now compared with each other belong to different genres: a biography of Jesus, a (probably) pseudonymous letter,> and a church manual. The difference in genre also has consequences for the respective treatment of the so-called "Jesus traditions." In Matthew's story of Jesus these traditions are regularly ascribed to Jesus, whereas in the two other writings the case is different. It can, therefore, already at this point tentatively be assumed that there is a relationship between genre and dealing with "Jesus traditions" in early Christian writings. I will return to this issue later.

Despite the difference in genre, the three writings share a remarkable characteristic: There is sound evidence that they are not, or at least not exclusively, addressed to a specific community, but to "all Christians."® This is not to deny that they show features that allow placing them within a certain cultural and religious context. But still, they belong to those early Christian writings that are addressed to a wider audience. Within this concept each of them presents a distinct concept of continuity with, and divergence from, Judaism.'

To interpret Matthew's Gospel, it is of crucial importance to define the relationship of the community of Jesus's followers to the synagogue, and especially their perspective on the torah. As is well known, Matthew contains the unambiguous statement that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, but at the same time the author points out that Jesus interprets the law according to 3. See, e.g., the articles of Bas ter Haar Romeny and Jonathan A. Draper in H. van de

Sandt, ed., Matthew and the Didache.

4. For an attempt to bring the three writings in a closer relationship see Gunnar Garleff, Urchristliche Identitét in Matthdusevangelium, Didache und Jakobusbrief (BVB 9;

Miinster: Lit, 2004). Garleff works with a concept of "kollektive Identitat" and with a definition of "Judenchristentum" as "eine Sonderform des Judentums" (ibid., 208) in contrast to "Heidenchristentum" (see ibid., 207-14), From my perspective it is questionable whether this distinction—which goes back to Ferdinand Christian Baur—is a fruitful approach to the history of early Christianity. The relationships between Jews and Gentiles within early Christianity were much more complex than such an approach suggests. Moreover, it is doubtful whether

Matthew, James, and the Didache should be compared with each other along the lines of the rather vague category "Identitat."

5. The pseudonymity of James is still contested. For a concise summary of the arguments pro and con see Christoph Burchard, Der Jakobusbrief (HNT 15/1; Tibingen: Mohr Siebeck,

2000), 3-5; Wiard Popkes, Der Brief des Jakobus (THKNT 14; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001), 64-68. Burchard and Popkes themselves plead for pseudonymous origin.

6. With regard to the gospels Richard Bauckham has argued in that direction. See his "For Whom Were Gospels Written," in The Gospels for all Christians. Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (ed. R. Bauckham; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 9-48.

7. It might therefore be dangerous to work with a concept of "Jewish Christianity" to compare the three writings. It is not quite clear how this category can be related to early Christian writings and communities and whether the distinct features of the three writings are rather concealed than revealed by this concept.

SEARCHING FOR CHARACTERISTIC EMPHASES

his own authority and criticizes the Pharisees for their defective righteousness.®

Matthew's perspective on the law is therefore a controversial and much-debated issue in scholarship still today. While, on the one hand, a consensus has developed that Matthew depicts Jesus's activity as directed towards the renewal of Israel, this consensus was called into question by two more recent publications that emphasize the radical interpretation of the law and the prophets by the Matthean Jesus and regard the Gentile mission as an integral part of Matthew's story of Jesus.? This position may be regarded as a legitimate corrective over against approaches that neglect all those features in Matthew that point to a separation from the synagogue.!° In any case, there can be no doubt that the law and the prophets still function as the basis for the Jesus community, although now as interpreted by Jesus. This means that the Jesus traditions in Matthew gain their importance within a concept that emphasizes the meaning of Jewish identity for a community that no longer belongs to the synagogue and consists of Jews and Gentiles alike.!!

As far as the Didache is concerned, I refer to the volume co-authored by Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, published in 2002, to the collections of articles edited by Clayton N. Jefford and Jonathan A. Draper, and to the investigation ("Didache and Judaism") by Marcello Del Verme from 2004.!2 These and other publications of the last fifteen years demonstrate a remarkable interest in the Didache in recent research, leading to the conclusion that this writing belongs to a historical situation where Christianity was on its way to form its own identity over against Judaism, and at the same time separates itself from the Gentiles. What makes it more difficult to define the place of the Didache within this process more precisely is the fact that it is a composite document with a complex literary history. Some of the traditions in the Didache reveal traces of 8. Matt 5:17-20.

9. See Roland Deines, Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias: Mt 5,13-20 als

Schliisseltext der matthdischen Theologie (WUNT 177; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Paul

Foster, Community, Law and Mission in Matthew's Gospel (WUNT 2/177; Tubingen: Mohr

Siebeck, 2004).

10. See the evaluation of the studies by Deines and Foster by Wolfgang Reinbold, "Matthaus und das Gesetz. Zwei neue Studien," BZ 50 (2006): 244-50.

11. See Matthias Konradt, "Die vollkommene Erfiillung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisdern im Matthausevangelium," in Das Gesetz im friihen Judentum und im Neuen

Testament (ed. D. Sanger und M. Konradt; NTOA 57; Géttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

2006), 129-52.

12. Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (CRINT 3/5; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002); Clayton N. Jefford, ed., The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History and Transmission (NovTSup 77; Leiden:

Brill, 1995); Jonathan A. Draper, ed., The Didache in Modern Research (AGJU 37; Leiden: Brill,

1996); Marcello Del Verme, Didache and Judaism: Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish

Work (New York: T&T Clark, 2004).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

earlier stages of the separation process between "Judaism" and "Christianity" more distinctly than others. Moreover, it has to be kept in mind as well that the relationship to other early Christian writings, especially to the Gospel of Matthew, can only be defined with caution. One has to allow for the possibility that at least some of the traditions in the Didache might be older than, and independent from, the Synoptic Gospels.

The letter of James poses even more complex problems. James's familiarity with Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom traditions has frequently been pointed out in recent research, for example, in the commentaries of Hubert Frankemille,

Christoph Burchard, and Wiard Popkes as well as in the monograph of Matthias Konradt.!3 Many scholars have also pointed out that James is not just a random collection of parenetic material but instead develops a distinct perspective within early Christian theology focused on a way of life corresponding to the "perfect gift from above" (Jas 1:17). The detection of James's particular theological viewpoint became possible when the letter was no longer regarded as an inferior counterpart to Paul but evaluated in its own right as an early Christian writing in the tradition of Jewish Wisdom literature.!4 Frankemélle is even more specific.

According to him James not only took up oral and written sapiential traditions but presents itself as a deliberate relecture of Sirach.!5 Whether one follows that assumption or not, strong connections between James and Jewish wisdom traditions are obvious.

At the same time, James demonstrates a rather general approach to Christian ethics that is not exclusively confined to a "Jewish identity." Rather, the author uses Jewish "identity markers," like, for example the designation "the twelve tribes in the dispersion," in an unspecified manner for the Christian communities. Comparable to 1 Peter, then, the author can apply Jewish terminology to Christians regardless of their origin from Judaism or Paganism.!® Biblical and other Jewish traditions in James are, therefore, part of a wider context of ancient

Wisdom literature. In contrast to Matthew and the Didache, James uses terms, for example, like ovvaywyr), kaapiletv, or even vouoc!" in a general sense and 13. Hubert Frankemille, Der Brief des Jakobus (2 vols.; OTK 17/1.2; Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus, 1994); Burchard, Jakobusbrief, Popkes, Brief des Jakobus; Matthias Konradt,

Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief: Eine Studie zu seiner soteriologischen und ethischen

Konzeption (SUNT 122; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998).

14. The relationship of James to Paul is still a controversial issue. Frankemille, Konradt, and Burchard have presented important arguments for an independent perspective on faith and works in James. The opposite view is supported by Popkes; Martin Hengel; Peter Stuhlmacher and more recently by Friedrich Avemarie.

15. Frankemlle, Brief des Jakobus, 1:85.

16. See, e.g., 1 Pet 2:9.

17. In Jas 2:1, the Christian assembly is called ovvaywyi, whereas in 5:14, James uses the term éxxAnoia. Hence, he uses two terms side by side that in Matthew are strongly opposed to

SEARCHING FOR CHARACTERISTIC EMPHASES

not exclusively with Jewish connotations. Hence it must remain an open question whether James can be put into the same framework as Matthew and the Didache.

The three writings, therefore, in one way or another, represent a form of early Christianity for which Jewish traditions remained an important heritage with regard to the formation of Christian identity. But within this broad spectrum—to which other early Christian writings belong as well—each one's place needs to be defined separately. In what follows, it will be shown that Matthew and the Didache belong more closely together than either one of them of them does with James.

It is against this background that I set out in the following paragraphs to examine the use of the so-called "Jesus traditions" in these writings. Because it is not self-evident what "Jesus traditions" exactly means, the clarity of my argument requires starting with a few remarks on how I understand the term "Jesus traditions."

2. "JESUS TRADITION," "SYNOPTIC TRADITION," AND "WORDS OF THE LORD" IN

EARLY JEWISH-CHRISTIAN WRITINGS

The phrase "Jesus tradition" can be defined in different ways. If it is understood as referring to traditions that with a certain degree of probability can be ascribed to Jesus himself, or were at least attributed to him in the early church, the letter of James and most of the traditions in the Didache would automatically fall outside of this category. It is only the Gospel of Matthew in which the tradi- . tions are entirely ascribed to Jesus, although there is agreement that a substantial part of them does not go back to Jesus himself. What we call "Jesus tradition," then, consists of traditions of different origin that can only partly be traced back to Jesus himself and that only in some writings were ascribed to him, while other texts transmitted them anonymously or under the authority of other representatives of early Christianity.

This observation is corroborated by Paul's letters.!8 Paul only occasionally refers to "the Lord" as authority behind certain commandments, whereas he more frequently quotes traditions with parallels in the Synoptic Gospels without mentioning "the Lord" or "Jesus." Therefore, the question arises whether in these instances Paul is referring to "Jesus tradition" as well. Does he, as, for example, each other. In 4:8, kaSapiCerv and ayvilew are used metaphorically. The vopog téAetog in 1:25 does not necessarily refer exclusively to the Jewish law but can also be understood in a wider sense.

18. See Jens Schréter, Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament: Studien zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zur Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons (WUNT 204; Tubingen: Mohr

Siebeck, 2007), 81-104.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

James Dunn has argued,!9 in these cases also quote sayings from Jesus without explicitly mentioning where they come from, or does he refer to traditions that had not been attributed to Jesus when Paul became aware of them? In James, 1

Peter, and the Didache we are confronted with a similar phenomenon. Traditions that the Synoptic Gospels refer to as coming from Jesus are quoted here without such an attribution.

The author of James mentions Jesus's name only once"? and puts the whole teaching under the authority of his brother James. It is therefore not certain whether the traditions he shares with the Synoptic Gospels, especially with Matthew or Q, had already been associated with Jesus at all when James incorporated them in his letter.2! The alternative would be either that James made originally named sayings of Jesus pseudonymous or anonymous, or that this tradition had not been connected with Jesus at all when he took it over. If the latter were the case, it would have been Matthew in most instances who attributed the traditions to the authority of Jesus.?2

In a recent article, John Kloppenborg has listed six options to come to grips with this problem, reaching from the extreme position that there is no Jesus tradition in James at all on the one end to the explanation that these traditions go back to the historical James's own memories on the other.23 Kloppenborg himself, following Richard Bauckham, favors a controlled oral-tradition-model without taking over Bauckham's assumption of authentic Jacobean authorship.

As this discussion shows, the term "Jesus tradition" in James is in need of qualification because it is by no means self-evident that James had access to traditions that originated with Jesus himself.

At several places, the Didache refers to "the Lord" or "the Gospel" as authority behind its traditions.24 In Did. 6:2 "the whole yoke of the Lord" is mentioned, probably referring, as I will argue later, to the evangelical section inserted into the Two Ways teaching. In Did. 8:2 the Lord's Prayer is introduced by the admo19. James D. G. Dunn, "Jesus Tradition in Paul," in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (ed. B, Chilton and C. A. Evans; NTTS 19; Leiden: Brill,

1994), 155-78.

20. Jas 2:1: Exete thy niotiv tod Kvpiov hpa@v Inood Xpiotod tig S6Ene. In 5:7-8, 11 the Kptog is mentioned four times, in 5:11 probably referring to God.

21. See Burchard, Jakobusbrief, 17.

22. Attributing this step to Q is not helpful because it is not certain whether the isolated sayings or sayings collections of Q were transmitted in general under the authority of Jesus.

23. John S. Kloppenborg, "The Reception of the Jesus Traditions in James," in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition (ed. J. Schlosser; BETL 176; Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 93-141.

24. In the Didache, Kbptoc refers to the authority of Jesus (see 9:5; 11:2, 4, 8; 12:1; 14:1: kuptaki) Kupiov; 15:1), his coming at the end of time (10:6: papav 404; 16:1, 7-8) and traditions that are ascribed to him (6:2: Gvydv tod Kupiou; 8:2; 9:5; 15:4). In 4:1, 12-13; 10:5; 14:3 also God can be called Kvptoc.

SEARCHING FOR CHARACTERISTIC EMPHASES

nition not to pray like the hypocrites, but instead as the Lord has directed in his Gospel.*> This rule belongs to a section on fasting and praying (Did. 8) that stands somewhat awkwardly between the passages on baptism (Did. 7) and on thanksgiving (Did. 9-10).?6 The rule on fasting was probably inserted here on the basis of the catchword "fasting" (vnctedoat) in 7:4, which is taken up in 8:1 by vnoteiat and leads to an instruction about fasting and praying, two rites that are traditionally connected in Jewish writings. As has already been argued several times, chapter 8 is a later insertion introducing more traditional material— instructions on fasting on the fourth and sixth day of the week and the Lord's

Prayer—into the liturgical section in Did. 7-10.27 The reference to the Lord's teaching in his Gospel was thereby probably added by the redactor himself and therefore belongs to the redactional layer of the Didache.

The other cases are similar. In 9:5 the saying of the Lord "Do not give what is holy to the dogs" is introduced as justification for the restriction of the Eucharist to the baptized. In 11:3 the tradition about wandering apostles and prophets is introduced with the phrase nepi 5 tév anootéAwv Kai MpogNtav, kata Td d5d6ypa tod evayyeAiov obtw noujoate, and in 15:3 and 4 the admonitions to correct one another in peace as well as to prayer and almsgiving are motivated by a reference to "the Gospel" or "the Gospel of the Lord." With regard to all these instances it has been argued persuasively that the references to the "Lord" and the "Gospel" belong to a late redactional stage in the composition history of the Didache. With these references the redactor does in all probability not refer to a written Gospel.?8 Instead, the term evayyéAtov is used as designation for the teaching of the Lord and not for a written text. This does of course not answer . the question whether the redactor had knowledge of a written Gospel. But, as will be shown later, the Didache's versions of these traditions are more appropriately explained as analogies to those in the Synoptic Gospels than as literarily dependent upon one or several of them.

The redactor of the Didache, then, ascribes some traditions to the authority of "the Lord and his Gospel," but not to "Jesus." This can be compared to Paul and 1 Clement, where traditions are ascribed to "the Lord" or "the Lord Jesus" in a similar way,2? showing that the exalted Lord is the authority behind these

25. Mndé mpocebyecbe wc oi DnoKpital, GAN' wc Exéhevoev 6 Kbptog Ev TH ebayyediw avtov.

26. See van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 291.

27. See, e.g., Kurt Niederwimmer, Die Didache (Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vatern

1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 165; Jonathan A. Draper, "Christian Self-Definition against the 'Hypocrites' in Didache VIII," in J. A. Draper, ed., Didache in Modern Research, 223-43.

Draper draws attention to the fact that in the Ethiopic version Did. 8:1-2 only follows after 11:3-13, which points to an instability of that material in the textual tradition (ibid., 227).

28. If that were the case, one would naturally have to think of Matthew's Gospel.

29. 1 Cor 7:10 (see also 7:12 and 25); 9:14; 11:23; 1 Thess 4:15; 1 Clem. 13.1; 46.7.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

traditions. The Didache introduces these references to highlight the importance of the exhortations. At the same time, it is obvious that the redactor regards not only these traditions as coming from the earthly Jesus. Instead, the reference to the Lord and his Gospel is part of the redactional activity of collecting different traditions into a composite manual and interpreting them from a common viewpoint.*°

This is corroborated by a further observation. The name "Jesus" appears in the eucharistic prayers in chapter 9 and 10 in phrases that mention God's activity through Jesus (614 'Inood), but not the teaching of Jesus himself. In a characteristic deviation from the references to "the Lord" and "his Gospel," Jesus is designated here as God's servant (mai). The title "Lord" instead presupposes that Jesus in his divine authority stands behind the teaching in his Gospel. Consequently, also with regard to the Didache, one should only speak with caution of "Jesus tradition."

Without the Synoptic Gospels it would therefore be almost impossible to recognize traditions in James or the Didache as Jesus traditions. They rather appear as catechetical instructions with close affinities to Jewish traditions, sometimes combined with quotations from Scripture and occasionally ascribed to the authority of the Lord. If we take into account the tendency of the Synoptic

Gospels to collect diverse traditions and ascribe them to the authority of Jesus, it cannot be decided from the outset whether a tradition originally comes from Jesus and was made anonymous or put under a different authority only later, or whether it was first transmitted as anonymous Christian catechesis—what Luke calls "teaching of the apostles" (di5axi) tov anootédwv, Acts 2:42)—and only secondarily ascribed to Jesus.

It would therefore not be practical to start our inquiry with a distinction between "Jesus tradition" and other catechetical or parenetical traditions in early

Christianity. Instead, one has to compare the use of common traditions and their function within the concept of the respective writings. It is perhaps more appropriate to speak of "synoptic traditions" and bear in mind that they can appear in and outside the Synoptic Gospels. Whether they originated from Jesus himself or were attributed to him in early Christianity can remain open. But it can already be formulated at this point as a first "result" that, irrespective of the historical question, it seems important for Matthew to refer to Jesus as the authority behind the traditions, whereas James does not appear to feel the necessity to do so. And in the Didache only slight traces of ascribing some traditions not to Jesus but to the Lord and his Gospel are discernible, and the bulk of Didache's tradi30. For a discussion of the composition of the Didache see Niederwimmer, Die Didache,

64-80; van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 28-48. See also Kurt Niederwimmer, "Der Didachist und seine Quellen," in C. N. Jefford, ed., Didache in Context, 15-36.

In my view it is not necessary to postulate multiple stages of redaction. Instead, the redactional activity shows a coherent perspective on the material.

SEARCHING FOR CHARACTERISTIC EMPHASES

tions remains unaffected by this redactional tendency. Against this background I will take a closer look at some of these traditions in the following.

3. PERFECTION AS THE INTERPRETATIVE KEY FOR "JESUS TRADITIONS"

IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND THE DIDACHE

Because each of the three writings uses "synoptic traditions" or "Jesus traditions" in its own way and because it cannot be decided from the outset how they are related to each other, it is useful to begin with a concept that occurs in all three writings and functions as an interpretative key for these traditions, namely,

"perfection" (teAeitn¢, TéAE10¢ elvat). Perfection is a central element in James's concept of ethics and soteriology that occurs immediately at the beginning of the letter.3! It appears also at a prominent place in Matthew, namely, in Matt

5:48 as a summary of Jesus's interpretation of the Torah as well as in Matt 19:21 in the debate between Jesus and the rich young man. Finally, the Didache refers to perfection in the sectio evangelica (1:4) as well as in the summary of the Two

Ways section in 6:2. Moreover, it is no incident that this concept interprets traditions that appear in James at different places, which Matthew has collected in the Sermon on the Mount and that occur in the Didache in the sectio evangelica.

At the outset it can be stated, therefore, that perfection is a prominent concept in all three writings and a characteristic element of their interpretation of "Jesus traditions." But, as we will see, each of the three writings develops the topic ina distinct way.

Apart from the concept of perfection, the three writings share other topics in their ethical instructions. All three texts exhort the addressees to be merciful?? and not to be hypocritical,>3 and they contrast the doers of the word to those who only hear it.44 Moreover, all three writings interpret wealth as danger and warn against oppressing the poor. In their eyes, such behavior is typical of people who do not follow God's will.35 They are therefore related to each other by a parenetical perspective that also characterizes their respective use of Jesus traditions. To put this into sharper focus, I begin with James.

31. Jas 1:2—4 (see next section).

32. Matt 5:7; Jas 2:13; 3:17; Did. 3:8; 5:2.

33. Matt 6:2, 5, 16 (see also the accusations in 7:5; 15:7; 22:18; 23:13-29); Jas 3:17; Did.

2:6; 4:12.

34, Matt 7:24-27; Jas 1:22-25; Did. 2:5.

35. Matt 6:19-21; 19:16-22; Jas 1:9-11; 2:1-13; 5:1-5; Did. 5:2.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

3.1. JAMES: WISDOM AS THE WAY TO PERFECTION

In James the topic of perfection occurs immediately at the beginning of the letter in 1:4. The téAetoc-terminology is used twice here: first in connection with Epyov in the phrase Epyov téAetov, and second as description of the status of those who perform "perfect works" and will therefore be themselves "perfect": tédetoc elvat. As the iva-construction shows, there exists a close connection between performing perfect works and being perfect. This is corroborated by the phrases S@pnua téAetov in 1:17 and vouog téetog in 1:25, as well as by the statement in 2:22: faith is brought to completion by the works (x tov Epywv niotic étekewWOn). The concept of perfection is therefore of crucial importance for James's theology as a whole.*® As the combination of téAetog elvat with OAOKAnpot and év undevi Aewtdpevor in 1:4 shows, "perfection" depicts the status of those who lack nothing and live in complete agreement with God's will.

To describe how this can be achieved, James confronts his addressees with a reminder of what they already know (1:3 ytwwoxovtec). The content of this knowledge is that "trials of any kind" (metpaopoi moixiAor) that the addressees face are a reason for joy because they are to be regarded as a test of faith, which produces endurance. Endurance itself shall bring forth "perfect work" and thus will lead to perfection. James, then, opens his letter with a call to perfection that demonstrates that the addressees are able to endure diverse trials.

Included in this admonition is an allusion to an early Christian tradition that has analogies in 1 Pet 1:6-7 and Rom 5:3-4. The common theme of these three texts is that all of them contrast afflictions with the status of perfection, including close literal agreement between Jas 1 and Rom 5 in the phrase bropoviv katepydaCetat. A further verbal link exists between Soxiqiov in Jas 1:3 and Soxy} in Rom 5:4, whereas the terms for describing afflictions and the corresponding positive state as well as the sequence of the terms differ.47 Closer agreements exist between James and | Peter. In both texts the present afflictions are called metpaopol motKiAot and the addressees are encouraged to rejoice (Jas 1:2: xapav

Hyyfoaobe; | Pet 1:6: dya\Atao8e). Moreover, both writings use the phrase tO dSoKiptov Dpav TH miotews. Because this is a unique formulation, this agreement cannot be incidental but points to a common tradition.

The main difference between James and the other two texts is that in Rom 5 and | Pet | the afflictions appear as concrete sufferings the addressees have to endure. Paul uses the term OAiyetc, while 1 Peter specifies the meipacpoi with the verb AumeioBat. The opening of James, however, does not explain what the 36. See Konradt, Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief, 267-85.

37. Jas: neipaopol, Soxiptov tig tlotews, bnOpoVi, Epyov TéAetov, TéAELO¢ elvat; Rom:

Oriyerc, bropovi, Sox, eAmic.

SEARCHING FOR CHARACTERISTIC EMPHASES

"diverse afflictions" are. But at the beginning of the corpus of the letter in 1:12,28 it becomes clear that temptation does not come from God and that the addressees do not suffer from persecution or imprisonment. Instead they are endangered by their own desires, which eventually lead to sin and death.39 Later this is specified by the references to the lack of works that could prove their faith (2:14-25), or to their bitter envy and selfish ambition that demonstrates their lack of wisdom from above (3:13-18). The metpaopoi are, therefore, ethical challenges that lead the addressees astray.

This corresponds to the other main difference between James on the one hand and Romans and | Peter on the other: In 1:4 James changes the verbal aspect from the indicative (katepya{etat) to the imperative (éxétw). According to James, the status of perfection therefore needs to be achieved by the addressees alone who are required to perform the &pyov té\etov, whereas in Rom 5 and 1 Pet 1 it will be provided by God, who has already given the Holy Spirit (Rom) or will give the addressees a reward for their endurance when Jesus Christ is revealed (1 Pet).

Consequently, James interprets an early Christian tradition about the correspondence of afflictions and eternal reward in the light of his specific understanding of perfection. The reason for bringing together the topic of perfection with the tradition about afflictions, testing, and endurance is probably that Jewish Wisdom literature frequently uses the motif that trials are tests for genuine faith.*° It is a widespread conviction that God educates his people with punishments, and that sufferings and hardships can therefore originate with God himself. But James interprets that concept differently: Tribulations are explicitly not attributed to God who educates by trial or punishment. Instead, they are presented as ethical challenges for the faith of the addressees and can therefore demonstrate that a believer is matured and possesses "wisdom from above"

(3:17). James, then, uses early Christian traditions that have parallels in other early Christian writings—in some elucidating cases in 1 Peter+!—to develop the theme of perfection, which occurs in Matthew and the Didache as well.

38. With Burchard, Jakobusbrief, 12, 67-68, I regard 1:12 as the beginning of the corpus of James's letter.

39. Jas 1:12-15.

40. See, e.g., Sir 2:5a év nupi Soxipaletat xpv0dc; 4:17: neipaoet adtov év Toic SiKaKwpaotw adtijc; Prov 27:21 Soxipiov apytpe Kal xpvo@ nbpwotc, avip dé Soxipacetar 514 oTdpatog tykwpialGovtwv avtov.

41. See Matthias Konradt, "Der Jakobusbrief als Brief des Jakobus: Erwagungen zum historischen Kontext des Jakobusbriefes im Lichte der traditionsgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zum 1. Petrusbrief und zum Hintergrund der Autorfiktion," in Der Jakobusbrief: Beitrage zur

Rehabilitierung der "strohernen Epistel" (ed. P. von Gemiinden, M. Konradt and G. Theifen;

Beitrage zum Verstehen der Bibel 3; Minster: Lit, 2003), 19-30.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

A specific link with a synoptic tradition becomes evident immediately after the tradition that James shares with Romans and | Peter. In 1:5 James, taking up the term \einetv from 1:4, turns to the topic of wisdom. It now becomes clear that what must not be lacking if somebody wants to attain perfection is wisdom.

Otherwise, one should ask God and it will be given. At this point James picks up a "synoptic tradition" or "Jesus tradition." The correspondence between asking and receiving has an analogy in a Q tradition (Matt 7:7-8/Luke 11:910) and in Mark 11:23-24.42 In James and Q there is a direct correspondence between the imperative of aiteiv (aiteite, aiteitw) and the passivum divinum of 5:5dvat (SoOjoetat). The construction in Mark is somewhat different: mavta doa mpooevdyeobe Kai aiteioBe, motevete Sti EAGPete, Kai Eotat dpiv. But there is also a close link between James and Mark: In both texts we find the admonition to believe without any doubt, although the content of the requests varies.4%

Furthermore, James and Mark provide a semantic opposition between the verbs motevetv and diaxpivetv.

In 1:5, then, James relies on an early tradition that the Synoptic Gospels transmit as a saying of Jesus in different variants. In James this tradition is connected with the Jewish conviction that God gives without reservation and degradation (amAa@¢ kai pi) OvetSiVovtoc). Hence, perfection is the result of the Epyov téXetov, which, according to James, is only possible if one possesses the wisdom from God. To establish this conviction James uses Jewish traditions referring to temptations for those who want to serve the Lord, to God's eternal reward and his generosity in giving. He connects these traditions with early

Christian traditions about suffering and reward and the correspondence of giving and receiving. Only one of these traditions is a synoptic or a "Jesus" tradition.

For James it is characteristic, then, that he integrates the different traditions in his own concept of testing, perfection, and wisdom.

A similar overlap between James, the synoptic tradition, and 1 Peter appears in the topic of humiliation and exaltation in Jas 4:10.44 The saying has a parallel in Matt 23:12/Luke 14:11, which perhaps goes back to a Q tradition. A further analogy occurs in Luke 18:14, at the conclusion of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Finally, there is a parallel in 1 Pet 5:6. To evaluate the tradition history of the saying in early Christianity, all of these instances have to be considered.49

42. The tradition is referred to again in Jas 4:3: aitette Kal ob hapPavete Si6tt KaKdc aiteioBe.

43. In Mark itis the request for the power to perform miracles, James urges his readers to ask God for wisdom.

44. TanewoOnte Evomov Kupiov Kal Dywoet bpac.

45. See Matthias Konradt, "Der Jakobusbrief im friihchristlichen Kontext: Uberlegungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Verhiltnis des Jakobusbriefes zur Jesusiiberlieferung, zur pau-

SEARCHING FOR CHARACTERISTIC EMPHASES

All sayings are characterized by the opposition of tareivodv and byoov.

Thereby, the closest parallel to James within early Christian tradition occurs again in | Peter. Both writings use the imperative of tanetvoodv (tamevwOnte) as well as an active form of bwodv with God as subject (Jas: bydwoet; 1 Pet: bywon)

Moreover, in both writings the admonition to humble oneself is connected with Prov 3:34, which is quoted in Jas 4:6 and 1 Pet 5:5, and in both writings the devil

(dta4BoAoc) is mentioned in the immediate context as the representative of the endangering and hostile world. Furthermore, it is remarkable that neither 1 Peter nor James connect the saying with Jesus but instead relate it to a quotation from Scripture. Hence, one can detect two ways of how the early Christian tradition about humiliation and exaltation was adopted, one in the Synoptic Gospels and the other in James and | Peter.

The interpretation of the saying in James and 1 Peter varies, comparable to the reception of the tradition on trials and endurance mentioned above. In 1

Peter it is interpreted in light of the situation of the community in the context of a hostile pagan world, symbolized by the devil who prowls around like a roaring lion, whereas in James the addressees are endangered by their friendship with the world, which equals enmity to God (Jas 4:4). Being "humble before the Lord" in 1

Peter means to bear the sufferings in the present world by casting all anxieties on God (1 Pet 5:7), whereas in James the phrase describes an attitude of detraction from the pleasures of the world. This is confirmed by Jas 1:9-11, where humiliation and exaltation occur as well. Taking up the motif of the withering grass and the falling flower from Isa 40:7, James explains why the humble brother shall boast in being raised up, while the rich shall boast in being brought low, because he will fade away with his wealth like a flower in the field.

As in the former case, "Jesus traditions" in James appear in the context of parenese and have analogies in various other writings: in the Synoptic Gospels,

1 Peter, and in the Septuagint.*® Thus, in James, "Jesus traditions" or "synoptic traditions" do not appear as a specific kind of tradition. Instead, they are used side by side with quotations from Scripture or other Jewish and early Christian traditions in order to develop the idea of wisdom as the way to perfection. The combination with other traditions may indicate that James has independent access to "Jesus traditions" and uses them in a distinct way. linischen Tradition und zum 1. Petrusbrief," in J. Schlosser, ed., The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, 171-212, 193-94.

46. An interesting overlap between James and Paul is the topic of election of the poor or weak in Jas 2:5 and 1 Cor 1:26-28.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

3.2. MATTHEW: JEsus's INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW AND THE PERFECTION OF

THE HEAVENLY FATHER

We begin again with a look at the concept of perfection. In Matt 5:48, Jesus's interpretation of the law in the so-called antitheses is summarized with an appeal to perfection: cee obv bpeic TEAEL01 Wc 6 MATH buav 6 ovpaviog téAEtd¢ EoTIV.

This corresponds with the sayings about fulfilment of the law in 5:17-20, because righteousness can only be achieved by fulfilment of the law as it is interpreted by Jesus. At the same time, this leads to the perfection of the heavenly father himself.

The exhortation goco0e obv byeic téAe101 in 5:48 therefore forms an inclusio with the saying about the fulfilment of the law in 5:17 and interprets the antitheses as fulfilment of the law.4" This is corroborated by the observation that Matthew has used a Q-tradition parallel to Luke 6:36. Differing from Luke who exhorts his readers to be "merciful," Matthew urges them to be "perfect." In this way Matthew stresses the importance of obedience to the law as God's own will according to what was explained in the antitheses. Although one can probably assume a special relationship between the commandment to love one's enemies and the exhortation to perfection, the latter certainly refers back to the antitheses as a whole. Therefore, Matt 5:48 summarizes Matthew's understanding of the Torah:

Jesus's interpretation does in no way abolish the Law, but instead reveals its true meaning as the way to perfection.*8 The second instance in Matthew is the dialog between Jesus and the rich young man in chapter 19. In verse 21 the phrase téAe1o¢ elvat is used as description of those who are able not only to keep the law but to gain a treasure in heaven by doing more than the law requires, namely, selling their possessions, giving their money to the poor, and following Jesus. A similar distinction between fulfillment of the law and going beyond what it requires by following

Jesus's commandments and becoming perfect occurs in Did. 6.49 Both texts show that God's commandments, as they appear in Scripture, do not lead to perfection per se, but only if they are supplemented by Jesus's (or the Lord's) interpretation.

I will return to how the Didache deals with this topic in the next paragraph.

A distinctive feature of Matthew, then, is the close relationship between righteousness, fulfilment of the law, and perfection. As for James, also for Matthew, perfection can only be achieved by unrestricted obedience to God's will.

Unlike James, however, Matthew does not link perfection with cogia, but instead with Jesus's interpretation of the Law and with "following Jesus." Whereas Jas 1:5 emphasizes that God will give wisdom if one asks in faith without doubt and that 47. See the discussion in van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 204ite

48. See Konradt, "Die vollkommene Erfiillung der Tora," 139-41.

49. See next paragraph.

SEARCHING FOR CHARACTERISTIC EMPHASES

wisdom enables one to endure tribulations, Matthew claims that it is the encounter with Jesus and the association with him that will lead to perfection.

This can be demonstrated by a comparison of the prohibition of oath in Jas 5:12 and Matt 5:33-37. As is well known, James and Matthew share a general prohibition of oath (dpvvetv), while in Jewish literature it is only forbidden to swear falsely (éntopxeiv). This latter tradition also appears in Did. 2:3 within the Two Ways section, but outside the sectio evangelica. The Two Ways section of the Didache therefore reflects traditional Jewish ethics, whereas James and Matthew propose a radicalized interpretation that exceeds the "ordinary" way. With regard to the Didache it may be mentioned in passing that this could indicate that the Two Ways section was only slightly reworked by a Christian redactor and only later radicalized by the inclusion of the sectio evangelica.

Turning back to James and Matthew, one wonders how the agreement of the absolute prohibition of oaths might be explained. James and Matthew have three elements in common: first the prohibition to swear itself (Jas: pr Ouvvete;

Matt: 1) Oudoat 6Awc), second the reference to heaven and earth by which one must not swear, and third the admonition that a "yes" must be a "yes" and a "no" a "no." The main differences are that Matthew is more detailed in his explanation of heaven and earth as the throne of God and his footstool, as well as by mentioning other objects by which one is not allowed to swear (Jerusalem, one's

_ head), whereas James has the general exhortation not to swear any other oath at all. Moreover, the Matthean wording forms the "antithesis" to the preceding

"thesis" obk émiopKnoeic, anodwoeic 5é TH Kvpiw Tods SpKous cov. James's version, therefore, is usually, and probably rightly, regarded as closer to the original tradition.>° But this of course does not explain where the tradition comes from and how it functions in both writings.

The prohibition to swear is often regarded as an authentic Jesus saying.°! But in this case the difficulty results from the fact that the older version in James does not indicate that it is a Jesus tradition at all. Only a secondary, revised version in Matthew's antitheses is ascribed to Jesus's authority. Therefore, the possibility cannot be excluded that an anonymous early Christian parenetical tradition was secondarily attributed to Jesus.5? The assumption that such a harsh saying was in fact created in the early Christian community is just as difficult as to explain why James could dare to put such a saying under his own authority although it originally circulated as a Jesus saying.

50. See, e.g., Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthdus (Mt 1-7) (5th ed.; EKKNT 1/1;

Diisseldorf and Zirich: Benziger and Neukirchener, 2002), 371; Burchard, Jakobusbrief, 207;

Popkes, Brief des Jakobus, 334.

51. See, e.g., Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthdus (Mt 1-7), 372.

52. See Konradt, "Jakobusbrief im frithchristlichen Kontext," 198-200; Burchard, Jakobusbrief, 207; Frankemille, Brief des Jakobus, 2:700-702.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

Whether the saying comes from Jesus or not, both writings present it as a very special commandment. James highlights it by the emphatical introduction mpd navtwv S€, ad5eh@oi pov, which refers either to verse 12 itself or to the following admonitions.>? Obviously, the phrase introduces exhortations that James wants to emphasize in the final part of his letter. With this commandment James criticises the practice of swearing and stresses the necessity of reliable speech.

The importance of the prohibition of oaths is underlined even more by the threat of being condemned to eternal judgement at the end of verse 12.

For Matthew, the prohibition to swear instead belongs to Jesus's interpretation of the Torah in the antitheses. It is introduced as an aggravation of the traditional commandment not to swear falsely that occurs in several Jewish texts.°4 The broader context of both versions is the critique of oaths in Jewish and Hellenistic tradition. As in James, the pointed interpretation of that tradition as a general prohibition of oaths shows that authentic, reliable speech was an important part of early Christian ethics. But whereas in James the phrase is part of admonitions at the end of the letter, in Matthew it belongs to those commandments that separate the followers of Jesus from the Pharisees and scribes because it is a "perfect" fulfillment of Jewish tradition that by itself cannot lead to perfection.

For Matthew it is characteristic, then, that "Jesus traditions" are presented in the form of Jesus's ethical teaching, which brings traditional Jewish commandments to its completion. The central passage in Matthew's Jesus story relevant to this issue is certainly the Sermon on the Mount, especially the so-called antitheses. It is therefore not by accident that in the antitheses many Jewish traditions are taken up and integrated into the teaching of Jesus.5> Because these traditions and even the law itself are only effective as far as they are interpreted by Jesus,

Jesus's teaching implies a separation from the synagogue and the deficient righteousness of the Pharisees and scribes. Hence, although Matthew and James share many Jewish and early Christian traditions, in Matthew they are interpreted in a polemical way by emphasizing that they are only valid if interpreted from Jesus's radical perspective.

53. The closest parallel to mpd mavtwv in the New Testament is 1 Pet 4:8, followed by an admonition to love one another.

54. See, e.g., Zech 5:3; Ps.-Phoc. 16; Wis 14:25; Philo, Decal. 88.

55. See, e.g., Sir 34:22 povebwv Tov MANaiov d d—atpovpevos EuBiwowy, Kal éxxéwv alpa o

Anootep@v j08dV jLoHiov; T. Benj. 8.2 6 Exwv Stavorav kaBapav év ayany ovdx Opa yuvaika ic mopveiav; Ps.-Phoc. 3 kryte yapoxAonéetv pyr' dpoeva Komptv dpivetv. See also n. 54.

SEARCHING FOR CHARACTERISTIC EMPHASES

3.3. THE DIDACHE: "PERFECT" AND "ORDINARY" CHRISTIANS

In the Didache, as in Matthew, the topic of perfection occurs at three places.°° First, in 1:4 the exhortation to turn the other cheek is interpreted with the phrase kai Eon téAetoc. It is not quite clear why the Didache regards especially this commandment as leading to perfection. In any case, it belongs to the redactional material the sectio evangelica adds to the Two Ways passage, which provides the reader with commandments that surpass the Two Ways teaching itself. The phrase kai Eon téAet0¢ probably does not reflect Matthean influence, but goes back to the redactor himself who inserted the sectio into the Didache and emphasized its specific character by depicting it as the way to perfection.

The second instance is 6:2, a summary of the whole section of chapter 1-5.

Here the phrase xai on téAe10¢ follows the conclusion of the Two Ways section in 6:1 and refers back to the sectio evangelica.5' The difference between those who are able to bear the "entire yoke of the Lord" and those who are not, then, represents the same redactional perspective that also appears in the intrusion of the sectio evangelica into the Two Ways section itself. This is confirmed by the repetition of the phrase xai éon téAetoc and by the interpretation of the Two

Ways section as a whole. The distinction between the two ways leading to life or death is necessary for everyone, whereas the way to perfection goes beyond that distinction. The "entire yoke of the Lord," therefore, entails all radical commandments of the sectio necessary to keep for attaining perfection. The sectio thereby functions as a specific interpretation of the double commandment to love God and the neighbor as well as of the Golden Rule (Did. 1:2) by using Synoptic traditions. Unlike the commandments in the sectio, 6:3 requires from all Christians to abstain from food offered to idols.** This is a clear indication that the Didache expects Gentiles to become part of the Christian community. The Two Ways doctrine constitutes the pre-baptismal instruction for them, including the "way to perfection" in the evangelical section.

With this interpretation, the redactor of the Didache not only transcends the traditional Two Ways teaching, but also allows for the possibility that not all

Christians might be able to keep these more demanding commandments. For these "ordinary Christians" there is still the possibility to follow the Two Ways teaching without keeping the commandments for perfection. It is possible, therefore, to belong to the "Christian" community and to stay with the "ordinary"

56. In 10:5, in the eucharistic prayer, God is asked to lead the church to perfection in his love (teAetdoat adtiy év tf aya cov). For discussion of the topic see also Draper, "Didache and Matthew," 225-57.

57. See Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 152-56.

58. An interpretation of 6:2 in the light of 6:3 is developed by van de Sandt and Flusser,

The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 238-70.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

way of observing the traditional Jewish commandments as presented in the Two Ways teaching. The ethical distinction between those who are able to bear "the whole yoke of the Lord" and those who are not, then, does not divide the community, but only demonstrates how perfection can be achieved. This solution is less radical than in Matthew. It shows that the separation from Judaism in the Didache is not a consequence of ethical radicalism but of liturgical practice: The community is advised to celebrate baptism and Eucharist, to pray as the Lord has commanded and to fast on other days than the "hypocrites."

As is well known, several overlaps exist between the evangelical section and the Synoptic Gospels, especially with Matthew. This does of course not answer the question of how the sectio is related to the Synoptic Gospels. Scholarly opinion is divided here between those who argue for literary dependence and those who plead for independence. If one favors the first option, it is necessary not only to explain the relationship of the sectio to Matthew, but also to Luke, Justin

Martyr, and the Shepherd of Hermas, because all these writings consist of traditions parallel with the sectio.5? The closest agreements between the Didache and Matthew are the exhortation to turn the other cheek and the admonition immediately afterwards to go along for two miles.®° Showing close contacts with Luke are the formulation edAoyeite tod<s Katapwpévouc dpiv Kal mpocedyxed8e . . .;6! the order iptatiov - xttwv, which Matthew has in the reversed sequence; and the phrase navti t@ aitobvti oe Sidov Kai pu) Gmaitet in Did. 1:5a, which is in close affinity to Luke 6:30: navti aitodvti oe Sidov, kai and tod aipovtog Ta o& ph anaitet. There is also strong agreement between Did. 1:5 and Herm. Mand. 2,

4-6. If one opts for dependence of the sectio on other early Christian writings, one should acknowledge, therefore, that it is influenced by several texts, not only by Matthew.

The other possibility is that the sectio belongs to a spectrum of thematically related texts in which essential themes of early Christian teaching are brought into the form of an epitome.® The latter possibility clarifies why the sectio appears as a text that has analogies to Matthew's and Luke's sermons in Hermas and also in Rom 12:14-21, where the commandments to bless the persecutors and to be peaceful to one's enemy occur as well. This would also explain why the sectio appears as a teaching of the Lord that leads to perfection and thereby

59. See Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 93-100, with helpful tables.

60. Did. 1:4b-Sa: av tig cot 5@ Pamopa eig thy Sekav oaydva, otpéyov abt@ Kal tiv

GdAny Kai Eon téAet0¢: av dyyapedon oé Tic pAtov &v, inaye pet' adtod Svo.

Matt 5:39b: doti¢ oe panier eig tiv Sebav oraydva [sou], otpéyov abt@ Kai tiv GAAny;

5:41: kai dotic of dyyapevoet pidiov &v, bnaye pet' adtod Svo.

61. Did. 1:3b; Luke 6:28.

62. See Jonathan A. Draper, "Jesus Tradition in the Didache," in Draper, Didache in Modern Research, 72-91, 79-85; van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources,

40-48.

SEARCHING FOR CHARACTERISTIC EMPHASES

surpasses the Two Ways section. Finally, because the evangelical section shares several aspects with other early Christian writings and at the same time has its own characteristics®? it seems more appropriate to assume that the Didache is not literarily dependent here on the Synoptic Gospels but rather had its own access to early Christian traditions.

The two other sections in the Didache in which analogies to the Synoptic Gospels appear in concentrated form are the Lord's Prayer in chapter 8 and the eschatological discourse in chapter 16. I have already argued above that the Lord's Prayer, together with the admonitions not to fast and to pray with the hypocrites, was probably later inserted between the sections on baptism and Eucharist. The characteristic feature of this insertion is the separation of the fasting and praying of the "hypocrites" from that of the addressees of the Didache.

There are several observations highlighting a distinct perspective of the Didache that is not dependent on Matthew.

First, the liturgical section in chapters 7-10 as a whole shows that the Didache develops rules for ritual life in its own way. There is no comparable description of baptism in Matthew; the Eucharist in Matthew is depicted as Jesus's Last Supper whereas the Didache calls it "thanksgiving" (ebvyapiotia) and it is characterized by two prayers over the cup and the fragment and a third one after the fill.64 The Lord's Prayer itself has some minor but characteristic divergences from Matthew's version. These are the formulation év t@ ovpav@ instead of Matthew's 6 év toic ovpavoic, the singular tv opetny in Did. where

Matthew has the plural ta O@etAnpata, and the present tense dgiepev where Matthew has the aorist 4grxapev. In all these instances Luke has a third version:

He does not qualify the father as heavenly father at all; instead of Openpata he has duaptiac, and instead of agrxapev he uses agiopev. This strengthens the assumption that these are cases of Matthew's redactional activity. The formulation 6 év toi¢ obpavoic is characteristic for Matthew, and the aorist dgrKapev reflects the Matthean understanding of forgiveness among community members as a prerequisite for God's forgiveness. That this a central aspect in Matthew's interpretation of the prayer becomes also evident from the verses which immediately follow the prayer itself (6:14-15). Here, a plural occurs for the designation

63. See, e.g., the phrase kal obx éete éxOpév in Did. 1:3, which does not occur in the Synoptic Gospels but is thematically related to the commandment to overcome evil with good in Rom 12:21 and not to resist the evil in Matt 5:39. Also the interpretations of the commandment not to demand back with the formulation o05é yap 5vvacat in Did. 1:4 and ei pév yap xpeiav

Exwv AapBaver tic, AB@oc Eotar6 Sé pi xpeiav Exwv SwHoet Sixny in 1:5 are characteristic for their understanding in the Didache.

64. For my interpretation of the Eucharist in the Didache see Jens Schréter, Das Abendmahl. Friihchristliche Deutungen und Impulse fiir die Gegenwart (SBS 210; Stuttgart:

Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2006), 60-72.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

of human trespasses, napantwpata, which may explain why Matthew uses a plural, OpeArpata, also in the prayer itself.

The version of the Didache is not affected by these redactions. Instead, the interpretation of the prayer becomes evident in a different way, namely, in the doxology at the end of the prayer, which has analogies in the eucharistic prayers in chapters 9 and 10,59 as well as in the following command to pray three times a day. Moreover, it is remarkable that although the section on fasting and prayer begins with a polemical remark against the "hypocrites," directed toward fellow

Jews from whom the addressees shall keep away, the passage ends with a commandment to follow Jewish practice of praying three times every day. The Didache, then, develops ritual life in close affinity to Jewish customs, a feature that appears somewhat differently also in the section on the Eucharist. Here, the order cup - bread is probably adapted from Jewish practice, and the eucharistic prayers in chapter 9 and 10 are loaded with Jewish terms and ideas.®

The separation from the "hypocrites" is described in a different way than in Matthew.*" Matthew promotes a sharp ethical distinction between the synagogue and the community. The hypocrites are thereby identified as scribes and Pharisees as representatives of the Jewish community whose righteousness is defective.

In the Didache, however, it is rituals that separate "Jews" from "Christians." The label "hypocrites" thereby functions as polemical justification for the separation of the community of the Didache from other Jewish groups.®8

The third instance of "perfection" occurs in 16:2. The admonition to be "perfect" at the final hour is somewhat different from 6:2. Whereas according to 6:2 it is sufficient to "do what you can," in 16:2 perfection is necessary for salvation in the final judgement.

With regard to the synoptic tradition a similar picture as in the preceding passages emerges.® The specific combination of the commandment to keep vigil, let the lamps not go out, leave the waists not ungirded and to be ready, as well as the unknown hour of the Lord's coming and the warning against false prophets has several analogies in the Synoptic Gospels.7° But it is improbable that this chapter is literarily dependent on Matthew's version of the apocalyp65. In Did. 9:3 and 10:2 the formulation ool t 5dka eig tos aidvac is used.

66. See Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 173-209; van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its

Jewish Sources, 296-329.

67. See Draper, "Didache and Matthew," 230-35.

68. See the intensive discussion of the identity of the "hypocrites" in the Didache by Del

Verme, Didache and Judaism, 143-88.

69. See the discussion in Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 247-69. See also John S. Kloppenborg, "Didache 16,6-8 and Special Matthean Tradition," ZNW 70 (1979): 54-67. Verheyden,

"Eschatology in the Didache," takes a different view.

70. The parallels occur in Matt 24:42-25:13; Luke 12:35-40 and Mark 13:33-37 and Matt w2l3;

SEARCHING FOR CHARACTERISTIC EMPHASES

tic discourse. Instead the eschatological discourse of the Didache appears as an independent reception of an early Christian apocalyptic tradition that Matthew has used as well. This becomes especially evident in Did. 16:4 where several differences between the Didache and the synoptic versions in Mark 13:19-22 and Matt

24:21-24 occur but also by comparing Did. 16:7-8 with Mark 13:26; Matt 24:30 and Luke 21:27. Moreover, Did. 16:2b has a parallel in Barn. 4:9, and the scenario described in Did. 16:6, based on synoptic traditions but also in 1 Thess 4:16; 1

Cor 15:52, is developed with its own characteristics."! A special feature of the Didache is the commandment to assemble frequently.72 Hence, the traditions in Did. 16 have analogies in several early Christian writings and were independently collected in the Didache into an apocalyptic discourse that at the same time concludes the whole instruction.

The so-called "Jesus traditions" in the Didache, then, are taken from a multitude of early Christian catechetical traditions which James and Matthew had access to as well. In the Didache these traditions appear as ethical teachings partly ascribed to the authority of "the Lord" and his Gospel. In two cases—the sectio evangelica and the teaching on fasting and prayer—they surpass traditional Jewish ethics and function to explain the separation from fellow Jews. In this respect, the process of separation is motivated in a different way than in Matthew.

4. CONCLUSIONS

In Matthew, James, and the Didache, the concept of "perfection" functions as an important clue for the interpretation of the so-called "Jesus traditions."

This concept has its roots in Jewish writings that emphasize the necessity to live according to God's will. Despite this agreement, there is no evidence for a literary dependency between any of the three writings. Instead, each of them had access to early Christian ethical and parenetical traditions, interspersed with Jewish traditions and quotations from Scripture. Each of the three writings adopted these traditions independently and used them to develop its own, specific version of early Christian theology.

James proposes a close connection between perfection and wisdom. Wisdom is a gift from God that enables the addressees to live their faith in a perfect way. To explain this in detail, James picks up different traditions that in several instances have analogies in the Synoptic Gospels. But there is no hint at all that James knew that these traditions were related to Jesus, nor does the author ascribe them to the authority of "the Lord." Instead they appear side by side with other early Christian and Jewish traditions that for James are equally important as ethical instructions.

71. See, e.g., Did. 16:4: tote pavioeta 6 Koopomhavis wc vidc Beod; 16:5: Tore Fket H

Ktioic TOV avOpaTwY eic Ti Mbpworv Tic SoKpaoiag; 16:6: TA oNpEIa THs GAnBeiac.

72. See also Ignatius, Eph. 13.1.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

There is also no need for James to emphasize a difference between Jewish traditions and Christian ethics. Instead, he mixes Jewish parenetical traditions and quotations from Scripture with early Christian traditions in order to face ethical deficiencies of his addressees with his concept of ethical perfection.

With regard to Matthew a close affinity of perfection and interpretation of Jewish law can be observed. Early Christian traditions are used here to emphasize that the Jewish law leads to righteousness and perfection only in its "Christian" version, namely, as interpreted by Jesus. The polemical gesture shows in this context that Matthew already looks back at a process of separation between the Jesus followers and the synagogue and legitimizes this parting of the ways by depicting the Jesus community as obliged to exceed the defective righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

Finally, the Didache interprets the common traditions in a way that separates Christians from Jews not by ethical radicalism but by ritual life. Diverse traditions from different origins—the Two Ways section, the sectio evangelica, the liturgical section on baptism and Eucharist, instructions on fasting and the Lord's Prayer, instructions about wandering apostles and prophets, and eschatological traditions—are all brought together to instruct the community about ethical, liturgical, and eschatological matters. For this purpose the redactor uses synoptic traditions, especially in the evangelical section, in the Lord's Prayer and in the eschatological discourse. But these traditions are neither dependent on a written Gospel nor are they identified as "Jesus traditions." Instead, they appear as general "apostolic" instructions, whereas references to "the Lord" and "the Gospel" are used to surpass the Two Ways teaching with the "whole yoke of the Lord," as well as to emphasize the importance of prayer, the restriction of the Eucharist to the baptized, how to deal with wandering apostles and prophets and how to preserve peace within the community.

From the insertion of the evangelical section in the Two Ways teaching, the polemic against the "hypocrites" and the restriction of the Eucharist one can conclude that the redactor of the Didache uses these traditions to develop a "Christian" over against a "Jewish" identity. The Didache accomplishes this goal by taking over Jewish ethical instructions, surpassing them with a "way to perfection" and presenting them as part of a manual that also consists of specific liturgical instructions for a "Christian" community. Here, separation from fellow

Jews is not based on ethical rigor like in Matthew. Rather, the Didache reflects a traditional Jewish ethos and separates the "Christian" community by introducing specific rituals like baptism and Eucharist, and by polemic against fasting and prayers of the "hypocrites."

In sum, James, Matthew, and the Didache share the conviction that "Christianity,"—a term that has to be used with caution in regard to all three writings—should be understood as a way to perfection. In James this is developed by emphasizing the importance of wisdom as the gift from God that enables

Christians to live according to their calling as those who were (re)born by the

SEARCHING FOR CHARACTERISTIC EMPHASES

word of truth, whereas in Matthew and the Didache perfection is connected to ethical or liturgical separation. The "Jesus traditions"—more aptly described as general, early Christian parenetical or ethical traditions—function to develop these perspectives in three different ways.

, ie Rae ro gt Cee pee

s ok c.

_ ar iets i gies of a = ani taal tus er) >

ss ae tes P a re ae & Gear = ;

6as-oery Oe .

¥ owe ad

i ) fetal '..

Aw » OE a tite to frdtaM@el yo Jering te?

Peberaet nt cornontey ey tab oth ; Pea Oe pleas | SS pag erates 6 Gay Ue yea ir bes si as a, talk ee Aah te lel doserbarh& (i # tet I "pt oom + oxy Seliger titvert seu "toms ae a) pass "oad "Wel.

= 'ler cas teh ey i tis be e ie are w wo a Seok ; sbilegar yt? qos." tg sees , 4 cee ture 2 of prope, er tant ing Le te ot

pad tas hire i eS pr ere ewoe Ge terrae seb Po a a ee = we J ——— P _ Be m :

¥ isjaca red Sige bales gtd reek tel "ah ® ie ax etlks errr

ee Saortls 7 a1 :

, i ni — ny WF 3a ao eee pp:

«Cah!

(hele We ee rT 4 Or i wen + pee reeks sla allo Sa q = shan' intel hiarere ta + Sckowedh Pieterciyte mine ey OO PE net es nae a hitee? Hebe. :

"ca Set) fas a0 gmap hee Cll des We ve = = 'ae ep tire , '

_ r.

: oh ~Girl s AT? el bl :

=. eee =

PART 4

INTERPRETING TORAH

PROBLEMS WITH PLURALISM IN SECOND TEMPLE

JUDAISM: MATTHEW, JAMES, AND THE DIDACHE

IN THEIR JEWISH-ROMAN MILIEU

J. Andrew Overman One of the most important insights from the last generation of scholarship on early Christianity and Judaism has been the recognition that both of these terms are anachronistic when applied to the early Roman period. Neat distinctions between these two related traditions cannot be maintained in the dynamic and ultimately messy years between the reign of Tiberius and, let us say for convenience, Constantine. The distinction between these two monotheistic traditions evolved variously over time depending upon locale and context.

Up to the fourth century it is difficult to speak reliably about so-called Christianity and Judaism. The distinction between these two groups across the Roman

Empire simply does not obtain in a consistent and thorough enough manner.

Distinguishing between Judaism and Christianity is difficult enough. But, in addition to this, we now recognize that there were multiple forms of both within this fluid period. Christianity and Judaism did not simply compete with one another and ultimately go in separate directions. Such a sentence now, in light of the last few decades of research, seems crude and oversimplified in the extreme.!

The welcome recognition of the impressive plurality that existed within Second Temple or Early Roman Judaism—both at home and abroad—makes defining or naming groups very difficult. The diversity that existed within these two broad traditions during the Roman period makes defining a member of either group extremely challenging at the least and wrongheaded at worst. There are certainly so-called Jewish groups that would have had nothing to do with one another when one looks across the range of both Palestinian and Diaspora

1. A much fuller discussion of the plurality within and among Judaisms of this period can be found in J. Andrew Overman and William S. Green, "Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period,"

ABD 3:1137-54. I would like to express my gratitude to the organizers of the conference at Tilburg University where these papers were presented. Their hospitality and the setting of Tilburg produced a most stimulating and successful discussion and conference.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

groups. And the same can and has been said of so-called early Christian groups of the same period. An instructive case in point is the catalog of those who will inherit the world to come and those who will not, as found in the Mishna:

All Israelites have a share in the world to come, as it is said, "Your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified" (Isa 60:21).

And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come:

He who says the resurrection of the dead is a teaching which does not derive from Torah, and (he who says) the Torah does not come from Heaven, and an Epicurean. And R. Akiba says, "Also he who reads heretical books . . .

Abba Saul says "Also he who pronounces the divine Name as it is spelled out.

(m. Sanh. 10:1) Similarly in Matthew we find a denunciation of a group closely related to the Matthean community both in terms of proximity and ideology, yet famously vilified because of their interpretation of Law/Torah, which the author finds destructive.

But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. (Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, even while for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you shall receive greater condemnation.) Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte and when they become one you make them twice as much a son of hell as yourself. (Matt 23:13-15).

In the cases of Mishna and Matthew cited here, from the point of view of an outsider, let us say a Roman official or judge in the province of Judaea or Syria, these look like quite similar groups, perhaps virtually indistinguishable. They are monotheistic, basically Jewish groups arguing about the law / nomos / Torah they hold in common, Romans would have appreciated at least the importance of the law in this debate. It is striking to note how often it is the law and legal interpretation that emerges as the cause of the tension between competing closely related groups." The two passages above highlight how closely related various Jewish groups may seem on the one hand and the intense, deeply felt enmity between such closely aligned groups on the other. In both passages we can apprehend closely related Jewish groups who apparently, at least on paper, will have nothing to do with one another.

2. Discussed in J. Andrew Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social

World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 23-29.

PROBLEMS WITH PLURALISM

To those on the inside the difference and tension over the law and legal interpretation is great, if not grave, but to even a relatively well-informed Roman these appear to be members of the same group arguing about their shared laws and traditions. Roman distinctions between Jews and Christians are of course a development from a far later period than our texts here. And in our earlier period Roman elites understandably do not make nuanced distinctions between various kinds of Jews as if they had read Josephus. Recognizing Jews, Christians, or so-called Jewish-Christians in this period is complicated yet further by the shared influences most groups encountered simply by virtue of being modestly engaged in the commerce and culture of the omnivorous Roman imperial world. Roman philosophy, political realities, and religious influences, forms of which existed from Gibraltor to the Euphrates, are recognizable in the literature coming from the very groups we are trying to define and distinguish between.

Were some of the texts and voices we analyze Jewish? Christian? Stoic? JudeoChristian? Judeo-Christian-Stoic? The short answer to all of this is yes. That is to say, many monotheistic texts from this period were indeed a combination of all these influences and more. How do we measure or weigh these influences?

As many have recognized, there is a continuum here in sorting out influences and placing groups and their texts on a map of early Christianities and Judaisms of the Roman period. Sometimes the categories we utilize or rely upon can be more misleading than helpful and the names too anachronistic to shed light or constructively distinguish.4 The documents of James, Matthew, and the Didache put the problems associated with identifying or defining groups in the Second

Temple period in bold relief. In this paper I wish to offer a brief summary of where these three texts might fall on the fluid maps of Judaism and Christianity in the early Roman period.

1. MATTHEW

Concerning Matthew I have argued with many others that the defining feature of this text is the conflict between the community behind the Gospel and a rival group in the author's setting. Matthew believes that Matthean Jews centered on the teachings of Jesus is the group that should assume leadership in their milieu. For the author, leadership means Torah interpretation, defining appropri3. While a great deal has been written on this subject, a most helpful discussion of Roman views of Jews can be found in Erich $. Gruen, "Roman Perspectives on the Jews in the Age of the Great Revolt," in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology (ed. A. Berlin and J. A. Overman; London: Routledge, 2002), 27-42.

4. With regard to this complicated historical process and development, two works of Ramsay MacMullen remain illuminating: Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100-400)

(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984) and Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1997).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

ate piety in their time and place, and claiming ownership of (certain) traditions and expectations in Israel. The other group is characterized as poor leaders and teachers, treacherous for Israel, and as having brought nothing but woe for the people of Matthew's setting. For Matthew, Jesus has framed and explicated traditions important to the group in a definitive manner. Traditions and teachings associated with Jesus common to the community are the authoritative version of how to understand laws, prioritize ethics, and approach the future. Like Qumran, for example, Matthew seems to care little about the one thing most Judaisms have in common, namely, Roman imperial realities. He focuses instead on the competition with this other closely related group of Jewish leaders captured somewhat artificially in the conflation, "scribes and Pharisees."

While Matthew does not mention Roman and Roman realities explicitly, as do some other writers from his epoch and setting, he does address issues that we can recognize as related to Roman imperial realities. The so-called parable of the landowner in 21:33-44 is one place where Matthew addresses client lordship in his setting in the Roman east. The failure of the local leadership to "pay their proceeds on time" led to the loss of the land. He concludes the parable by stating clearly that the story was aimed at the scribes and Pharisees. They and people like them brought this suffering upon the people. A similar though arguably more theologized parable follows after this one in 22:1-7. The disregard of some of the local leaders led in this case to the destruction of their city. These two parables back-to-back in Matthew precipitate the plot on the part of the scribes and Pharisees— or we would say local leadership (22:15)—to put Jesus to death.

They constitute the beginning of the end for the Matthean Jesus.> Also in terms of Roman provincial realities, Matthew alone stresses the appropriateness, if not absolute need, to pay one's taxes. Matthew's addition to this broader colonial reality takes place in Capernaum and is found in 17:24-27.

Matthew concludes unequivocally that taxes should be paid. Technically, according to 17:26, his group should not have to pay being "sons" but, "in order not to give offense," taxes will be paid. Here we see another critique by Matthew of what was obviously an approach to taxes in his setting that he associates with poor leaders and poor interpretation. An interpretation of "freedom" (17:26) as meaning that one does not have to pay the tax is woefully misguided and has led to tremendous pain and destruction. These three passages from Matthew most clearly bear the signs of an immediate post-70 situation where poor leaders and misguided Jewish groups have led the land to ruin. Matthew asserts that his community and their application of Torah through Jesus is the remedy for these problems.

5. The theme of Roman influences in Matthew is developed further in J. Andrew Overman, Igreja e Comunidade em Crise: O Evangelho Segundo Mateus (Sao Paulo: Paulinas, 1996),

303-32.

PROBLEMS WITH PLURALISM

Finally, in this regard Matthew's ethic articulated in the Sermon on the Mount can justifiably be read as counsel toward a modus vivendi with those in power. It is true this counsel can at the same time be viewed as a form of resistance, as has been so often noted. But this would be a kind of resistance that up to this point has not been heard of in Palestine or elsewhere. The second half of Matt 5 articulates both his ideas about fulfilling the law, but also how his community can live in a world controlled by alien forces. The double-love command is the hermeneutical and ethical guide for the community and the way in which one truly fulfills the law. But it is also sagacious and utilitarian counsel for surviving in his Roman provincial setting in the post-70 era. The author is explicit about this in at least 5:22, 25, 29-30, 38-41, and 44-45. What is an articulate expression of Torah interpretation and fulfillment is also at the very same time savvy counsel for a post-revolutionary colonial setting in Syro-Palestine.

What is important here is recognizing that Matthew has taken issue with local Jewish leaders or retainers.® This is evident throughout most of his Gospel.

The nub of this contention is legal interpretation and piety or praxis. He believes the competing group distorts the law for their agenda and ends. His community, as a result of the interpretation provided for them through Jesus, is the group that should guide God's people in this place and time. But, just as important as, and even related to this argument by Matthew, he places his community in a middle ground with respect to Roman provincial authorities. At the very least,

Matthew urges a way of living with the powers that be and charts a course of slightest offense. This sets him apart from some of his contemporaries. He seems to believe his community would be much better suited to guide the local population and handle legal interpretation. Those currently in charge locally are nothing but evil in his view.

With regard to Matthew we are not talking here about early Rabbinic groups.

Matthew seems a bit too early for that in my opinion. We are as yet in the midst of this very fluid post-70 period where apocalyptic options are still on the table in a Syro-Palestinian setting. The Jewish groups that do not require a literal temple in their theology and praxis still appear viable; this would be some version of Pharisaism and Matthean Judaism. The objective of obtaining leadership and authority in their setting is not a complete fantasy for Matthew, though he admits the others hold the upper hand in this struggle. Books like 2 Baruch, 4 Baruch, 4

Ezra, extraor proto-rabbinic texts like the early sections of Pirge 'Abot or 'Abot de Rabbi Nathan, maybe the Odes of Solomon, aspects of Josephus like his atten6. The concept of "retainer" is taken from Lenski but developed by Anthony J. Saldarini in Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Wilmington,

Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

tion to popular rebel groups, and some others are examples of texts that share both points of view as well as this interim, ill-defined period with Matthew.'

2. DIDACHE

When we turn out attention to the Didache, several differences strike us immediately. We are now reading about a group that takes its lead and instruction from HO KURIOS. Jesus is rarely mentioned. His name comes up in a curious formulation in the eucharist, "Jesus your child (Ingod tod matddc cov)," which reads like a very early liturgical formulation inherited by the group.

The notion of the ekklesia has a Matthean ring but seems to have assumed a broader geographic and philosophical sense. The ekklesia is scattered and recognized as an association beyond the local realm. Related to this church, roles and offices have clearly gained recognition and currency ("Apostle," "Prophet,"

"Deacon," "Teacher," and "Bishop"). Structure and order with respect to ecclesial rites seems to be a matter of substantial importance for the Didache. The followers are known—at least to one another—as Christianoi and the term Gospel carries a freight that suggests a taken-for-granted knowledge of its message and content. All these substantial sociological developments do not sound much like

Matthew and a lot more like a set and stage of developments we might find in, say, the Pastoral Epistles.

The Didache is rightly designated a manual for a community that is well on the way to being organized. It sees itself as part of a regional network. The document focuses, as manuals would, on proper liturgical life but stresses above all ethics, right behavior, treatment of others, and piety, emphasizing right attitudes and actions for the members within the context of the group.

Based on the information the document provides, the Didache shows little interest in issues beyond the association. There is no obvious quarrel with those in its milieu outside the group. Take for example the logion concerning the courts in 1:5. In Matthew this saying (5:26) is intended to highlight the hostility of the courts toward the Matthean community and is part of offering a broader strategy for getting along in the city where legal authorities are out to get members. In the Didache the saying is clearly and awkwardly dislodged from this earlier setting and now is about sharing possessions and appropriate use of alms within the community. The saying is about internal piety, not political realities.

Similarly, "Hypocrites" (Did. 8:1, 2) is not a term for errant authorities in the city or the setting of the group, as is the case in Matthew. It is a term that denotes

7. 1 still find Graham Stanton's ("5 Ezra and Matthean Christianity in the Second Century," JTS 28 [1977]: 67-83) notion of a "Matthean Circle" quite helpful in thinking about the other forms of Judaism or Jewish-Christianity that would have found affinity with Matthew's interpretations.

PROBLEMS WITH PLURALISM

aberrant behavior or attitudes in the Didache. It is not a term associated with an identifiable group. Being a hypocrite is like being lustful, or proud, "consorting with the lofty," or a host of other negative behaviors and attitudes. It is a trait to be avoided, an ethical injunction. This is a far cry from Matthew's application of the term.

The focus in the Didache is on life within the community and does not portray a position of alienation vis-a-vis the world. The setting of the Didache, so far as we can tell, does not suggest a reality where the followers of the Lord are at odds with their broader setting. Schism or Schismata within the community is a far greater concern (2:6—7; 4:3; 15:3). Schism is revealed in the tension concerning treatment of slaves (4:10, 11, itself an astonishing inclusion). And one is struck with the oft-noted tension over "rich" and "poor," which do not read like spiritualized terms but honest reflections of the economic diversity of the group.

Some followers or members are now Roman Optimates of grander social standing.

There is something that strikes the reader as a Matthean veneer or kinship to parts of the Didache. What appealed to the author or compiler of the Didache was the more-obviously ethical portions of early Jesus traditions with which Matthew also found resonance. He is not alone of course. The ethical traditions given fuller expression in Matthew have resonated with many over the centuries. There is nothing in the Didache, as far as I can see, that would require us to relate the document to Matthew beyond this significant ethical Vorlage. And, significantly, there is little here that would compel us to conclude that this is a document somehow associated with Second Temple Judaism, however broadly we define that category. The Christology of the Didache is somewhere between low and non-existent, so there is little here to help us place the text on maps of early

Christianities or Judeo-Christianities. It may be wisest to declare the document non-aligned at this point. The Didache is trying to supply order and structure to a growing community that has an obvious measure of sociological sophistication when compared to a host of other early Christian and Jewish communities from roughly the same period. They are connected to Jesus in some way, more to the Lord. The two titles are related but not coterminus. As Matthew reflects a kind of Judaism in Palestine that did not ultimately survive, so the Didache strikes us as a stage of quasi-Christian sociological and theological development that likewise did not survive long past the Roman period.

Thus, we do admit the presence of Matthean language or echoes of Matthew in the Didache seemingly suggesting a Matthean veneer or relationship to Matthew. Beyond this there is little to connect the two documents. But this is not where the matter ends for here is where recent work on the Didache helps us better to understand what these two quite different texts also have in common.

Huub van de Sandt and others have demonstrated convincingly that these two different genres and texts do in fact share an affinity for an earlier tradition

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

bound to ethics and legal interpretation.8 Very early Rabbinic traditions along with the tradition as it finds expression in formative Jewish groups lies behind the ethical instructions found in both Matthew and the Didache manual. Here the recent continental and especially Dutch scholarship has pointed a way forward in uncovering a connection between Matthew and the Didache. These are two very different texts reflecting groups that faced quite different fundamental issues. The Didache is focused on internal issues and behavior and reflects a stage of sociological development we do not find in Matthew. Matthew, on the other hand, faces a struggle with a real rival in his setting that threatens the very survival of the group. The aim and purpose of these two texts are quite disparate.

Yet we can hear and sense in these two texts a connection. The connection is that kinship rooted in the earlier Jewish ethical tradition of the Two Ways.?

What is important to note here is the different ways in which the two documents employ the Two Ways stratum. The Didache presents the Two Ways as instruction for living an ethical, Torah-guided life within the community. Matthew, especially when placed within the larger context of the antithesis in chapter

5, transforms the Two Ways into ethics that serve the community well when exercised internally. But just as importantly, it serves the adherent well when lived out externally in Matthew's broader social and political context. Clearly and significantly both authors view this tradition as the way in which the law is fulfilled. Here we can see obvious agreement. The manner in which the Two

Ways informs the life, behavior, even strategy of the members is different in the two documents. Both Matthew and the Didache transform or utilize this shared ethical tradition in a manner that reveals the station of each community in their respective settings.

3. JAMES When we turn to James we see another stage in the messy early-Roman history of formative Judaism and Christianity. The substantial work done on this document recently appears to have concluded—if such a word is possible—that we have in James the emergence of a rather sophisticated measure of Hellenistic philosophy merging with a Diaspora group that honors Jesus. The honoring of Jesus, so far as the document discloses, does not include any significant theological freight. For example there is no obvious soteriological discussion apart from the notion or act of "doing," no mention of the resurrection, and the document

8. Noted in many works but put forth most persuasively in the article in this volume on the "Two Ways" tradition.

9. Van de Sandt, ibid., with respect to Matthew, James, and the Didache, "the correspondence in perspective . . . results from their common orientation on a section of the Jewish Two

Ways that is best preserved in Didache 3:1-6."

PROBLEMS WITH PLURALISM

is lacking the liturgical life and counsel prominent in the Didache. James is fundamentally a theocratic tractate on faith and ethics. This tractate or instructional exhortation is substantially influenced by Hellenistic ethics and principles. One is stuck with the level of philosophical sophistication in this short work. Perhaps we have in James, as Sophie Laws suggested some time ago, the presentation of Jesus as a Hellenistic teacher and ethicist by a "God-Fearer."!0

The notions and terms from James that would punctuate this level of philosophical sophistication is a long list. In short there is much this dense text has in common with Stoic traits of the Roman period. An emphasis on ethics is a feature of Stoicism put in bold relief when we come to the Roman period, as Gretchen

Reydams-Schils has shown again quite recently with considerable force.!! The God of James's Letter is construed in Stoic terms and notions common to the Second Sophistic.!? The religious language of James in, for example, 1:26-27 and elsewhere is at home in the Roman religious milieu of the cities of Greece or Anatolia. Eschatological notions here are less apocalyptic and imagery much more like the Stoic notion of life in the next realm and epoch (1:17-18). The perfect law (of liberty) is the language of the Stoicism that had gained substantial popularity and accessibility in the Roman period (1:25; 2:12). Liberty, love, and ethics had coalesced in Stoic thought by our period, but was a notion firmly grounded in Stoic thought from the outset. The city is held together by a common commitment of its citizens to one another, and the order of the polis by an ethic that conflated love and liberty.!4

In concrete terms we see again possible tension over pretention and economic diversity in the letter. This James shares with the Didache. Those who are rich have provoked dissention. The theme is prominent enough that one wonders if this tension in fact constitutes the occasion of the Epistle? Humility is a trait of members that comes close to being a sine qua non for the group: "Distinctions are not made among yourselves" (2:4, 9). Quarrels and divisions are referred to explicitly in the letter (e.g., in 4:1). Trials or tests are part of their thoughtworld. These are welcome insofar as they cultivate the pivotal trait of bnopovy and finally téAevoc. Monotheism alone seems to mean little (2:19). Proper ethics and actions along with trust/belief is what make a difference. I should think to a moderately educated or engaged Roman thinker or speaker this would make

10. Sophie Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James (San Francisco: Harper & Row,

1980), 37.

11. The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility, and Affection (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 2005).

12. Demonstrated fully by Matt A. Jackson-McCabe, Logos and Law in the Letter of James:

The Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, the Law of Freedom (NovTSup 100; Leiden: Brill, 2001).

13. Developed by Malcolm Schofield in The Stoic Idea of the City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 22-55. Zeno himself stressed this connection according to later sources.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

perfect sense. True or right reason leads to perfection (Seneca, Ep. 124.14-15).

Here miotic, appropriately enough, plays the role of reason in the development or evolution of the believer. Concern for the common good and to live without distinction were prominent Roman Stoic beliefs that James would celebrate with the likes of Cicero, Epictetus, or Seneca. "We were all born under the law and derive the principles from nature that all ought to obey and follow, that one's advantage should be the common advantage which is in turn yours as well" (Cicero, Off.

3.52). James stresses the health and commonwealth of the community based on niotic. James is its own Jewish-Stoic community of reason (Cicero, Fin. 3.64).

I take James's address to the Diaspora seriously. I cannot see how ovvaywyh in 2:2 refers to anything but a Diaspora community. The analogies drawn from Abraham and Rahab in chapter 2 signal for us that this is a Jewish Diaspora community from the early Roman period. Notions of pronoia, the Decalogue, and the by-now well-entrenched notion of the Diaspora community as a synagogue all point to a Greco-Roman Jewish Diaspora group. His is a Jewish community that has little to do with the issues characterizing Palestinian communities in the post-70 period, and still less to do with the Judaism that takes shape slowly after Bar Kokhba. James's own community represents a type of Judaism which found certain Greek philosophical notions quite compatible with their understanding of Jewish history and whatever Jesus came to accomplish. They would have lived around and among other Jewish groups with little distinction and disturbance.!4

But notions like "the implanted word," "the law liberty," the "shadow of turning," and even the notion of miotic in James all place the text squarely in the Roman Stoic cultural and philosophical milieu. And this means that he has a lot to talk about when we consider someone like Philo of Alexandria or what we know of the Jews from Sardis for example.!5 These Greco-Roman Diaspora communities remain a fascinating but far too under-explored a part of the history of Judaism in this period. James would be a voice that fits quite well on the map of these Greco-Roman diaspora communities. We could call him Christian too by virtue of the opening line of the first two chapters, but little else.

As we look at the history of the development of texts and communities such as Matthew, the Didache, and James I think we are wisest to place our bets on James in terms of survival and longevity. Matthew was extinguished or reabsorbed back into a proto-Rabbinic community that for a time tolerated the emphasis on Jesus. Except for the preservation of the liturgies, the Didache leads to a cul-de-sac in the history of Christian development. It seems to me James had

14, Matt Jackson-McCabe, "The Messiah Jesus in the Mythic World of James," JBL 122

(2003): 725.

15. J. A. Overman and R. S. MacLennan, eds., Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of and in Dialogue with A, Thomas Kraabel (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 41;

Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992),

PROBLEMS WITH PLURALISM

the best run. These Greco-Roman Diaspora communities lasted a very long time.

But in the end what preserved James was what preserved Christianity as well. The merging of fundamental Greco-Roman philosophical and political notions with a "community of reason" provided for the survival of a number of faith communities and ultimately led to the indistinguishable coalescing of Athens and Jerusalem.

While strikingly different in tone, language, philosophical orientation, and certainly setting and purpose, we do find James employing the same ancient Two

Ways tradition utilized by Matthew and Didache—two texts with which he otherwise has very little in common. Yet again we see this influential, early tradition being applied and transformed in a manner that makes perfect sense for James's setting. The extension of ethical mandates to attitudes and dispositions not surprisingly also is at home in the emerging Stoic ethic of the early Roman period and Second Sophistic.

In 1:14-20 and 4:1—4, but especially 2:8-11, we find allusion to this earlier Jewish tradition. Of course in the hands of the author of James one need not think of this as a "Jewish" tradition any longer. On the contrary, it is a tradition that Roman readers would identify as in consonance with the dominant ethical formulations of the day. The connection between love, freedom, and the life of the polis was explicit in Stoic thinking from the time of Zeno and that never changed. Roman Stoicism focused on ethics. From Zeno's formulation of the ideal city where love ruled, Roman Stoics developed a code of ethics that would have found much in common in the two traditions.!® Or as Cicero said, "those who have law in common have justice in common. And those who have these things in common must be held to belong to the same commonwealth (civitas)" (Leg. 1.23). Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 4 26) reinforces this common acceptance of Stoicism as a fundamentally ethical framework for the life and prospering of a city. "The Stoics say the Universe is in the proper sense a city, but that those here on earth are not—they are called cities, but are not really. For a city or a people is something morally good, an organization or group administered by law which exhibits refinement (aoteiov)."!7

4. CONCLUSION

When we view the three texts under review here, we do indeed find a shared interest, commitment, and outlook on law and ethics. That ethical framework can justifiably, in notable instances, be traced to an early independent tradition that we have referred to as "the Two Ways." Was this early Jewish tradition the foundation of Jesus's own ethic and therefore embedded in an amalgam of early

16. Moses Hadas, The Stoic Philosophy of Seneca (New York: Norton, 1958), 22, 26.

17. Clement cited in Schofield, The Stoic Idea of the City, 24.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

Jewish, Christian, Jewish-Christian and finally Jewish-Christian-Stoic texts and communities? Such an assertion seems plausible, though equally unverifiable.

What we do see in this early tradition is an impressive, widespread embrace of the basic tenants of this ethic. And at the same time we see an adaptability and applicability for this approach to law and ethics that found a home across the early Roman world in an extraordinary range of communities.

The popular and oft-relied-upon ethical tradition of the Two Ways found resonance in early Christian, Jewish, and Roman communities across the Greek

East. This tradition could be claimed and owned by a broad range of religious and cultural contexts. This speaks to the strength and reason underlying this tradition. Its adoption across a wide range of communities of the early Roman world, however, contributes yet further to our perception of a quite fluid and finally wonderfully messy picture of Jews, Christians and Romans mixing together.

While they may have been able to determine the difference between the three, in this instance, we cannot.

THE LovE COMMAND IN MATTHEW, JAMES,

AND THE DIDACHE

Matthias Konradt As is well-known, the fundamental importance of the love command is not an exclusive feature of Jewish Christianity, as, for example, represented by the Gospel of Matthew, but is a common trait in Early Christianity.! In dealing with the question whether the Gospel of Matthew, the Epistle of James, and the Didache represent one and the same religious milieu, it therefore does not seem possible to identify a common milieu of Matthew, James, and the Didache through, metaphorically speaking, "surface mining" by considering the topic of neighborly love. Moreover, a thorough analysis of the relationship between Matthew, James, and the Didache? would have to take the entire writings into account. Thus, I have to confine myself to giving an overview of the relevance, meaning, and thematic contexts of applications of the love command in the three

1. See in the synoptic tradition Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; in Johannine literature John

13:34-35; 15:12-13, 17; 1 John passim; in Pauline and Deuteropauline letters Rom 12:9; 13:910; 1 Cor 8:1-3; 13; Gal 5:14; 1 Thess 4:9; Col 3:14; see moreover Jas 2:8; 1 Pet 1:22; 2:17; 4:8; 1

Clem. 49.1-50.7; Sib. Or. 8.481. 1 thank Greta Konradt, Delia Richner and Esther Schlapfer for their assistance.

2. With regard to the relationship between Matthew and the Didache, most, although not all, scholars now tend to postulate independence. See, e.g., the discussion in Aaron Milavec,

"Synoptic Tradition in the Didache Revisited," JECS 11 (2003): 443-80 (with references to literature in nn. 1-13). For the dependence of the Didache on Matthew's Gospel, see, e.g.,

Klaus Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet

(Schriften des Urchristentums 2; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984), 24-30.

Recently Alan J. P. Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache (JSNTSup

254; London: T&T Clark, 2004) argued that Matthew is dependent on (a previous form of) the Didache, not the Didache on Matthew. For a critical evaluation of Garrow's approach, see the review of Garrow's monograph by Jens Schréter in TLZ 131 (2006): 997-99. For the relationship of Matthew and James see the discussion in Matthias Konradt, "Der Jakobusbrief im friihchristlichen Kontext: Uberlegungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Verhiltnis des Jakobusbriefes zur Jesusiiberlieferung, zur paulinischen Tradition und zum 1Petr," in The Catholic

Epistles and the Tradition (ed. J. Schlosser; BETL 176; Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 190-207.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

writings. For that purpose, I will try to point out some convergences and congruencies in the reception of the topic of neighborly love. I will close with some preliminary remarks on the question whether Matthew, James, and the Didache can be grouped together as representatives of the same milieu.

1. LOVE OF ONE'S NEIGHBOR IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

Matthew explicitly refers to the love command no fewer than three times in his Gospel (5:43; 19:19; 22:39). In the first occurrence in 5:43 (the last antithesis), the quotation of Lev 19:18 is incomplete—"like yourself" is missing—and there is the addition of "you shall hate your enemy." As I have argued elsewhere, the so-called antitheses are not directed against the Torah itself,* but against its interpretation by the scribes and Pharisees.° In other words, in the theses, Matthew quotes the Torah as it is insufficiently interpreted by the scribes and Pharisees.

Due to this "distorted" understanding, the "righteousness" of the scribes and Pharisees does not suffice for entering the kingdom of Heaven (5:20), whereas the better righteousness expected from the disciples is based on Jesus's interpretation of the Torah, which develops its full and deepest meaning. The last antithesis clearly demonstrates this approach. In his other two citations of the love command (Matt 19:19; 22:39), Matthew refers to it as a major commandment of the Torah without feeling bound to give any further explanation. Therefore, it is obvious that for Matthew himself, the opposition of neighbor and enemy that is

3. See Matthias Konradt, "Die vollkommene Erfiillung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den

Pharisdern im Matthaiusevangelium," in Das Gesetz im friihen Judentum und im Neuen Testament (ed. D, Sanger and M. Konradt; NTOA/SUNT 57; Géttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

2006), 134-41.

4. For the opposite thesis, see, e.g., Ingo Broer, Freiheit vom Gesetz und Radikalisierung des Gesetzes: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Evangelisten Matthdus (SBS 98; Stuttgart: Verlag

Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980), 75-81; Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthdus (Mt 1-7)

(Sth ed.; EKKNT 1/1; Diisseldorf: Benziger, 2002), 330; Hans-Joachim Eckstein, "Die Weisung

Jesu Christi und die Tora des Mose nach dem Matthausevangelium," in Jesus Christus als die

Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums (ed. C. Landmesser et al.; BZNW

86; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 396-403; Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, "Die Antithesen des Matthaus:

Jesus als Toralehrer und die frithjiidische weisheitlich gepragte Torarezeption," in Gedenkt an das Wort (ed. C. Kahler et al.; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999), 176-77.

5. For this approach, see Christoph Burchard, "Versuch, das Thema der Bergpredigt zu finden," in Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testaments (ed. D. Sanger;

WUNT 107; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 40-44; Christian Dietzfelbinger, "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt im Verstandnis des Matthaus," ZNW

70 (1979): 3; Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, "Das Liebesgebot Jesu als Tora und als Evangelium: Zur Feindesliebe und zur christlichen und jiidischen Auslegung der Bergpredigt," in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus (ed. H. Frankemille et al.; Freiburg: Herder, 1989), 213-18; J. Daryl Charles, "Garnishing with the 'Greater Righteousness': The Disciple's Relationship to the Law (Matthew 5:17-20)," BBR 12 (2002): 8.

THE LOVE COMMAND

evident in 5:43 is not part of the commandment itself, but is only introduced to it by false interpretation. The Matthean Jesus liberates the commandment from its restrictive interpretation, which is polemically assigned to the Pharisees, and thereby points out its true significance.

There is no indication that this criticized restriction is to be seen along the lines of national or ethnic boundaries. As 5:46 suggests, it is a rather ordinaryethical common sense that has to be overcome, a restriction of love to friends according to the principle of mutuality.® In other words, Matt 5:43 is a variation of the vulgar-ethical maxim "to benefit his friends and harm his enemies" (Plato,

Menon 71e)' in biblical language.§ Against this background, the Matthean Jesus demands that the love command should be followed without any limitation; it is valid even with regard to the enemy. Thus, the Matthean Jesus radicalizes the love command by claiming that loving care for the well-being of others is entirely independent of how the other acts towards oneself.

Matthew substantiates this claim with the argument of conformity: Acting indiscriminately to all people conforms to the loving kindness of the creator who "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good" (5:45). In the overall context of Matt 5, loving one's enemy takes up the blessing of the peacemakers in 5:9, as is indicated by the promise that the peacemakers as well as those who love their enemies will be sons of God.? Thus, love of one's enemy is understood as an act of peacemaking,!° and due to the fundamental nature of the requirement in Matt 5:44, this appears as a principal demand to reshape social relations by countercultural behavior, which overcomes the principle of retribution according to 6. See the discussion in Matthias Konradt: ". . . 'damit ihr Sdhne eures Vaters im Himmel werdet': Erwagungen zur 'Logik' von Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in Mt 5,38-48," in Gewalt wahrnehmen - von Gewalt heilen: Theologische und religionswissenschaftliche Perspektiven (ed. W. Dietrich and W. Lienemann; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004), 84-85.

7. See also Plato, Resp. 332e; 336a ("Do you know whose view I think it is,' I said, 'that it's right to help one's friend and harm one's enemies?""); Epictetus, Diatr. II 14.18 (oldac tov eb

Rowdvta avtevTotijoat Kai Tov KaKG Nowdvta KaK@ Touoat); Isocrates, Demon. 29 ("Bestow your favors on the good. . .

. If you benefit bad men, you will have the same reward as those who feed stray dogs; for these snarl alike at those who give them food and at the passing stranger."), as well as Ps.-Phoc. 80 on the one hand ("It is proper to surpass [your] benefactors with still more [benefactions]."), and 152 on the other ("Do no good to a bad man; it is like sowing into the sea."). For other early Jewish writings see, e.g., Tob 4:17.

8. See William Klassen, Love of Enemies: The Way to Peace (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984),

84; Gordon M. Zerbe, Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical

Themes in Social Contexts (JSPSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 206.

9. For this connection see Dieter Liihrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6,27-36; Mt 5,3948)," ZTK 69 (1972): 414-15 and Rudolf Schnackenburg, "Die Seligpreisung der Friedensstifter

(Mt 5,9) im matthaischen Kontext," BZ NF 26 (1982): 167-70.

10. See Konradt, "Erwagungen zur 'Logik' von Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe," 89.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

which love is answered by love and hate by hate. Instead, hate shall be overcome by love.

It is important to take into consideration that, to some extent, the command to love one's enemy in Matt 5 takes up the love command from its original context in Lev 19, where the phrase primarily addresses the question of how one shall deal with a "personal enemy."!! One shall not hate, but reprove the neighbor. One shall not take vengeance, but shall love one's neighbor as oneself. This original application is further elaborated in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, where the story of Joseph, who does not take vengeance on his brothers but rather cares for them in Egypt, and the love command mutually interpret each other.!2 If one compares this to Matt 5, one can of course call attention to the fact that in Lev 19 and the Testaments the application of love of one's personal enemy does not actually exceed the Jewish community, whereas the interpretation in Matt 5 is of a more principal nature. Love of one's enemy is not confined to persons within the community who have acted improperly towards oneself, but it also refers to outsiders. On the other hand, no principal confinement of the love command to the Jewish community appears in Lev 19 or in the Testaments, but rather a focus on the concrete ethical need of the community.!3 Of greater importance is the fact that Matt 5 can be read as a development of an original aspect of the love command in the Torah and in early Jewish tradition.!4

The second occurrence of the love command in Matthew's Gospel goes back to the redactional hand of the evangelist. In his reply to the rich young man's question on which commandments he has to obey in order to enter the kingdom in Matt 19:18-19, the Matthean Jesus not only quotes the socio-ethical commandments of the decalogue, but the love command as well. In the light of Matt 22:37-40, it is certainly not incorrect to postulate that the love command functions as a summary of the social will of God and thus as a summary of the commandments from the Decalogue, which themselves represent main sentences of the Torah, !5

11. See Hans-Peter Mathys, Liebe deinen Ndchsten wie dich selbst: Untersuchungen zum alttestamentlichen Gebot der Ndachstenliebe (Lev 19,18) (OBO 71; Géttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1986), 81 and also John Piper, 'Love Your Enemies': Jesus' Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian Paraenesis: A History of the Tradition and Interpretation of Its Uses (SNTSMS 38; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 32.

12. See Matthias Konradt, "Menschenoder Bruderliebe? Beobachtungen zum Liebesgebot in den Testamenten der Zwélf Patriarchen," ZNW

88 (1997): 301-3.

13. See Thomas Séding, Das Liebesgebot bei Paulus: Die Mahnung zur Agape im Rahmen der paulinischen Ethik (NTAbh NF 26; Miinster: Aschendorff, 1995), 48: "Das Liebesgebot will nicht exklusiv, sondern positiv die Pflichten gegeniiber den Mit-Israeliten einscharfen."

14. See Konradt, "Erwagungen zur 'Logik' von Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe," 71-77.

15. For the reception of the decalogue in Early Judaism and Early Christianity see Ginter

Stemberger, "Der Dekalog im friihen Judentum," Jahrbuch fiir biblische Theologie 4 (1989):

THE LOVE COMMAND

Zio In our context, the question whether the insertion of the love command is correlated to the discourse between Jesus and the rich man in verses 20-21 is of crucial importance. The rich man maintains that he has kept all the commandments quoted by Jesus and asks what he still lacks. Jesus now answers that if he wants to be perfect, he has to sell all his possessions, give them to the poor and follow Jesus. The decisive alternative is whether selling his possessions for the benefit of the poor is an additional requirement,!® or whether this demand is to be read as an interpretation of the love command with reference to the concrete life situation of the rich man.!7 In the first case, Jesus would accept the rich man's statement about fulfilling the commandment; in the second case, he would implicitly call it into question: If the rich man will not use his possessions for the benefit of the poor, he would, at least in this special instance, have fallen short of the requirement set out by the love command.

What emphatically speaks for this second option is the fact that Jesus counters the rich man's departure with the statement that it is hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven (v. 23). This refers back to the opening question about the requirements for receiving eternal life. In Matthew's version, differently from Mark, this initial question is answered by Jesus with an explicit reference to "keeping the commandments" as the entrance requirement. When, at the end of the story, no prominent place in heaven, but exactly what he asked for, that is, mere entrance into the kingdom, is denied to the rich man, this implies logically that he has not fulfilled the commandments,

!® at least not in his encounter 91-103; Dieter Sanger, "Tora fiir die Volker: Weisungen der Liebe: Zur Rezeption des Dekalogs im frithen Judentum und Neuen Testament," in Weisheit, Ethos und Gebot: Weisheitsund

Dekalogtraditionen in der Bibel und im friihen Judentum (ed. H. Graf Reventlow; Biblischtheologische Studien 43; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001), 97-146 and Ulrich

Kellermann, "Der Dekalog in den Schriften des Friihjudentums: Ein Uberblick," in Graf Reventlow, ed., Weisheit, Ethos und Gebot, 147-226.

16. See Alexander Sand, Das Evangelium nach Matthdus (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1986),

396 and also Ulrich Luck, Das Evangelium nach Matthdus (ZBK NT 1; Ziirich: Theologischer

Verlag, 1993), 215-17.

17. See Hubert Meisinger, Liebesgebot und Altruismusforschung: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft (NTOA 33; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1996), 40-41; Martin Meiser, "Vollkommenheit in Qumran und im Matthausevangelium," in Kirche und Volk Gottes (ed. Martin Karrer et al.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener

Verlag, 2000), 198; Roland Deines, Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias: Mt 5,13-20 als Schliisseltext der matthdischen Theologie (WUNT 177; Tibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 391:

"Indem er [sc. der reiche Jiingling, M.K.] seinen Besitz nicht zu verkaufen und zu verteilen vermag, gesteht er ein, dass er eben seinen Nachsten nicht so liebt wie sich selbst."

18. See E. Yarnold, "TéAe1oc in St. Matthew's Gospel," in Studia Evangelica (ed. F. L. Cross; vol. 4; TU 102; Berlin : Akademie-Verlag, 1968), 271. See also the contribution by Wim Weren to this volume.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

with Jesus. And this means that, contrary to Mark's version,!? Jesus's demand that he should sell his possessions for the benefit of the poor has to be understood as Jesus's unfolding of the meaning of the love command for the young man in his specific life situation. Furthermore, following Jesus and fulfilling the commandments are not to be viewed as separate items, but fulfilling the commandments according to Jesus's interpretation is an integral part of following him.20

This interpretation can be substantiated by including the motif of perfection in Matt 19:21. There are only two occurrences of the adjective "perfect" in Matthew's Gospel; the other is in 5:48. Both are redactional, and both occur in the context of the love command. This is certainly not accidental. In both sections,

Matthew links perfection to the fulfillment of the love command in its true and deepest sense. Perfect love does not permit any limitation of the objects of love, and it embraces the generous (or even total) use of one's possessions for the benefit of the poor. The insertion of the love command in 19:19 certainly does not only pursue the purpose of pointing to the supreme position of the love command as a summary even of the commandments from the decalogue; predominantly, this insertion is necessary for Matthew because he wants to present the demand to charitably use one's possessions, which he found in Mark, as an application of the Old Testament love command. To put it another way, in the Matthean version, Jesus's request appears as an authentic interpretation of what it means to live in accordance with the Torah.

Although the concrete application of the love command in Matt 19:16-22 cannot be regarded as a general requirement irrespective of one's life situation, it also cannot be declared meaningless for the community by referring to the specific situation of the rich young man in his encounter with the earthly Jesus.

Rather, it points to a community that is characterized by an intensive care for the poor. The context of such behavior is the expectation of the near kingdom, which results in a reversal of values. Because one cannot serve two masters at the same time, God and Mammon (see 6:24), every disciple must primarily strive for the kingdom of God and his righteousness (6:33).

While Matt 5:43-48 is in line with the original context of the love command in Lev 19:17-18 as it is developed in the T. 12 Patr. with regard to the figure of Joseph, Matt 19:16-22 follows a second option of application, namely, charitable love, as it appears in the T. 12 Patr., namely, in the Testament(s) of Issachar (and 19. See Hermut Lohr, "Jesus und der Nomos aus der Sicht des entstehenden Christentums:

Zum Jesus-Bild im ersten Jahrhundert n. Chr. und zu unserem Jesus-Bild," in Der historische

Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwartigen Forschung (ed. Jens Schréter and Ralph

Brucker; BZNW 114; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 346.

20. For a different interpretation see Rudolf Hoppe, "Vollkommenheit bei Matthaus als theologische Aussage," in Salz der Erde - Licht der Welt: Exegetische Studien zum Matthdusevangelium (ed. L. Oberlinner and P. Fiedler; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991), 159-64.

THE LOVE COMMAND

Zebulon).*! This analogy presents exemplary evidence that Matthew is firmly rooted in early Jewish Torah paraenesis. At the same time, the aspect of radicalization, which has often been mentioned, cannot be overlooked, with regard either to Matt 5 or to Matt 19.

The fact that "perfection" is linked with the fulfillment of the love command in Matthew's Gospel points to its central position in Matthew's understanding of the law as it is explicitly stated in 22:34-40. With regard to the position attributed to love of one's neighbor, one important feature of the Matthean version is that in Jesus's answer to the question of the Pharisaic lawyer, loving one's neighbor is explicitly assessed as equivalent to love of God.?2 This directly corresponds to Matthew's emphasis on mercy over against sacrifices, which he states twice by citing Hos 6:6 (Matt 9:13; 12:7). On the whole, Matthew's focus on the social will of God (see Jas 1:26-27) is of utmost importance in his story of Jesus.

This focus is embedded in the sharp conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees with their allegedly one-sided emphasis on ritual norms, at least as Matthew presents it. In this light, it becomes understandable why Matthew changed the friendly atmosphere of the Marcan pericope to a conflict scene in which a Pharisaic lawyer approaches Jesus to test him in the negative sense of Matt 22:15 "to entrap him in his words." The Pharisaic lawyer tries to elicit an explicit statement from Jesus, which proves that—by emphasizing mercy to men—he does not give adequate (that is, highest) priority to honoring God.*> Although Jesus joins the Jewish consensus?' in his answer by quoting Deut 6:5 as the greatest commandment, he then elevates the love command to an equal level. He thereby interprets the Jewish consensus with regard to his emphasis on the merciful care for one's neighbor and, at the same time, indicates that love to God cannot be realized sufficiently by a rigorous observance of purity or Sabbath regulations or by extensifying tithing, but only by doing God's social will. Surely, love of God and love of one's neighbor cannot be equated with one another,"> but neither can they be played off against one another: Love of one's neighbor is a central and indispensable element of love of God.

In v. 40, Matthew adds: "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." In the Matthean context, this does not mean an actual reduction

21. See especially T. Iss. 5.2 and T. Zeb. 5.1-8.3.

22. Christoph Burchard, "Das doppelte Liebesgebot in der frithen christlichen Uberlieferung," in Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testaments (ed. D. Sanger;

WUNT 107; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 25 aptly calls this a "Gleichordnung trotz Differenz.

23. For this interpretation see Konradt, "Die vollkommene Erfillung der Tora," 146-49.

24. See Let. Aris. 132; Ps.-Phoc. 8; Philo, Decal. 65; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.190.

25. See Ulrich Luz, "Uberlegungen zum Verhiltnis zwischen Liebe zu Gott und Liebe zum

Nachsten (Mt 22,34-40)," in Der lebendige Gott: Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments

(ed. T. Séding; Miinster: Aschendorff, 1996), 147.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

of the law to the double love commandment,"° as the coordination of commandments from the decalogue and the love command in Matt 19:18-19 confirms with regard to loving one's neighbor: the social commandments from the decalogue unfold the love command.

To summarize, two important fields of application of the love command emerge, namely, the relationship to an enemy, or more specifically, any enemy, and charitable love for the benefit of the poor. In both cases, Matthew radicalized the demand and linked the love command with the motif of perfection. Perfect love in its Matthean understanding is not just an intensification of normal cultural behavior but overcomes the principle of mutuality, and it is embedded in a redefinition of social values with regard to one's possessions.

2. LOVE OF ONE'S NEIGHBOR IN THE EPISTLE OF JAMES

The love command is formally quoted in Jas 2:8: "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you do well." The function of the love command in James is disputed. Is it, contrary for example to Paul, just one commandment among the others, even if it might be of more importance than others?27 Or does it function as a summary of the law or at least of its social part??8 Or does it even function as its hermeneutical center?2? The decisive argument for a summarizing function (as in Matthew) is that elsewhere in James vopo¢ always means the law as a whole, but never only a single commandment (Jas 1:25; 2:9-12; 4:11). This should then also be valid for Jas 2:8. In other words, the love command is not just a single commandment among others, even if it might have a more prominent rank. Rather, the entire law is called "royal" in Jas 2:8, and through love the entire law is fulfilled. Again as in Matthew, this is not to be understood as a reduction of the law to the love

26. Against Deines, Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora, 400.

27. See, e.g., Martin Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus (ed. F. Hahn; 12th ed.; KEK 15;

Géttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 177; Martina Ludwig, Wort als Gesetz: Eine

Untersuchung zum Verstdndnis von "Wort" und "Gesetz" in israelitisch-friihjiidischen und neutestamentlichen Schriften: Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Jakobusbriefes (Europaische

Hochschulschriften, Reihe 23, Theologie 502; Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1994), 174-75.

28. See Rudolf Hoppe, Der theologische Hintergrund des Jakobusbriefes (2nd ed.; FB 28;

Wirzburg: Echter, 1985), 88-89; Ulrich Luck, "Die Theologie des Jakobusbriefes," ZTK 81

(1984): 17; Matthias Konradt, Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief: Eine Studie zu seiner soteriologischen und ethischen Konzeption (SUNT 22; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1998), 184-87.

29. See Martin Klein, "Ein vollkommenes Werk": Vollkommenheit, Gesetz und Gericht als theologische Themen des Jakobusbriefes (BWANT 139; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995), 148 and Wiard Popkes, Der Brief des Jakobus (THKNT 14; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001),

174: "Wie auch anderswo im Friihchristentum gilt das Liebesgebot als norma normans, als

Kanon des Gesetzes."

THE LOVE COMMAND

command, as the allusion to Lev 19:15 in Jas 2:9 and the quotation of two commandments of the decalogue in Jas 2:11 show. But the love command formulates the basic intention or nature of the law, which is then explicated by other regulations.

With regard to the relationship of 2:8 and 2:9, the summarizing function of the love command implies that the claim that one has fulfilled the love command and, thereby, the law as a whole (2:8) is disproved by showing partiality in one's social interaction with rich and poor people (2:9). In 2:1, James points out the incompatibility of faith in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ3° and partiality. The explicit mention of the glory of the exalted Lord relates antithetically to the orientation to worldly glory, so to say, which comes to the fore by showing favoritism towards the rich. In other words, Jas 2:1 calls for a radical invalidation of wealth as a criterion for social status due to faith in the one and only glory of the exalted Lord, in which Christians hope to participate when they receive the "crown of life that God has promised to those who love him" (Jas 1:12). Such a demand implies a total abrogation of the established social order, an inversion of social values that is then spelled out in 2:5-7, where James contrasts negative experiences that Christians had to make with rich people on the one hand with God's election of the poor on the other: "Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich through faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised to those who love him?" (2:5).

In 2:13 James moves from love to mercy. Thus, the love command in James is closely connected with a merciful attitude towards the poor. The importance of merciful, charitable love in James is underlined by Jas 1:27 and 2:15-16. In 1:27,

James refers to caring for orphans and widows in their distress when defining true religion. And in 2:15-16, James illustrates worthless practice of religion by referring to a Christian who provides a needy brother or sister with good wishes, but does not take care of their bodily needs. Moreover, for James, mercy does not only mean almsgiving; mercy begins with the respectful attitude towards the poor, as James's example in 2:2-4 illustrates. In other words, alms given condescendingly are not what James has in mind.

The respectful attitude towards the poor called for by James is an expression of his countercultural model of social order with its anti-hierarchical leveling of social positions as a crucial element of the Christian belief system. In this context, love of one's neighbor is neither to be confused with an ethos of friendship between people of equal social rank, nor to be envisioned as a move of the afflu30. On the difficult construction in Jas 2:1, see Christoph Burchard, "Zu einigen christologischen Stellen des Jakobusbriefes," in Anfange der Christologie (ed. C. Breytenbach and H.

Paulsen; Géttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 354-57.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

ent down to the poor, but as behavior among people who—in contradiction with "worldly" standards—are of equal rank.*!

If compared to the Gospel of Matthew, the application of the love command in Jas 2:1-13 shows affinity with Matthew's addition of it in Matt 19:16-22. In both instances the relevance of the love command is spelled out in terms of the attitude towards the poor, and in both instances the claim to (have) fulfill(ed) the commandment (Matt 19:20; Jas 2:8)32 serves as a foil for unfolding its inmost meaning. Furthermore, this interpretation is embedded in a countercultural model of social life, in which striving for the kingdom of God is regarded as the highest priority. In Jas 2:8, the law is called vopoc Baowikds. In the immediate context, the phrase refers back to 2:5, where James spoke about the heirs of the kingdom that God promised to those who love him. In this context, the designation of the law as "royal" probably implies that it defines the life order of the kingdom given by God as the king, which is already binding in this world with its different social order for those who wish to inherit the kingdom.33 In 4:4, James directly contrasts friendship with God and friendship with the world.

Traditio-historically, Jas 4:4 seems to be influenced by the Q-logion that Matthew integrated into his Sermon on the Mount in Matt 6:24.34 Furthermore, the anti-hierarchical impetus of Jas 2 finds a counterpart in Matt 23:8-12. In short, in Matthew and in James, the emphasis on the love command gains its contours in the context of an overall social ethos in which the normal status positions are leveled off?5 and possessions do not qualify as a desirable goal of one's personal aspirations, but are consequently regarded as a means for helping the needy.

After the direct quotation of the love command in Jas 2:8, there is a second passage that is of importance here, namely, 4:11-12. The conspicuous change from "brother" to "neighbor" in 4:12 (2:8 and 4:12 contain the only occurrences of mAnotov in James) suggests that 4:12 intentionally refers back to 2:8 and thus to the love command.*° This approach can be confirmed by the thematic aspect

31. For the combination of love and equality or status indifference see Gerd TheiSen,

"Nachstenliebe und Egalitat; Jak 2,1-13 als Héhepunkt urchristlicher Ethik," in Der Jakobusbrief: Beitrége zur Rehabilitierung der "strohernen Epistel" (ed. Petra von Gemiinden et al.;

Beitrage zum Verstehen der Bibel 3; Miinster: Lit, 2003), 124-35.

32. For the interpretation of the conditional clause in Jas 2:8 see Konradt, Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief, 185-86. See also Thei&en, "Nachstenliebe und Egalitat," 128.

33. For interpretational options for the phrase vopog Baotixdc, see Meisinger, Liebesgebot, 136-38 and Theifen, "Nachstenliebe und Egalitat," 132-34.

34, See Konradt, "Der Jakobusbrief im friihchristlichen Kontext," 194-95, 35. See Meisinger, Liebesgebot, 147: "Das Nachstenliebegebot bedeutet fiir ihn (sc. fiir

Jakobus, M.K.) die Verpflichtung zu egalitirem Verhalten. . .. Reiche und Arme sollen sich nicht als solche, sondern als Nachste, die ihren Nachsten lieben, begegnen. Statusunterschiede soll es innerhalb der Gemeinde nicht geben."

36. See, e.g., Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, 273; Ralph P. Martin, James (WBC 48; Waco,

Tex.: Word Books, 1988), 163.

THE LOVE COMMAND

treated in 4:11-12. kata\aXeiv and xpivetv are not synonymous, but their juxtaposition indicates that they refer to related aspects. The phrase xpivetv tov adeApov, which is probably influenced by the Jesus saying in Matt 7:1; Luke

6:37, refers to an incorrect way of dealing with sins of others. In this context, kataAaXeiv does not mean slander, but more generally "to tell bad things about another person" (see, e.g., Num 12:8; 21:5; Ps 77:19 [Lxx]).37 Instead of fraternal correction in a private conversation, as outlined in Matt 18:15, the sin committed by the other is made public. This does not only take up the original context of the love command in Lev 19:17-18, but can also be contextualized by its reception in early Judaism, especially again in the T. 12 Patr. According to the Testament of Gad 4.2-3, hatred (16 picoc) "does not want to hear the words of his [sc. God's] commandments concerning the love of one's neighbor, and it sins against God.

For if a brother stumbles, it wants to proclaim it immediately to all men and it urges that he should be judged for it. .

. ."38 James 4:11-12 picks up this application of the love command. Those who judge others because of their sins and try to put someone in an unfavorable light by talking about his transgressions in public, transgress the law themselves because they do not act according to the love command. Interpreted in this way, the compositional placement of the admonition in 4:11-—12 makes good sense: In 4:7-10 James called upon the sinners to repent; in 4:11-12, he added an admonition to the brothers on how to treat the sinners.

To summarize: When James's reception of the love command is compared to Matthew's, a significant overlap can be detected. First of all, differently from Paul and John, Matthew and James lack an explicit christological argument for love, e.g., with reference to Jesus's death. When Matthew and James speak of love, the natural point of reference for them is the Old Testament love command, to which prominent status is given in both writings. What is implied in the references to the love command in Jas 2:8 and in Matt 19:19 is explicitly stated in Matt

22:34-40: The love command functions as a summarizing statement of God's social will. In both writings, this does not mean a reduction of the law to the love command, but the love command is unfolded by other regulations, whereby the second table of the decalogue is of major importance in both writings. Again, this is a phenomenon that can also be found in early Jewish writings.*? Furthermore, the assignment of highest status to the love command is linked with similar thematic fields of its concrete application in James and Matthew: Matt 19:16-22 and Jas 2:1-13 similarly unfold the requirement of the love command in the face of its claimed fulfillment. In both cases, the problem of wealth plays an important

37. See also the juxtaposition of kataAaXeiv and yéyetv Biov avOpwnov in T. Iss. 3.4.

38. See also the reception of Lev 19:17-18 in 1QS V, 24-VI, 1 and the shorter version in 4Q258 1 Il, 4.

39. See the literature in n. 15.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

role, and there is a close connection of love and mercy in Matthew and James.

Moreover, Jas 4:11-12 can at least remotely be compared to the love of enemy in Matt 5: What Matt 5 states in a programmatic way is applied to a congregational setting in Jas 4. The topic of forgiveness is of great importance in Matthew's

Gospel.4° It is not directly connected with the love command anywhere. But if the explicit prominent status of the love command in Matthew's Gospel is taken into account, one can ask whether Matthew's emphasis on forgiveness might be regarded as an expression of the love command's central position. Moreover, to love one's enemy certainly includes the willingness to forgive. At any rate, the two main applications of the love command found in the T. 12 Patr., which can be regarded as exemplary evidence for the developments in Early Jewish Torah paraenesis, reappear in James: forgiving love and charitable love. And this demonstrates how firmly James is embedded in Early Jewish Torah interpretation, which is also a characteristic of Matthew's Gospel.

3. THE LOVE COMMAND IN THE DIDACHE

As is well-known, in the Didache's version of the Two Ways-instruction, the description of the "way of life," is introduced by the double love command plus the Golden Rule in its negative formulation as a summary statement of God' will

(1:2). This feature distinguishes Didache from the related passage in the Epistle of Barnabas, but, as the Doctrina apostolorum,*! the Canons of the Holy Apostles*? and the Epitome of the Canons*? suggest, it was already a feature of the recension of the Two Ways-instruction used by the didachist,44 which—with Niederwimmer's designation—I will call recension C.4> The combination of the admonitions to love God and one's brother or neighbor and their function as a summary of God's will are features that appear in Jewish sources prior to the emergence of Christianity.4° However, the direct citation of the two love commands combined with their designation as mp@tov and Sevtepov is evidenced only in Christian sources, namely, in Mark 12:29, 31 and Matt 22:38-39. This might be taken as—at 40. See esp. Matt 1:21; 6:14-15; 9:2-13; 18:21-35; 26:28.

41. See Joseph Schlecht, Doctrina XII apostolorum, Die Apostellehre in der Liturgie der katholischen Kirche (Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1901), 101, 105-6.

42. See Theodor Schermann, Die allgemeine Kirchenordnung, friihchristliche Liturgien und kirchliche Uberlieferung 1: Die allgemeine Kirchenordnung des zweiten Jahrhunderts (Studien zur

Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, Supplement 3; Paderborn: Schéningh, 1914), 15.

43. See Theodor Schermann, Eine Elfapostelmoral oder die X-Rezension der ,,beiden

Wege" (Verdffentlichungen aus dem Kirchenhistorischen Seminar Miinchen 2/2; Miinchen:

Lentner'schen Buchhandlung, 1903), 16.

44. See Kurt Niederwimmer, Die Didache (Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vatern 1;

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 91.

45. Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 61-63.

46. See esp. T. Iss. 5.2; 7.6; T. Dan 5.3; T. Jos. 11.1; T. Benj. 3.3 and Philo, Spec. Laws 2.63.

THE LOVE COMMAND

least—tentative evidence that this recension stems from a Jewish Christian or Christian Jewish circle.47

The juxtaposition of the double-love command with the Golden Rule in Did.

1:2 is of special interest if compared to Matthew, because both function as summary statements of the law also in Matthew. Whereas Matt 22:40 defines that the entire law and the prophets hang on the two love commands, the reference to the Golden Rule in 7:12 is commented upon by the statement, "for this is the law and the prophets." At this point, there is no evidence in favor of direct dependence of one source on the other.*8 Like Luke, Matthew cites the Golden Rule in its positive formulation, which goes back to the Saying Source, whereas in Did.

1:2 the negative formulation appears.*? But one might ask whether Matthew's assignment of a summarizing function to the Golden Rule in 7:12 as well as to the double love command in 22:40 might be inspired by a combination of both as it is evidenced by recension C.°° In other words, Did. 1:2 might be a witness of a tradition that also influenced Matthew. At any rate, Matthew's remark about the equal rank of the command to love one's neighbor in 22:39 remains his own individual contribution, which has no counterpart in Did. 1:2.

The plausibility of a common tradition is underlined by the fact that in the pre-Didache recension of the Two Ways-instruction, the explication of the programmatic opening references to the double love command and the Golden Rule

47. See Jonathan Draper, "The Jesus Tradition in the Didache," in The Jesus Tradition

Outside the Gospels (ed. David Wenham; Gospel Perspectives 5; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985),

272; John S. Kloppenborg, "The Transformation of the Moral Exhortation in Didache 1-5," in The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History and Transmission (ed. C. N. Jefford;

NovTSup 78; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 98; Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 91. For a different position see Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early

Judaism and Christianity (CRINT 3/5; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002), 158, n. 58.

48. Against this, Christopher M. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache," in The Didache in Modern Research (ed. J. Draper; AGJU 37; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 106-7 favors the dependence of np@tov - Sebtepov (Did. 1:2) on Matt 22:38-39. Against Tuckett see Milavec,

"Synoptic Tradition in the Didache Revisited," 460.

49. Moreover, the command to love God in Did. 1:2 does not follow Deut 6:5, but parallels Barn. 19:2 (ayamijoeic tov noujoavta oe) and has an analogy in Sir 7:30 (év An Svvapet ayamnoov Tov noujoavTa oe).

50. See Clayton N. Jefford, The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

(VCSup 11; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 37: The "notation concerning the 'double love commandment' and the Golden Rule as the summation of 'the law and the prophets' appears only here [sc. in Matt 7:12; 22:40, M.K.] in the Gospels, and thus may imply that the Matthean redactor was familiar with a tradition in which the 'double love commandment' and the Golden Rule were recognized as two elements of a single inclusio concerning the parameters of the OT law." Jefford concludes: "This lends some support for the position that the Didachist and the Matthean redactor are dependent upon a common tradition of scriptural interpretation" (ibid.).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

is obviously structured by the influence of the decalogue in Did. 2:2-6.5! There seems to be a similar relation of the love command and the decalogue in all three writings under discussion here: Matthew, James, and the Didache, or respectively, the pre-Didache-recension. Furthermore, this is complemented by a wide understanding of the Decalogue commandments, which is evidenced for Matthew in Matt 5:21-30 and for the Didache in the téxvov-sayings in 3:1-6 and can be assumed for James on the basis of the usage of povevetv in 4:2.52

The love command is taken up in the form of an allusion in Did. 2:7, which shows some reverberations of its original context in Lev 19:17-18. No close relationship to Jas 4:11-12 can be detected here, but at least both documents point to an ongoing reflection of the love command in its original context. This is underlined by several links between the Didache material and the passage in Lev

19:11-18,53 among them the demand not to show favoritism in Did. 4:3 (see Lev 19:15). This passage from Lev 19 also seems to make up the background of Jas

2:8-9,54 An aspect that must be treated separately from the question of possible influences of the sources of the Didache on the Gospel of Matthew is the redactional level of the Didache itself. All Didache texts to which I have referred until now were already extant in recension C. This is not the case with regard to the sectio evangelica in 1:3b-2:1,°5 in which the love of one's enemy appears. I think that this section is not a post-didachist interpolation, but an insertion by the didachist himself.5° The section shows convergences with Matthew in some points and with Luke in others, and this includes that these convergences are accompanied by differences with Matthew and Luke. As is well-known, the question of exact relationships is a notorious crux. Is the didachist dependent on Matthew (and also

51. See on this Jefford, The Sayings of Jesus, 53-58; Kloppenborg, "Transformation of the Moral Exhortation," 99-100.

52. See on this Konradt, Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief, 129-30, 53. See Did. 2:3 with Lev 19:12 and 19:16, Did. 2:5 with Lev 19:11 and Did. 4:3 with Lev

19:15, See Kloppenborg, "Transformation of the Moral Exhortation," 103.

54. See Luke T. Johnson, "The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James," JBL 101 (1982):

391-401.

55. For an analysis of this section see, e.g., Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 93-116.

56. See for this position, e.g., Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 93-98. For a post-didachist interpolation, see, e.g., Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), 18-20.

THE LOVE COMMAND

on Luke?) here>" or did he use an independent tradition?58 Since I cannot go into a detailed analysis of this section here, I have to confine myself to pointing out an intriguing convergence on the conceptual level: In the overall architecture of the Two Ways instruction, the love of one's enemy in the sectio evangelica appears as an explication of the love command cited in 1:2. Thus, Jesus's instructions are positively incorporated into the conception of the Torah, which is close to Matthew's approach in Matt 5:17-48.

Another feature that should be considered in this context is the motif of perfection in the Didache. Since the appendix in 6:2-3 seems to be a redactional element,>? one can ask if the second reference to the motif of perfection in 1:4 also goes back to the hand of the redactor.® In the Synoptics, perfection only occurs in Matthew's Gospel, namely, as we have seen, in the context of the interpretation of the love command. In the Didache, the motif of perfection appears in a similar, but not in exactly the same context. It is not directly linked to love of enemy, but to turning the other cheek as well. The point of reference in Did. 6:2 is difficult to define. Does "the entire yoke" refer to the whole Torah, inclusive of all food regulations and so on, so that the didachist would allow for some

57. See Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition," 128, who postulates that the Didache "presupposes the finished gospels of Matthew and Luke." Jefford, The Sayings of Jesus, 52 does not only maintain that the interpolator "shows an awareness" of the text of Matthew's Gospel and "seems to know the Lucan Gospel as well," but he also postulates that "the interpolator writes from within the same tradition as that of the Matthean Gospel." One of his arguments is that the association of evAoyéw, mpooedxouat, and vnotevw in Did. 1:3 would give witness to a tradition that Matthew took up in 6:1-18 (44-46, 52). On the other hand, John S. Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1," in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same

Jewish-Christian Milieu? (ed. H. van de Sandt; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005), 129 concludes that "the compiler of Did. 1:3b-2:1 knew Luke," but he sees no clear indication whether in addition to Luke, the compiler was also familiar with Matthew, or only with Q.

58. For this option, see, e.g., Draper, "Jesus Tradition," 273-79, and van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 40-48. See also the discussion in Willy Rordorf, "Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?," in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (ed. Henry Wansbrough; JSNTSup 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991),

399-412 with references to the works of Christopher M. Tuckett (s. above n. 48 and n. 57) and Clayton N. Jefford (s. above n. 50). Rordorf concludes, "that in this passage of the doctrine of the Two Ways the Didache has preserved a Jesus tradition independently of the Synoptic Gospels" (ibid., 411). See also the critical discussion of Tuckett's approach in Milavec, "Synoptic

Tradition in the Didache Revisited," 461-71.

59. Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 241, however, see a tension between the position in 6:2-3 and the anti-Jewish standpoint in 8:1-2 and thus postulate "that the appendix (sc. 6:2-3, M.K.] can hardly be explained as an original contribution by the final author-editor of the Didache."

60. See Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 94, 107.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

alleviation in this regard?! Or does the didachist here refer back to the love of enemy and the renunciation of retaliation in the sectio evangelica® or to the preceding chapters on the whole® (which appears to me to be the most probable solution)? At any rate, a significant difference between Matthew and the Didache emerges here: For Matthew, the perfect fulfillment of the Torah is not arbitrary, but a binding requirement for the disciples and should be a characteristic of the ecclesia, which through that feature positively stands out from the Pharisaic synagogue. The didachist seems to be aware of the high ethical demand formulated in the instruction; on these grounds, he presents perfection as the goal for which one should strive, but it is obviously not a prerequisite of salvation. Perfection is also an important topic in the Epistle of James,°° where it appears as an ideal that ought to be aimed at, as in the Didache. James, however, knows that no one can really attain this goal, and here, the sins of the tongue are the major problem

(see 3:2).

4. MATTHEW, JAMES, AND THE DIDACHE AS REPRESENTATIVES OF ONE

AND THE SAME BRANCH OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY?

If one compares the reception of the love command in Matthew, James, and the Didache with one another, some convergences emerge. As in Matthew and James, there is no evidence in the pre-Didache recension or in the Didache itself for a christological coloring of the love command through an interpretation of Jesus's death as an act of love (see Gal 2:20), but, again, we find a natural recourse to the Old Testament love command.® In comparison with Pauline and Johannine literature, this is remarkable to some extent. All three writings show a similar understanding of the love command as a summary statement of God's will, which is foreshadowed in Early Jewish writings. There is no sign of a reduction of the law to the love command, but the natural recourse to it in establishing love as the main ethical guideline is exemplary evidence for the continuity

61. See Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), 96; Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its

Jewish Sources, 269; Jonathan A. Draper, "Do the Didache and Matthew Reflect an 'Irrevocable Parting of the Ways' with Judaism?" in H. van de Sandt, ed., Matthew and the Didache,

227-30.

62. So Niederwimmer, Die Didache, 155-56.

63. See Gunnar Garleff, Urchristliche Identitat in Matthdusevangelium: Didache und Jakobusbrief (Beitrage zum Verstehen der Bibel 9; Miinster: Lit, 2004), 135-44.

64. See the conclusion of Garleff, Urchristliche Identitat in Matthdusevangelium, 144 that the didachist "in 6,2 die Radikalitit seines Lebensweges wahrnimmt und diesen gerade durch

2b begehbar macht."

65. On the topic of perfection in James see Konradt, Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief, 267-85.

66. See Kloppenborg, "Transformation of the Moral Exhortation," 104.

THE LOVE COMMAND

with the Torah on the whole. All three writings also demonstrate continuity with the main thematic fields of applying the love command in Early Judaism, as it is especially documented in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Moreover, in all three writings, the central importance of the love command is connected to the prominent role of the decalogue (but see also Rom 13:8-10). The congruence in the reception of the Torah in Matthew, James, and the Didache is linked with a common recourse to the motif of perfection, which however is developed in different ways. Other differences also exist®? on which I cannot elaborate here.58

Do these findings support the idea that "in addition to the Pauline and Johannine "schools," Matthew, James and the Didache represent a third, important religious milieu within earliest Christianity, which is characterized by its distinct connections to a particular ethical stream of contemporary Jewish tradition"?6? The question is complex and, as mentioned in the introduction, it cannot be dealt with in an adequate manner in the (thematic) framework of this essay. I can only indicate my preliminary position here. In my opinion, a close relation must be assumed between Matthew's Gospel and the Didache, but one has to distinguish between different steps of the formation of the documents. As has been shown above, there seems to be an interrelationship between the ethical traditions that were taken up in the pre-Didache recension C on the one hand, and those that influenced the evangelist on the other. On the level of the didachist himself, I still consider it to be a reasonable assumption that the didachist was familiar with Matthew's Gospel itself and, given the relationship between Matthew's Gospel and traditions that were taken up in recension C, that he lived in the near surroundings of the origin of the Gospel."° In other words, it is worth

67. I briefly point only to two other differences between Matthew and James. Whereas

Matthew operates with a contrast of éxxAnoia (16:18; 18:17) and "their synagogues" (see esp.

Matt 10:17; 12:9 and 23:34), in James both terms are used with regard to the Christian congregation (see Jas 2:2 and 5:14). And while James identifies the believers in Christ with the "twelve tribes" (1:1) and thus with Israel, Matthew never postulates such an identity for the church. On the latter question see Matthias Konradt, Israel, Kirche und die Volker im Matthdusevangelium

(WUNT 215; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 349-77.

68. I mention only that on the whole, James displays a much stronger Hellenistic character than Matthew. Christoph Burchard (Der Jakobusbrief [HNT 15/1; Tibingen: Mohr Siebeck,

2000], 5) rightly calls the author of James a theologian "mit guter (jiidisch-) hellenistischer

Bildung" and points to the "hellenistischen, wenn auch oft jiidisch vermittelten Ziige seiner

Theologie und Ethik" (ibid., 4; see also Konradt, Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief,

847):

69. So Huub van de Sandt and Jiirgen Zangenberg on pp. 1-2 in the introduction to this volume.

70. See the convincing argument for an intertextual reference of the Didache to Matthew's

Gospel in Garleff, Urchristliche Identitét in Matthdusevangelium, 199-206. Differences can be interpreted as "Modifikationen der Lehren des Evangeliums hinsichtlich der veranderten Situation" (ibid., 204).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

considering that the Didache in its final form represents a later stage of Matthean

"Christianity" and thus gives insight into its further development.

Some affinity between Matthew and James does also exist, which, however, cannot be equated with the close relationship of Matthew and the Didache."! As far as localizing is concerned, I agree with many exegetes that Syria is the most probable place for James" as it is for Matthew and the Didache. But Syria is large, and due to the divergences between James and Matthew, which might include different social compositions of the communities,"> I prefer the possibility that James and Matthew/Didache represent "only" two (closely) related branches of Early Syriac Christianity, instead of assigning James to exactly the same "milieu" as Matthew and the Didache.

71. See the exemplary points of difference mentioned above in n. 67 and also n. 68.

72. See Matthias Konradt, "Der Jakobusbrief als Brief des Jakobus: Erwagungen zum historischen Kontext des Jakobusbriefes im Lichte der traditionsgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zum

1 Petr und zum Hintergrund der Autorfiktion," in Gemiinden, et al., eds., Der Jakobusbrief:

Beitrdage zur Rehabilitierung, 16-53: 42 with n. 132.

73. According to Did. 7:1, the Two Ways-tractate in Did. 1-6 served as a pre-baptismal instruction for Gentile converts (see, e.g., Willy Rordorf, "An Aspect of the Judeo-Christian

Ethic: The Two Ways," in Draper, ed., The Didache in Modern Research, 153-59); this, however, does not speak against a predominantly Jewish-Christian community, which is open for Gentiles as its context. With regard to Matthew, most scholars today agree that the members of the community were at least predominantly of Jewish origin (see on this Konradt, Israel,

Kirche und die Volker, 386-93). I do not see, however, that this can be taken for granted in the case of the Epistle of James (see on this Konradt, "Der Jakobusbrief als Brief des Jakobus," 44,

45, 53). At the same time, the principal theological convergence of the three writings must be stressed in this context: All three writings display a kind of Christianity that is characterized by a strong Jewish fundament and a rather smooth theological transformation of Jewish traditions in the process of opening the communities for Gentiles—without any severe break with Torah in principle.

ETHICS IN THE LETTER OF JAMES, THE GOSPEL OF

MATTHEW, AND THE DIDACHE: THEIR PLACE IN

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

Patrick J. Hartin

1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS

In considering the ethical dimensions of the three texts, the Letter of James, the Didache, and the Gospel of Matthew, this paper will examine their relationship to the ethical worlds of the people of Israel and of nascent Christianity.

Each investigation will begin with the Letter of James for two reasons. In the first place, my field of scholarship has largely been devoted to an investigation of the Letter of James. In the second place, I am convinced that the Letter of James is an early writing, preceding that of the Gospel of Matthew and the Didache. Scholarship has long been divided over the question of the date of the Letter of James.

However, based on a careful examination of the evidence, the Letter of James emerges as an early writing from the hand of a follower of James of Jerusalem, written shortly after his death (in 62 c.£.) from Jerusalem to followers of Jesus the Messiah living outside of Palestine (Jas 1:1). The letter aims at reminding its hearers/readers of James's teaching and to encourage them to live in "friendship with God" (4:4).!

1. For a discussion of the date and authorship of the Letter of James see Patrick J. Hartin,

James (SP 14; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003), 16-25. "An early date for this writing is required from the evidence noted above, namely, (1) the way the author refers to himself, expecting his hearers/readers to know his identity; (2) the closeness of the author to the heritage of Israel (he still sees himself as belonging to that world); (3) the use made of the Jesus traditions (prior to the appearance of the canonical gospels); (4) the closeness to the spirit and vision of Jesus; (5) the total lack of reference to the Gentiles in any form; and (6) the omission of any reference to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem" (ibid., 24).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

2. ETHICS IN THE LETTER OF JAMES, THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW,

AND THE DIDACHE

2.1. ETHOS AND IDENTITY

The ethical vision of an author or a community is referred to as its ethos.

Webster's Dictionary defines ethos in the following way: ethos 1, the fundamental character or spirit of a culture; the underlying sentiment that informs the beliefs, customs, or practices of a group or society. 2. the distinguishing character or disposition of a community, group, person, etc.?

Ethos points to the very identity of a people or a community: this is who we are and this is what distinguishes us from other groups or communities. The ethos directs the way members of a group or community lead their lives. Consequently, this ethos gives rise to the ethics of that group or community, namely, those rules, values, and guidelines to which members adhere and by which they express their identity. Webster's defines "ethics" as "1. a system or set of moral principles. 2. the rules of conduct governing a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc."3 In examining James, Matthew, and the Didache, attention will be given to the ethos that points to the vision and identity of the group or community behind each text. Then, an examination will be made of the ethics that emerges from that vision and that is expressed through the various ethical admonitions in the texts.

2.1.1. The Letter of James James writes to those who see themselves within the context of Israel's heritage and traditions. Two points demonstrate this most specifically:

The Eschatological Hope of the Twelve-Tribe Kingdom.' In the opening verse of the letter, James® identifies those to whom he writes as "the twelve tribes in the 2. Random House Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (New York: Random House, 1995), 459.

3. Ibid.

4. I have examined this phrase in detail elsewhere, for example, Patrick J. Hartin, "Who Is

Wise and Understanding among You?' (James 3:13): An Analysis of Wisdom, Eschatology, and Apocalypticism in the Letter of James," in Conflicted Boundaries in Wisdom and Apocalypticism

(ed. B. G. Wright, III and L. M. Wills; SBLSymS 35, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005),

149-68; and idem, James, 53-55.

5. When referring to James (and in like manner to Matthew) as the author of the text, I do not intend to take a position on the actual identity of the writer. The use of the name James (and analogously Matthew) is merely a handy tool since the writers and tradition identify themselves in this way.

ETHICS IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

Dispersion" (taic 5WSexa gvAaig taic év ti Staonopa xaipetv) [1:1]). In using the article in conjunction with "the Dispersion" (év tf Staonopa), James indicates a literal understanding of the Diaspora, as those areas outside Palestine where people of the house of Israel live." James is not speaking metaphorically as some commentators wish to assert.' This would be possible only if the writer were addressing Christians from the pagan world. Indeed, the whole letter bears the stamp that its hearers/readers are from the people of Israel.

The reference to the "twelve tribes" originally refers to the people of Israel who trace their origins back to the twelve sons of Jacob (see Exod 24:4; 28:21;

39:14). The reign of King David gave impetus to the hope that his kingdom would last indefinitely. As the prophet Nathan said to King David, "Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever" (2 Sam 7:16). With the division of the twelve tribe kingdom after Solomon and the subsequent destruction of both the northern and southern kingdoms, the hope emerged for a restored twelve-tribe kingdom: "Thus says the Lord God: I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them one nation in the land. . ." (Ezek 37:21-22). This hope in the reconstituted twelve-tribe kingdom continues on into the period of the first century C.E., as is evident from writings from this period: "He will gather a holy people whom he will lead in righteousness; and he will judge the tribes of the people that have been made holy by the Lord their God" (Pss. Sol. 17:26;? see also

1QS VIII,1).

James, then, reflects the hope in the fulfillment of this twelve-tribe kingdom.

He further strengthens this identity by referring to them as "the first fruits of (God's) creatures" (1:18). In this context, those to whom James writes are identified as believers from the people of Israel who have accepted Jesus's message.

They are heirs to the promises and hopes of the past in that God's eschatological kingdom is being brought to fulfillment in their presence. Through this self identification, James situates his hearers/readers, living outside of Palestine, firmly within the people of Israel, laying claim to the fulfillment of its most foundational

6. Unless otherwise noted, the translation of the Bible that is used throughout this paper is that of the NRsv.

7. See Hartin, James, 50-51.

8. See Martin Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James (trans. M. A. Williams; ed. H. Koester; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 66-67.

9. Translation of the Psalms of Solomon is by R. B.Wright, "The Psalms of Solomon," in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,

1983-85), 2:667.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

hopes. For James, a believer can be both a member of the people of Israel and a follower of Jesus.

The Torah. James discusses the law on three occasions in his letter (1:25; 2:8-12; and 4:11-12) identifying the law as "the law of freedom," "the perfect law,' and "the royal law." I have examined James's concept of law elsewhere.!! I see this term referring to the biblical Torah! as the expression of God's will for God's covenant people. Here, attention will be given as to how the concept of law/Torah functions in the Letter of James. To understand this, it must be viewed against the background of the purity rules that were essential for the proper functioning of every first-century C.E. Mediterranean society. James's very definition of religion presupposes the importance of this concept: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world" (1:27). The purpose of the Torah is to make known for the members of the community what those purity rules are: what rules are needed to maintain their access to God and what will keep them

"unstained by the world" (&omAov éavtov thpeiv and tod Kdopov [1:27]). This is what James has in mind in 4:4 in his contrast between "friendship with God" and "friendship with the world." Again, rich in the language of purity, James calls on his hearers/readers: "Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded . .. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you" (Jas 4:8-10).

The Torah expresses how they are to maintain their relationship as God's covenant people. The Torah exercises a socializing function in the way in which Berger and Luckmann have defined the concept of socialization as "the comprehensive and consistent induction of an individual into the objective world of a society or sector of it."!3 The rhetorical function of the Letter of James is to socialize the hearers/readers of this letter so that they understand their identity as members of the twelve-tribe kingdom while the law/Torah makes known to them what they must do to preserve that identity. The Torah preserves the boundary that separates them from the wider society. Nowhere does James refer to cere10. See Scot McKnight, "A Parting within the Way: Jesus and James on Israel and Purity," in James the Just and Christian Origins (ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans; Leiden: Brill, 1999),

129.

11, See Hartin, James, 111-15; see also "The Religious Context of the Letter of James," chapter 8 in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered (ed. M. Jackson-McCabe; Minneapolis: Fortress

Press. 2007), 203-31.

12. l acknowledge my debt in this regard to Robert W. Wall, Community of the Wise: The Letter of James (New Testament in Context; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997),

83-98.

13, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), 120.

ETHICS IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

monial, cultic, or ritual laws. Instead, the aspect of the Torah to which he gives attention is the moral or social law that God's people needed. Specifically, it is the law of love as expressed in the Shema Israel (Deut 6:4-5) and in the command to love one's neighbor (Lev 19:18). As I have expressed elsewhere, the function of the law/Torah in the lives of the members of James's community! is fourfold:

¢ It creates a collective identity for the twelve-tribe kingdom that distinguishes it from the world.

¢ It encourages internal solidarity and cohesion among the members of the community.

¢ It promotes a steadfast commitment to God by showing "friendship with God" as the prime identification marker for the community. e It requires a choice for God as opposed to the world.!5

2.1.2. The Gospel of Matthew This Gospel is also firmly set within the contours of the people of Israel and its heritage. Jesus is a member of the people of Israel (2:6, 20, 21; 8:10; 9:33;

10:23; 15:31; 19:28; 27:9, 42). "The house of Israel" is a term used to identify those among whom Jesus is actively preaching and teaching (10:6; 15:24). By implication, Matthew's community sees itself as part of the people or house of Israel.

Matthew's Gospel is also conscious of those traditions relating to the establishment of the twelve-tribe kingdom to which the Letter of James drew attention.

Matthew's Jesus conducts a ministry that aims at reconstituting this twelve-tribe kingdom. When Matthew's Jesus sends out the twelve, he instructs them: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (10:5-6). While Matthew's Gospel does envisage an outreach to the Gentiles at the end (28:19-20), Jesus restricts his ministry and that of his disciples to the people of Israel. When speaking to the Canaanite woman, Jesus specifically identifies his mission in these words: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (15:24). Matthew presents Jesus gathering together the lost tribes of Israel and reconstituting God's twelve-tribe kingdom.

The disciples share in this task (10:5-6). They continue to build up God's kingdom. At the conclusion to the Gospel, Jesus sends out his disciples to continue his mission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations .

. ." (Matt 14. When speaking about "James's community," I intend those who receive his letter, namely, the hearers/readers of the letter. I do not intend by this term the community from which James is writing. Also, given the more general address of the Letter of James, "to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion," I do not intend one single community, but rather all those to whom James writes, which would include many "communities" scattered outside Palestine that together comprise "the twelve tribes."

15. Hartin, James, 115.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

28:19-20). Only at the end time will this ingathering of the people of Israel, which Jesus began in his ministry, be completed: "Jesus said to them: 'Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt 19:28).

The Torah in Matthew. As with the Letter of James, the Gospel of Matthew envisages the fulfillment of the whole law. "(Jesus said:) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Matt 5:17-18).

Matthew's Jesus does not take issue with the Torah as such, for the Torah is God's expressed will. Instead, Matthew's Jesus claims the role as official interpreter of God's will, of God's Torah. Matthew's Jesus takes issue with the way the rabbis of the synagogue interpret the Torah through their oral law.!® After stating unambiguously that he has come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it,

Jesus shows by means of six antitheses that his fulfillment entails more than the legalistic carrying out of the law. It embraces one's interior dispositions, which precede and ultimately result in the breaking of the law. Matthew's Jesus undermines the whole Pharisaic way of interpreting the law. In effect, Jesus shows in 5:21-47 that no one can claim to be not guilty of breaking this or that law—everyone is guilty!!7 Instead, one has to rely upon God's righteousness.

Matthew uses another expression to show Jesus's relationship to the Torah:

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light"

(11:29-30). When Jesus says here, "Take my yoke upon you" (d&pate tov Cvyév pov é¢' bpdc), he is contrasting himself to "the yoke of the Torah." The passage in 2 Bar. 41:3 shows that the phrase "the yoke of the Torah" was a common expression of the time: "For behold, I see many of your people who separated themselves from your statutes and who have cast away from them the yoke of your Law."!8

Jesus is in effect stating that his interpretation of the Torah is easy and light in contrast to the other rabbis who place a heavy burden on their followers through their interpretations.

16. See Leander E. Keck, "Ethics in the Gospel according to Matthew," The IIliff Review 41

(1984): 49, 17. Ibid., 50.

18. This translation of 2 Baruch is by A. F. J.Klijn, "2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch," in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983-85), 1:633.

ETHICS IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

2.1.3. The Didache The Didache is also firmly set within the context of the heritage of Israel and its traditions. However, a decided difference is evident in comparison with the Letter of James. While the Letter of James nowhere envisages an outreach to the Gentiles (its focus is exclusively within the framework of the people of Israel), the Didache aims at instruction directed to those Gentiles wishing to become members of the community.!9 In doing so, the requirements laid upon them are those that the people of Israel would require of all Gentiles. The Two Ways instruction that forms the opening section of the Didache (1:1-6:3) applies those ethical instructions of the Torah to Gentiles, while omitting all the cultic and ritual instructions of the Torah.?° The Didache does not use James's reference to the community as the "twelve tribes." In fact, the Didache does not identify the community it addresses through the use of terms or labels. The only identifying terms are the references to David:

"the holy vine of David, your child" (9:2)?! and "Hosanna to the God of David"

(10:6). While the two titles associated with the Didache make reference to the "twelve apostles," the Didache is certainly not the product of these twelve apostles. Nevertheless, the title intends to connect the instructions contained in this

Two Ways document with the teaching the twelve handed on, a teaching that ultimately came from Jesus.

The Torah in the Didache. The Didache envisaged a situation as noted above where the community had accepted Gentiles into their midst. What were the new members required to do in order to be part of this community of followers of Jesus, the Messiah? The document of the Didache speaks to this. Once more the Torah lies at its heart. The first part of the text, the Two Ways (Did. 1:1-6:3), begins by laying out the essence of the path to life, namely, love of God and love of neighbor

(1:2). The instructions focus largely on applications of the second part of the Decalogue and on practices that occurred among the Gentiles, but were considered evil among the teachers of the house of Israel, such as pederasty, the practice of magic, abortion, the killing of a newly born child (2:1-2). This attention to actions

19. The Didache has a twofold title: "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," and "The Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles (Or: nations)." This title has been the subject of much debate especially regarding its authenticity and originality (see JeanPaul Audet, La Didaché: Instructions des Apétres (Paris: Gabalda, 1958), 91-103.

20. See Jonathan A. Draper, "Do the Didache and Matthew Reflect an 'Irrevocable Parting of the Ways' with Judaism?" in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same

Jewish-Christian Milieu? (ed. H. van de Sandt; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005), 240.

21. Unless otherwise noted, the translation of the Didache that is used throughout this paper is that of Bart D. Ehrman, "The Didache," in The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; LCL 24-25;

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003), 1:405-43.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

in which Gentiles might be involved functions as a way of socializing the Gentiles into this community by laying out the boundary markers for the members of this community. Once again, the Torah gives inspiration to all these instructions.

At the conclusion to the Two Ways section, the writer gives attention to the issue of whether Gentiles joining the community are required to observe the food laws that were central to every member of the house of Israel. This is the same issue that caused such consternation in the early communities of the followers of Jesus, as Acts 15:1-29 indicates.

For if you can bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you cannot, do as much as you can. And concerning food, bear what you can. But especially abstain from food sacrificed to idols; for this is a ministry to dead gods. (Did. 6:2-3) Gentile members of the community of the Didache are accepted where they are and burdens are not laid upon them that would be impossible for them to carry out. They are not required to take upon themselves "the entire yoke of the Lord"

(SAov tov Cvydv tod Kupiov). As in the Gospel of Matthew, the expression "yoke of the Lord" is contrasted to the "yoke of the Torah." The term is used in a positive sense as it always is in the context of the house of Israel. Paul, on the other hand, uses the term in a negative sense and sees Christ as having liberated his followers from a "yoke of slavery" (Cvy@ dovAeiac): "For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (Cuy@

SovAciac; Gal 5:1).

In particular, the Gentile members of the community are not required to adhere to the dietary or food laws that are prescribed by the Torah. They are, however, required to abstain from food offered to idols for this is judged to run counter to the basic law of the Decalogue that prescribes the worship of the one true God. The Gentile convert is called to strive toward carrying out the whole

Law, but it is not something he is expected to fulfill. Members of the house of Israel, however, are obligated to carry out the dietary or food laws since this is part of the "yoke of the Lord" that they have always accepted. Gentile members of the community, on the other hand, do have a choice of following them or not.

The ideal would be for the Gentile member to observe the whole Torah, including food laws, but this remains an ideal and a tolerant approach is accepted for those who are not able to "bear the entire yoke of the Lord": "ei pév yap S0vacat

Baotdaoa ddov tov Cvydv tod Kuplov, téAetog Fon."22

22. As van de Sandt and Flusser state: "The composer of Did. 6:2-3 was an exponent of a group of Jewish-Christians who remained within the ambit of Tora-observance. Compliance with the entire Tora is the ideal but the text shows a tolerant attitude to those who are not capable of bearing 'the whole yoke of the Lord'" (Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser,

ETHICS IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

PAE 2.1.4, Summary These three texts speak to groups with a common ethos and a common vision, but at different moments in time. The communities to whom James writes still lie at the heart of Israel. There is no evidence or at least no concern relating to the admission of Gentiles into their communities who are judged to reconstitute "the twelve tribes in the Dispersion" (1:1). With the Torah at its heart, they aim at maintaining friendship with God (4:4) through carrying out the stipulations of the Torah. Matthew's community, on the other hand, indicates that it has moved beyond the initial stages of James's communities where all the members were seen to belong to the house of Israel. Matthew's Gospel has embarked upon an outreach to the Gentile world showing this was clearly Jesus's intent.

The Didache reflects a community at a more developed stage than that of the Gospel of Matthew. Gentiles have been accepted into their midst and the need arises for a framework for socializing them into the community by showing what is required of them as part of the community. This need is answered by the directions that the Didache sets forth. All three texts reflect different stages in the development of communities emerging from a common milieu whereby the members continue to view themselves as firmly rooted within the house of Israel, yet at the same time following Jesus, the Messiah.

2.2. ETHICAL ADMONITIONS

The ethical admonitions occur as boundary markers expressing the identity (ethos) of the members of the respective communities. Beginning with the Letter of James, I identify a number of these boundary markers, which I seek to find reflected in the other two texts, the Gospel of Matthew and the Didache.

2.2.1. "Being perfect" (téAe10¢) The Letter of James. A noteworthy feature of the Letter of James is the frequency that the adjective téXe1o¢ ("perfect") occurs within this brief letter. The word téXe10¢ appears four times in the opening chapter (1:4 [twice]; 1:17 and 1:25).

It also occurs at 3:2. While the verb teAe16w ("to make perfect, to complete") is found at 2:22, the verb teAéw ("to fulfill, to accomplish") is used at 2:8.

The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity [Assen: Van

Gorcum, 2002], 269). Van de Sandt and Flusser argue that Didache 6:2-3 is a later insertion into the Two Ways text of 1:1-6:1. This is an issue that is beyond the scope of this paper, but their basic insight is significant, namely, that these verses 6:2-3 offer a tolerant attitude to the converting Gentile especially in relation to the observance of dietary laws.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

An overview of the use of the word téAétog in the Septuagint gives an insight into its intended meaning.?3 Together with the word dpwypog, it translates the Hebrew word 0nn, which bears the meaning of "unblemished, blameless." For example, "Your lamb shall be without blemish (té\eto¢), a year-old male" (Exod

12:5). Its origin arises from the sacrificial worship within Israel that required that the sacrificial animal should be without defect, namely, "unblemished."

While the concept téAetog went through a development by applying the cultic reference to human behavior,?4 the idea of wholeness or completeness remained its basic meaning. James refers to his hearers/readers as "the first fruits of God's creatures" (1:18). As the first fruits of every harvest offered to God were without blemish (whole), James's hearers/readers in a similar way are perceived to be whole, complete, without blemish. As "the twelve tribes in the Dispersion," they epitomize the wholeness of God's chosen people—they conform to the original idea God had of them as God's holy people. Taken together, these two images convey the insight that James's communities reflect the start of the reconstituted people of God—they are the first to be part of this people that conforms to the image God had of them at the very beginning.?> In connecting with the roots of this idea of téAeto¢ in the Septuagint, James also holds to the cultic origins of this concept by presenting instructions or laws that express the notions of purity and holiness within his society. All purity rules aimed at structuring life so that right relationships between God, community, and believer would be maintained. 76

Since God recreated them as the "first fruits of (God's) creatures (1:18), their response is to remain in wholehearted dedication to the Lord (4:7-10). James draws a sharp contrast between two ways of life, one life led in "friendship with God," the other led in "friendship with the world" (4:4). These two "friendships" are diametrically opposed to each other. This explains James's definition of religion as "keeping oneself unstained by the world" (1:27).

This wholehearted dedication to the Lord is demonstrated by remaining steadfast in fulfilling the Law/Torah, as the expression of God's will. Consequently, James calls on his hearers/readers to fulfill the whole law (2:10-11). The 23. See Patrick J. Hartin, A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James

(Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999), 17-39.

24. For example, "You must remain completely loyal (téAe1o¢) to the LorD your God"

(Deut 18:13). This called one to give oneself wholeheartedly to the Lord, worshipping the Lord

God alone. As Rudolf Schnackenburg ("Christian Perfection according to Matthew," in Christian Existence in the New Testament (ed. Rudolf Schnackenburg; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968], 162) explains: "To be 'blameless' before the Lord (Deut 18:13) means to belong to him wholeheartedly, without practicing idolatry, sorcery and other abominations (cf. 18:9-12)."

25. Hartin, A Spirituality of Perfection, 89.

26. See Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology

(3rd edition, rev. and enl.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 189.

ETHICS IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

focus in the Letter of James on "being perfect" is one that gives expression to their very being as "the twelve tribes in the Dispersion." Called to wholeness, they live out their lives together as members of this twelve-tribe kingdom in fidelity to their relationship with God and to the law that gives their lives direction.

The Gospel of Matthew. The concept of "being perfect" occurs on two occasions in the Gospel of Matthew (5:48 and 19:21). In both instances, it conforms to the usage found in the Letter of James.*? Matthew 5:48 brings the first part of his

Sermon on the Mount to a culmination with the call: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" ("EceoGe odv byeic téXeL101 We 6 TaTip bLdv 6 ovpaviog téXe10¢ gottv).28 Since the only occurrence of the word té\etoc¢ in the Synoptic Gospels is found in the Gospel of Matthew, and since it is redactional in 19:21, it is logical to presuppose that it is also redactional here in 5:48.29

In the context of Matt 5:48, God's actions are presented for imitation. For example, "For (God) makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous" (5:45). Since God shows concern for the good and the bad without distinction, the believer must do likewise. The phrase'EoeoOe obv bpeic téXet01 Wc 6 MaTip bud 6 obpaviog TéXELOG EoTtVv (5:48) refers specifically to the imitation of God's actions, not his essence or being. Once again it is the concept of completeness or wholeness that Matthew envisages. If you wish to be whole, you must imitate the actions of God by showing love and care for all.

In Matt 19:21, Jesus responds to the rich young man's question, "I have kept all these, what do I still lack?" by saying, "If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." A comparison of this text with that found in the Gospel of Mark (10:21)3° shows that Matthew has replaced Mark's phrase, "You lack one thing" ("Ev oe botepei [Mark 10:21]}) with the phrase, "If you wish to be perfect" (Ei 8é\e1¢ téhe10¢ elvat). Since the word té\etoc occurring in both Matt

5:48 and 19:21 is Matthew's, the redactor's, addition to the text, it must bear a common meaning in both instances. Matthew 5:48 refers to the call to wholeness or completeness in the context of God's love and care for all. In Matt 19:21,

27. I have examined this in detail in Hartin, A Spirituality of Perfection, 129-47.

28. The Gospel of Luke has a variation of this saying in his Sermon on the Plain: "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful" (Tiveo8e oixtippoves Kabdc [kai] 6 nathp buoy oiKktippwv éotiv [Luke 6:36]).

29. This view is supported by William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh:

T&T Clark, 1988), 1:560-61.

30. Matthew draws this pericope from Mark who has simply, "Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said, 'You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me" (Mark 10:21).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

a similar idea is stressed: this young man is called to wholeness or completeness in his obedience to God's will. This rich young man is called to follow Jesus in a particular situation that applies to him alone. It is not intended to be taken as a generalized teaching that Jesus is asking all followers to eschew wealth. For this young man, wealth is an obstacle to maintaining completeness/wholeness in his relationship with God and his fellow believers. Where this story acts as a paradigm for every believer is that everyone is called to wholeness or completeness in relationship with God and one another. Everyone has to respond with a generos__ ity of spirit and a wholeness of obedience.>!

The above examination has focused upon how the concept of completeness or wholeness features in Matthew's usage of téAetog in both 5:48 and 19:21. At the same time, it is a call to a right relationship with God. This relationship is demonstrated through one's way of life: a life of wholehearted love (5:48), or wholehearted obedience to God's will (19:21).

The Didache . The concept of "being perfect" is also characteristic of the Didache.

The first occurrence of the word té\etocg appears in the opening section containing teaching clearly derived from the tradition of the Sayings of Jesus: "If anyone slaps your right cheek, turn the other to him as well, and you will be perfect" (éav tic cor d@ Pamtopa cic thy Sektav o1aydova otpéyov adbt@ kai thv GAAnv Kai Eon téXetog [1:4]). This closely resembles the sayings in Matthew's Gospel (Matt 5:39; and 5:48) although the statement about "being perfect" in Matthew comes at the end of the series of sayings on loving one's enemies and acts as the culmination of the preceding teaching in chapter 5. In the Didache, the call to "be perfect" is inserted between two sayings on turning the other cheek and going the extra mile.

The second occurrence of the term téAetoc is found at the end of the section on the Two Ways (6:2). The new Gentile members of the community are told to do what they can, but if they carry out the whole Law, they will be perfect:

"For if you can bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect" (ei pév yap dbvacat Baotaoat ddov tov Cvydv tod Kupiov, TéAEL0¢ Eon). These two references to "being perfect" (té\eto¢) act like bookends to the first section containing the two ways: they frame all the teachings contained within it. The concept of téAe10¢ is used in a way analogous to its usage in James, and remains true to the roots of its appearance in the Septuagint. The members of the community are called to wholeness by carrying out the teachings that are laid before them. In particular, this wholeness comprises their identity as God's people who strive to keep the whole Law. This is who God has called you to be—this is the way of life God intended the people to lead. Wholeness comes from walking according to the fullness of the law.

31. See Davies and Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on . .

. Matthew, 48.

ETHICS IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

The ethical instructions act as guides or boundary markers identifying the members of this community. As with the Letter of James, the ethical admonitions (1:1-6:3) operate as purity rules. They identify the path to follow (the way of life) in which one lives in relationship with God and one another. Through obeying these laws, their identity emerges in their relationship with God and one another.

Jonathan Draper has interpreted the use of this term téAetoc as an indication that the members of the community of the Didache (and Matthew's Gospel) who come from the house of Israel are called to do more than their fellow Israelites who are not members of their community are called to do. 32

While it is true that the context does include doing more than is required, the use of the word té\etoc rather gives expression to their identity: they will attain wholeness and integrity in their relationship with God, one another and themselves. This understanding of the concept of "being perfect" is supported at the conclusion to the Didache where the verb teAeidw is used (as in James 2:22):

"Gather together frequently, seeking what is appropriate for your souls. For the entire time of your faith will be of no use to you if you are not found perfect

(teAew6Oijte) at the final moment" (Did. 16:2). Their life of faith and the carrying out of the instructions that have been laid before them will result at the end of time in their identity being known: they are people who have attained wholeness in their relationship with God and one another. This is who God intended them to be from the very beginning—God's "holy ones" (oi &ytot) (Did. 16:7).

This detailed examination of the use of the term téAetoc in the three texts of the Letter of James, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Didache reveals an identical understanding. The members of their communities are all called to wholeness, to live out their lives together in fidelity to their relationship with God and to the law that gives their lives direction.

2.2.2. The Imitation of God The Gospel of Matthew connects the theme of "being perfect" with the call to imitate God in God's actions. Much scholarly discussion has been given to the question of whether the concept of the imitation of God actually occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures.?3 While there are passages that appear to call on the people of Israel to imitate God's actions, a careful examination reveals that something

32. Jonathan Draper, "Do the Didache and Matthew indicate an 'Irrevocable Parting of the Ways' with Judaism?" in van de Sandt, ed., Matthew and the Didache, 227.

33. See Sophie Laws, "The Doctrinal Basis for the Ethics of James," SE 7 (Papers Presented to the Fifth International Congress on Biblical Studies Held at Oxford, 1973; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982), 302. See, as well, my discussion on this aspect of the imitation of God, in Spirituality of Perfection, 140-44.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

else is actually the focus. For example, in the instruction, "You shall be holy, for I the Lorp your God am holy" (Lev 19:2), the Israelites are called to holiness, not in imitation of God, but as a consequence of their relationship with God. The Hebrew conjunction used here (73) expresses a result, not a comparison. God is holy by nature. In leading the Israelites out of Egypt, God formed them into God's own nation at Sinai (Exod 19:5-6). As a "holy nation," they are separated from the nations of the world and belong to God. This has consequences for the Israelites. Their actions must reflect their nature. Because God has chosen them to be God's own people, they must lead their lives accordingly. Basically, the * understanding in Lev 19:2 is that one is to live in obedience to the Torah, to the will of God."34

In the Greek world, there are indications that point to an insight into the imitation of God. Plato, for example, speaks of "imitating God" in reference to his thought concerning the shadow and the ideal.35 Philo, probably through the influence of the Hellenistic world, also speaks about the imitation of God by parents who imitate God in the procreation of their children.*° This overview points to the conclusion that for the house of Israel the idea of the imitation of God did not play any important role, while in the wider Hellenistic world it did.

The Letter of James. The Letter of James is a theological text rather that a Christological one. The focus in this writing is on God rather than on Jesus. On only two occasions is the name of Jesus Christ mentioned directly (1:1; 2:1).37 This is very different from the writings of Paul. At the same time there is no reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus. While Jamies does not specifically address the aspect of the imitation of God, some of his sayings point the hearer/reader in this direction. For example, when the text speaks of humans being created in "the likeness of God" (3:9), it points backwards to the account of the biblical creation story. However, it also says that the believer is even now in God's likeness. This implies that believers must therefore act in the way in which God acts. When religion is defined as "to take care of orphans and widows" (1:27), behind this definition lies the concept of the way God acts throughout the Septuagint. God is the champion of the poor and outcasts. Consequently, this concept of religion

34. Ibid., 140-41. See as well, Jacques Dupont, "L'Appel a imiter Dieu en Matthieu 5,48 et

Luc 6,36," Rivista Biblica 14 (1966): 140.

35. See Henri Crouzel, "L'Imitation et la 'Suite' de Dieu et de Christ dans les Premiéres

Siécles Chrétiens, ainsi que Leurs Sources Gréco-Romaines et Hébraiques," Jahrbuch fiir Antike und Christentum (Jahrgang 21; Miinster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1978), 7-8.

36. Philo, Decal. 107, 120; Spec. 2.225.

37. The references to God are more frequent: (6) 6e6¢ occurs sixteen times (1:1, 5, 13

(twice), 20, 27; 2:5; 19, 23 (twice); 3:9; 4:4 (twice), 6, 7, 8); mati ("Father") occurs three times

(1:17, 27; 3:9); Kbptog ("Lord") occurs eleven times: it refers to God on six occasions (1:7; 4:10,

15; 5:4, 10, 11) and to Jesus on five occasions (1:1; 2:1; 5:7, 14, 15).

ETHICS IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

exhorts believers to imitate God's actions in concern for those who are marginalized within their community. In almost all the ethical admonitions that James puts before his hearers/readers, he draws attention to actions that would reflect

God's actions, namely, concern for the poor, widows, and orphans (1:27), compassion and mercy (5:11), and care for the sick (5:13-18).

The Gospel of Matthew. As noted above in discussing Matthew's call to be perfect, Jesus instructs his hearers/readers to imitate God: "Be perfect, therefore, as you heavenly Father is perfect" (5:48). This forms a conclusion to the whole section on the antitheses, "You have heard that it was said... . But I say to you. . "

(5:21-48). Prior to this call to imitate God, Matthew's Jesus has issued a call to love all people, including one's enemies. As a reason for this call, Jesus gave God's actions of love and care for all people as an example of what they were to imitate:

"So that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous" (5:45). Because God's actions treat all people equally, Jesus instructs his followers to do likewise. They are to imitate God's actions (not his essence). The same concept is expressed in the following section of the Sermon on the Mount where Matthew presents Jesus's teaching on forgiveness contained in the Our

Father: "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt 6:14-15). In all their actions, believers are called to strive to maintain a right relationship with God.

The Didache. No specific attention is given to the imitation of God. The ethical admonitions as well are generally presented in the form of direct prescriptions without any further elaboration. As with the Letter of James and the Sermon on the Mount, the ethical admonitions of the Didache occur in a theological rather than Christological context. The writer speaks of teaching them the "reverential fear of God" (4:9-10). He also instructs his hearers/readers to look on others as they would on God: for example, "My child, night and day remember the one who speaks the word of God to you; honor him as the Lord" (4:1). There is also a focus upon God's actions, rather than upon God's being: "Welcome whatever happens to you as good, knowing that nothing occurs apart from God" (3:10).

The above discussion shows that in the ethical teaching of all three texts God is the center of concern and that the ethical admonitions are founded upon God.

In the Gospel of Matthew (and probably in the Letter of James), God's actions are held up for imitation. This is unique in New Testament texts because elsewhere the focus lies chiefly on the imitation of Jesus and of his actions.

2.2.3. Double-minded Connections can also be noted among the three texts, The Letter of James,

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

the Gospel of Matthew and the Didache, regarding specific ethical admonitions that are distinctive within these writings.

In the Letter of James, the Greek word Siyvxoc¢ ("double-minded") occurs twice (1:8 and 4:8). This word Siyoxoc is not found in the Greek language prior to the Letter of James. After James, the word appears in a number of Christian writings: Siyvxoc occurs in 1 Clem. 11.2; 2 Clem. 11.2; and Herm. Mand. 9.6 while the verb Styoxeiv occurs in 1 Clem. 23.2; 2 Clem. 11.5; Did. 4:4 and Herm. Vis.

2.2.7. This tends to indicate that the Letter of James either coined this word38 or introduced it into Christian literature.5? While the word might not have occurred before James, the concept is certainly found in Platonic thought that discusses divisions within the soul. Literally, the word means "double-souled." In the Hebrew Bible there is a reference to being double-hearted (with "a double heart they speak;" Ps 12:2). A major theme running throughout the Letter of James is the division that faces a person between friendship with God and friendship with the world. For James, diyvxoc captures this theme of the letter and focuses at the very beginning on the need to have loyalty in one's life. One cannot be divided as though one's very soul is divided.

James 1:5-8 draws a contrast between God's generous giving and the picture of the double-minded person. God gives gifts unhesitatingly to believers. On the other hand, the double-minded person's lack of trust in God's actions emerges from doubting prayer. The double-minded are so fickle that they cannot make a decision to trust God. What James argues for is a single-minded relationship with God whether on the individual or the community level. This is the heart of his message: the community and the individual embrace the same vision, the same ethos. They strive to live out their identity as "God's twelve-tribe kingdom." This demands total allegiance to God—no compromise is possible between friendship with the world and friendship with God.

The word diwvxog occurs again in 4:8, "Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded" (éyyioate t@ Be@ kai éyytei dpiv. KaBapioate xEipac, duaptTwAoi kai ayvioate kapdiac, Styvxot). While in 1:8 the context was that of trusting God unconditionally in prayer, here the vision is wider. They are called to singleminded dedication to God. The only way this can be achieved is by purifying their hearts for they are divided in loyalty between God and the world. The purity rules take on added significance in this context because they are the means of reestablishing a relationship with God and maintaining access to God.

38. Stanley Porter, "Is dipsychos (James 1:8; 4:8) a 'Christian' Word?" Bib 71 (1990): 46998.

39. Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James. The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Comments (3rd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1910; repr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954), 42.

ETHICS IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

In the Gospel of Matthew, the word Siyvyxoc does not occur. Nevertheless, the same fundamental idea of total allegiance to God is found. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus speaks to the need of having undivided loyalty in relationship to God: "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth" (6:24).

In Didache 4:4, the verb duyuyeiv appears: "Do not be of two minds, whether this should happen or not" (ob Suyoxnoetc, nétepov Forat i od ). Like the Letter of James, it is a call to place single-minded trust in God. While this passage is somewhat unclear, the Canons (13:2)*° offer an interpretation: "Do not be double-minded in your prayer." This is similar to the context of James 1:8 that spoke of unconditional trust in God in one's prayer life. The Didache also speaks about being "double-minded "and "double-tongued": "Do not be of two minds or speak from both sides of your mouth, for speaking from both sides of your mouth is a deadly trap" (ovx Eon Styvopwv ovdé dSiyAwooos. nayic yap Bavatov

1) StyAocoia; 2:4). Central to the Didache is the choice to be made between two paths, the path of life or the path of death. The believer is called to choose unconditionally the path of life (1:1-2).

In all three texts, the ethical admonition to be single-minded in trusting God occurs whether it is through prayer or through undivided loyalty to God.

This term diyvxocg evokes a concept that is central to the thought of all three documents, namely, the exclusive choice of friendship with God as opposed to friendship with the world (James) or the inability to serve two masters (Matthew) or the choice between the two paths of life and of death (the Didache).

2.2.4. The Double Command of Love Many other ethical admonitions could be examined in these three texts, such as the relationship of faith and works, or the relationship of rich and poor. However, the final point of this examination will look at the twofold command of love, which gives direction to many of the specific ethical issues that do arise.

All three texts stress the importance of the twofold command of love. This is nothing surprising in the context of the New Testament, since almost every tradition pays attention to the importance of this command which undoubtedly goes back to Jesus.4! What is significant is the similarity in the way this love command functions in each of the writings.

40. The Canons referred to here are the so-called Apostolic Church Order or Canons of the Holy Apostles where chapters 4-13 offer parallels to the Didache 1:1-4:8 without the section

Did. 1:3b-2:1. (For a discussion of these Canons see Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache [Hermeneia; trans. L. M. Maloney; ed. H. W. Attridge; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998], 13-14).

41. See, for example, Matt 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; John

15:12; 1 John 3:11.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

The Letter of James. The central aspects of James's faith and his admonitions come together in chapter 2. The writer shows how faith requires a response in action: love is the basic response. In Jas 2:19 a deliberate reference is made to the Israelite profession of faith: "You believe that God is one; you do well" (2:19). This statement reflects the Shema Israel of Deut 6:4—5. In this context, James shows the absurdity of separating faith and works. This profession of faith is not just an intellectual acceptance; but it also requires a response. Even demons respond by shuddering in fear. The response of love for God (Deut 6:5) called forth from the believer is the opposite of fear.

In Jesus's teaching, faith also calls for a response of love: in particular love for neighbor (Matt 22:36-40). James embraces this second response of love of neighbor in 2:8 and thereby shows that he is handing on the teaching not just of his Scriptures but also of Jesus. James 2:8 belongs to the context of 2:1-13, which argues that faith of Jesus Christ4? was irreconcilable with any form of favoritism or discrimination. Again, the faith of Jesus requires a response of love for one's neighbor.

James 2:8 identifies the love of neighbor as "the royal law" or "the law of the kingdom" (vopov ... Baotitkov. . .). In referring to this law of love of neighbor,

James is also clearly conscious of the context in which this admonition occurs in Lev 19,43 which outlines the social demands that arise for the Israelites in carrying out the Torah. Many of these ethical admonitions are considered by James in the course of his letter. For example, "you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer" (Lev 19:13 = Jas 5:4): "you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great" (Lev 19:15 = 2:1-7). This latter admonition is exactly what James refers to in this "parable," where he points to discrimination against the poor in favor of the rich within community assemblies. As the "royal law," the law of love is the basic requirement for those who belong to James's communities. Love of the poor is the concrete way the law of love is carried out in these communities and it identifies the communities as those that imitate God's actions. James's instructions parallel those of Lev 19 and function in a similar way. The instructions of Lev 19 are concrete social markers that identify the type of community

Israel is and how the members of Israel's community are to lead their lives. In like manner, the Letter of James identifies how his communities are to live out this

42. In the much-discussed interpretation of Jas 2:1, the reference is to the "faith of our Lord

Jesus Christ" rather than to the "faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." For the Letter of James, faith is always directed to God not to Jesus. The genitive used here is a subjective genitive ("faith of our Lord Jesus Christ"), not an objective genitive ("faith in our Lord Jesus Christ"). See Hartin,

James, 116-17.

43. Luke T. Johnson ("The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James," JBL 101 [1982]:

391-401) has given a really insightful and important study of the connections between Jas 2:8 and Lev 19.

ETHICS IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

law of love of neighbor by providing those social markers necessary to lead their lives as communities of the poor in relationship with one another and with God.

The Gospel of Matthew. To love God and one's neighbor embraces the entirety of the Law and the prophets (Matt 22:34-40). The same basic stress identified in James occurs here. In the encounter with the rich young man, Jesus challenges him to go beyond simply carrying out the second half of the ten commandments:

"If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come follow me" (19:21). Beyond the carrying out of the basic commandments, Matthew's Jesus also draws attention to the need to show special concern for the poor.

The Didache. This text opens with the double profession of love: "This then is the path of life. First, love the God who made you, and second your neighbor as yourself" (Did. 1:2). By opening with an express reference to the twofold law of love, the writer defines the basic requirement for the path of life to be: love of God and love of neighbor. As with the Letter of James, these are the foundational laws of the community clearly defining their identity. The ethical admonitions that follow

(1:1-6:3) are an expression of how this love of neighbor is to be carried out. The writer says this specifically: "This is the teaching relating to these matters" (Did.

1:3). As with the Letter of James, the writer of the Didache is also concerned with providing an authentic interpretation of how the members of the community are to behave and preserve their identity. In describing the path of death (Did. 5), the mistreatment of the poor and oppressed is singled out for special condemnation:

"Showing no mercy to the poor nor toiling for the oppressed nor knowing the one who made them .

. . who turn their backs on the needy, oppress the afflicted and are supporters of the wealthy (mAovoiwv napaxAnto1)" (5:2). The phrase mAovoiwy mapaKAntot is ironic since the word napaxAntoc refers to someone who acts on behalf of another. They should in fact be supporting the poor in the spirit of the Hebrew Scriptures as well as of Jesus. Instead, they support the rich.44

What is noteworthy in all three texts is the way in which this double command of love functions. In all instances, the love of God and of neighbor functions as the foundational law for each community. Above all the love of neighbor is concretely demonstrated through a love and concern for the poor, for those who have no one to defend them since they have no power and are at the mercy of those who are more powerful in society.

44. As Niederwimmer (The Didache, 118) says: "IlapaxAntoc is someone who intervenes on behalf of another. Its use here is ironic: they ought to act as advocates for the poor and needy, but no; they turn out instead to be advocates for the rich! The whole thing recalls the style of prophetic cursing. .. ."

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

3. THE PLACE OF THE LETTER OF JAMES, THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, AND THE

DIDACHE IN DEVELOPING EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

Having considered the ethical perspective of these three documents, I turn to examine very briefly the relationship of these documents to other traditions and other Christian literature emerging at a similar period of time. Again a brief focus on their ethical dimensions is intended.

3.1. THE JESUS SAYINGS TRADITIONS

3.1.1. The Letter of James* The cultural text behind the Letter of James is clearly that of the Septuagint.

For the religious world in which James functions, the Torah is above all the normative text that gives his communities direction.46 While Jas 2:8 quotes from the Book of Leviticus in support of his understanding of the "royal law," the Letter of James seldom quotes directly from the normative cultural texts. Instead, the writer uses them in support of his exhortations or arguments. In other words, he uses the images and thoughts in performing his own argument. What James does here, is what Jan Assmann calls "a will to form that is a will of transmission, of transmitting a distinctive cultural identity to further generations."47

The Letter of James also has another normative entity that imbues itself upon his thought, and that is the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. I have examined this connection between the Letter of James and the traditions of Jesus, especially the relationship to the Q Sayings of Jesus, in a number of publications.*8 Here I wish briefly to draw attention to the way in which James has used these sayings.

The writer of the Letter of James uses Jesus's teaching in a manner analogous to the way he used his Scriptures to bring across his teaching and message. For example, in Jas 2:1 the writer holds up "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ" for imitation. The way in which Jesus has interpreted the teachings of the Hebrew

Scriptures becomes normative for the author of the Letter of James. As indicated above, the message both of Jesus and of James is that God is in the process of reconstituting "the twelve-tribe kingdom." God's activity was at work in Jesus's

45. The substance of this section on the Letter of James formed part of a paper I read at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature held in Washington, D.C., November

18-21, 2006 in the Consultation on Jewish-Christianity.

46. See Jan Assmann, "Form as Mnemonic Device: Cultural Texts and Cultural Memory," in Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory and Mark. Essays dedicated to Werner Kelber (ed. R.

A. Horsley, J. A. Draper, J. M. Foley; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 76.

47. Ibid., 69.

48. See Patrick J. Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (JSNTSup 47; Sheffield: JSOT

Press, 1991), 141-72; Hartin, James, 81-88.

ETHICS IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

teaching and ministry. In the opening verse of his letter, James shows his understanding that God's action is continuing and his letter is addressed to those who represent the beginnings of this new twelve tribe kingdom.

For James, there is a harmonious interplay between the two traditions of the Septuagint and the teachings/sayings of Jesus. Each is used to illuminate the other. A good example is found in Jas 2:1-13 where the readers are called upon not to show favoritism within the community.*? As I have shown elsewhere,

James uses the structure of a perfect argument as outlined in Rhetorica ad Herennium (2.18, 28). Behind James's argument lies the language of Jesus's saying in the beatitude: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God"

(Q 6:20//Matt 5:3).>° In order to call his readers to avoid discrimination against others, he builds upon both Jesus's message as well as his Scriptures. His argument is based upon the royal law so central to the normative texts of the house of Israel and the traditions that handed on Jesus's message.®>! In effect, James is performing the memory of Jesus anew by weaving it together with the memory of his Scriptures. The memory of Jesus can be used in a sense to interpret the Septuagint, and the Septuagint in its turn illuminates the tradition of Jesus himself. There is an interplay that exists between the two sources for the argument that James constructs.

This rhetorical usage of the two major traditions that influence James's thought is a further convincing argument for seeing the relationship of the Letter of James within the cultural worlds and heritage of the house of Israel and the followers of Jesus in the way they were developing within the course of the firstcentury C.E.

3.1.2. The Gospel of Matthew The existence of the Q Sayings Source of the Jesus Traditions is based upon the similarities in the sayings material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The way Matthew used this sayings material is very different from James's usage. He preserves the character of the saying and transforms it only slightly to accord with other traditional material at his disposal and his theological vision.

There are many similarities between the sayings material that serves as the basis for James's performance and the material found especially in the Sermon on the Mount. I have examined these connections elsewhere.°? James does not appear

49. For a fuller explanation of this passage, see ibid. 124-48.

50. Ibid., 119-20. For the Q form of this Beatitude see James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann and John S. Kloppenborg, The Critical Edition of Q (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 2000), 46-47.

51. Hartin, James, 134-37.

52. See Patrick J. Hartin. "James and the Sermon on the Mount/ Plain," in SBLSP 28 (ed.

D. J. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 440-57; and James and the Q Sayings of Jesus, 140-98.

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

to show a knowledge of the Gospel of Matthew or of the Sermon on the Mount.

James's usage of the sayings traditions appears to be prior to the way in which Matthew has developed some of these sayings within his Gospel.5?

3.1.3. The Didache Many studies have been done on the sectio evangelica (Did. 1:3b-2:1) introduced at the beginning of the Two Ways material (1:1-6:3). John S. Kloppenborg, for example, has presented a careful and painstakingly insightful examination of the sectio evangelica (Did. 1:3b-2:1) where he has shown that this section of the Didache is clearly using the Jesus sayings tradition,>¢ but it is difficult to determine exactly which tradition is being used in a certain instance.

There is a decided difference in the way in which the Didache has used these sources of the Jesus tradition and the way in which James has done so. The Didache, as with the Gospel of Matthew, has remained closer to the form of the actual Jesus saying by reproducing it as the didachist received it. James, on the other hand, has performed the saying in his own particular manner, thus leading to a certain transformation of Jesus's saying in a way that speaks to the hearers of his text.

The above examination shows that the three texts in different ways and to different degrees all bear some knowledge and use of the Jesus sayings traditions, especially that of the Sayings Source Q. It must argue for a location where the Sayings Source Q was circulating and for a time period in which it was being used, :

3.2. THE LETTER OF BARNABAS AND THE TWO Ways

The second part of the Letter of Barnabas offers a form of the Two Ways teaching that appears at the beginning of the Didache (1:1-6:3 with the exclusion of the sectio evangelica [Did. 1:3b-2:1] referred to above). The similarities between the Letter of Barnabas and the Didache are not judged to derive from dependence on each other, but rather through dependence upon another Jewish source that was translated into Greek and circulated widely in the early Christian

53. A good example of this occurs in the one saying that is very close in both texts, namely, the condemnation of taking oaths (Jas 5:12; Matt 5:33-37). James is the shortest account, while

Matthew's saying appears to have been developed further through the insertion of other biblical phrases (e.g., Isa 66:1).While this is not Q material, it is sayings material common to James and Matthew and I would argue that James is closer to the original saying.

54. John S. Kloppenborg, "The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1," in van de

Sandt, ed., Matthew and the Didache, 129.

ETHICS IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

ait world.°° The concept of a duality of two ways of living is also found in the Letter of James (for example, the stress on "friendship with God and friendship with the world" as well as his discussion on the two kinds of wisdom: the wisdom from above and the wisdom that is earthly [Jas 3:13-18]). This does not necessarily point to contact with or to James's knowledge of the Two Ways document since it was a common religious ethical motif. The same is true of the Gospel of Matthew in the contrast between the parable of the wise man and foolish man who built their houses on rock and sand respectively. This parable contrasts two ways of life led either in conformity to the words of Jesus or in opposition to them (Matt

7:24-27).

3.3. THE LETTERS OF PAUL

Much has been written about the relationship between James and Paul, and tragically James is most often approached only through Paul's eyes. In particular, Jas 2:14-26 has aroused much discussion regarding its relationship to Paul.

James and Paul were contemporaries so it is natural to raise the question as to whether their writings were written in response to each other. While James and Paul share much common vocabulary,* their visions are very different. For Paul, the emphasis lies on God's action of justification that occurs through the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is contrasted with those who strive to work out their own salvation by carrying out the legalistic prescriptions of the Mosaic

Law. James, on the other hand, is concerned that faith must demonstrate itself in works of love. True faith is demonstrated in action. Paul and James each have a different vision that concerns them. Paul is concerned with how someone attains justification: it is a work of God alone, not a human work. James is concerned with what happens when one believes: one has to demonstrate this faith through acts of love.

Both Paul and James stress the importance that faith plays in the path to salvation. While Paul was at pains to argue that justification does not come from one's own efforts, James contrasts a faith that was dead with a faith that was alive in God A quick look at the Gospel of Matthew and the writings of Paul shows that central and characteristic ideas in Paul are significantly missing from Matthew's

Gospel. Matthew contains no view of sin as holding a person or the human race in slavery as is the view of Paul. For Matthew as well, there is no reflection on why it is impossible for the believer to actually carry out the law. Paul struggled with 55. See Van de Sandt and Flusser, "The Influence of the Two Ways in Christian Literature," in The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 81-111.

56. See, for example, words such as justification (Stkatoovvn), to save (oferty), faith

(miottc), law (vépoc), and works (épya).

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

this issue and offered a solution that sees within each person a power preventing him/her from carrying out the law. In other words, for Matthew the important focus is on the actions that the believer performs. He does not go beyond the actions (as Paul does) to consider the one who performs the actions or to inquire about the nature of the person performing these deeds. Paul and Matthew show two very different ethical visions and concerns.

The same holds true in comparing Paul and the Didache. The latter text gives attention to the rules and way of life that the believer is to lead without considering the context in which all actions are to be performed, namely, the justifying action of God. The focus is solely on human actions.

Paul's writings and the writings of James, Matthew, and the Didache emerge from very different traditions within the early Christian world. These communities or traditions were not necessarily in opposition to each other. Instead, they point to the diversity of the early Christian world where each could walk to the pace of a different drummer.

3.4 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

The other major tradition for which there is evidence in the New Testament is that of the writings of John. As with Paul, the ethical vision of John differs notably from that of James, Matthew, and the Didache. The most striking difference lies in the realm of ethical admonitions. For the Gospel of John, love is the only ethical directive: no further or specific ethical admonitions are given. The Gospel of John is a Gospel of relationships. It is concerned with portraying different levels of faith responses to the person of Jesus. The ideal to aim for is represented by the beloved disciple who shows that the essence of discipleship consists in faith expressed through love. Furthermore, the relationship with the house of Israel takes on a very different picture in the Gospel of John. John's community has been expelled from the synagogue. There has indeed been a "parting of the ways."°7 As argued throughout this paper, the texts of James, Matthew, and the Didache all maintain their roots within the traditions of the house of Israel. For the community of John these bonds have been irrevocably broken. Consequently, the community of the Gospel of John and the communities of James, Matthew, and the Didache are very diverse communities with no interaction among them, each striving to uphold a very different vision and identity.

57. To adopt the phrase that James D. G. Dunn (The Partings of the Ways between Christianily and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (Philadelphia: Trinity

Press International, 1991]) has used to characterize the separation between the world of the house of Israel and the world of the followers of Jesus the Messiah.

ETHICS IN MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

4. CONCLUSION

Besides the Christian writings and traditions examined above, other early Christian writings also existed within the nascent Christian movement, such as those that focused around the figure of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, had a very different ethos than that found in the above texts. Its focus was primarily on providing secret wisdom needed for leading life and acquiring salvation. The community from which the Gospel of Thomas and its associated writings drew their inspiration was Gnostic in heart and vision, which was very different from what lay behind the Letter of James, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Didache.

The instructions in these three texts, the Letter of James, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Didache, are at heart a call to fulfill God's will in order to maintain access to God, and to develop a right relationship with God and with one another.

All three texts in their own way give expression to their understanding that faith has to be expressed through action. As James says, "But someone will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith" (Jas 2:18). Matthew expresses this in a similar way: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven" (Matt 7:21).

This examination of the ethos and ethical admonitions of these three texts has demonstrated that their identity and vision clearly point to a common, developing milieu that was still at home within the heritage and traditions of Israel, a heritage now influenced by the direction and interpretation that Jesus gave these traditions. The Letter of James (written toward the middle 60s c.£.) is the first witness to the vision and ethical directives of this milieu. This letter presents a vision for communities of the Diaspora to live faithfully according to Israel's traditions as interpreted by the teachings of Jesus in order to preserve their identity as God's twelve-tribe kingdom. The ethical admonitions reflect this identity.

Matthew's Gospel (written in the early 80s c.z.) takes the story of Jesus and uses it to speak to his community concerned with remaining true to the traditions of the past while at the same time moving forward to grapple with new issues and concerns. In painting a narrative where the outreach to the Gentiles occurs after the ministry of Jesus, Matthew shows that this development was planned and envisioned by Jesus. With the Didache (written at the end of the first century and beginning of the second century C.£.), one notices that a shift has occurred within the community whereby many Gentiles have been admitted. The concern with which the Didache grapples is, "What are the requirements for these new members within their community?"

Based on the above investigation, I would suggest that the relationship between these three documents should be conceived in this manner: The Letter of James was the first writing to appear. It is addressed to communities in the Diaspora that were still clearly within the orbit of the house of Israel, but as a

MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

result of the teaching of Jesus saw themselves as the beginning of a reconstitution of the "twelve tribes of Israel." The Gospel of Matthew was written from one of these communities in the Diaspora within two decades of the writing of the Letter of James. The traditional location of Antioch as the home of Matthew's Gospel would also correspond well for the home of the Sayings Source Q. Distinctive to the Gospel of Matthew was the openness that it urged for the acceptance of Gentiles into their community. Finally, the Didache would be seen to emerge from this same community (Antioch) a few decades later than the Gospel of Matthew in which it aimed at giving form and direction to a community where many Gentiles were accepting faith in the message of Jesus.

It is interesting to observe what happened to our three texts. The Didache was not incorporated into the Canon (not for any heretical teaching that it contained, but probably simply because it had stayed too closely bound to its roots within Israel). The Letter of James was relegated to the margins of Christianity. It struggled to gain admission into the Canon and was clearly not seen to be on the same level as the Gospels and the writings of Paul. Only the Gospel of Matthew, and in particular the Sermon on the Mount, emerged from early Christianity as an embodiment of what was considered to be the Magna Carta of Christianity.

So familiar is the Sermon to Christians that it is considered to be characteristic of Jesus's message. Ironically, the Gospel of Matthew would claim central place within the worship life of the Christian community for many centuries.

LAW AND ETHICS IN MATTHEW'S ANTITHESES AND

JAMES'S LETTER: A REORIENTATION OF HALAKAH IN

LINE WITH THE JEWISH Two Ways 3:1-6 Huub van de Sandt Many scholars agree that Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, especially the Antitheses (5:17-48) section, is in many respects comparable to the Letter of James.! Matthew and James share the view that the followers of Jesus belong to law-abiding Israel. Neither argues for Jewish law, but simply takes it for granted.

Second, both the Antitheses and James are more interested in moral imperatives than the ceremonial aspects of the law. They make no reference to the issues of circumcision, dietary laws, or other aspects of Mosaic law. On the contrary—and this is the third similarity—they share a focused interpretation of the law that is epitomized in the commandment to love thy neighbor (Matt 5:43-48; Jas 2:8).

Fourth, the Antitheses and James speak of perfection as the goal of the Christian life (Matt 5:48; Jas 1:4). Fifth, the content assigned to the concept of righteousness in the two texts is strikingly similar as well. Both the Antitheses and James consider righteousness within the context of human actions. In Jas 1:20 the term refers to the standard God sets for humanity and this is in line with the use of the concept of righteousness in the Antitheses where righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 5:20). Finally, both the Antitheses and James urge the necessity of carrying out the full stipulations of the law (see Matt 5:18 and Jas

1. Patrick J. Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (JSNTSS 47; Sheffield: JSOT Press,

1991), 208 and 168; see also Wiard Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbriefes

(Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 125/126; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986), 174-75; Peter H.

Davids, The Epistle of James:

A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 47-49; Dean B. Deppe, The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James (Chelsea, Mich.:

Bookcrafters, 1989), 161; Gerhard Kittel, "Der geschichtliche Ort des Jakobusbriefes," ZNW 41

(1942): 71-105: 87; Virgil V. Porter, "The Sermon on the Mount in the Book of James: Part 1,"

BSac 162 (2005): 344-60; see also Wiard Popkes, Der Brief des Jakobus (THKNT 14; Leipzig:

Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001), 32-35. See also the contribution of Patrick J. Hartin in this volume.

MATTEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

2:10) and each does so by quoting examples of adultery and murder, albeit in reverse order (Matt 5:21-22, 27-28 and Jas 2:11).

Heading the list of themes in which James and Matthew stand in the same theological camp is the concept of the law. Matthew and James agree that fulfillment of the law—with a special emphasis upon moral consequences and high ethical standards—is the appropriate interpretation of the teachings of Jesus. How shall we account for this similarity of outlook in Matthew and James? Of course, one text may be dependent upon the other. James might have used material written by Matthew or Matthew by James. This is, however, most improbable.

This paper argues that the correspondence in perspective between Matthew and James with regard to the law results from their common orientation on a section of the Jewish Two Ways that is best preserved in Did. 3:1-6. We will see first that both the theme and terminology of the teknon section in Did. 3:1-6 betray close affinities with material collected and preserved in the pious milieu of early Hasidic Sages. This specific ethical stream within early Rabbinic Judaism is probably the concrete life situation of the teknon passage. I then examine the Matthean Antitheses and James's Letter. Both Matthew's formulation of the Antitheses part (5:17-48) of the Sermon on the Mount and James's creation of specific segments of his letter (1:13-21; 2:8-11 and 4:1-4) used traditional materials identical or similar to those transmitted in Two Ways 3:1-6. The ethical code in the Antitheses and James—higher standards for the halakic way of life— finds its best explanation in light of Did. 3:1-6 and current traditions in Jewish

Hasidic circles (section 2). This traditional type of instruction does not provide us with a full understanding of Matthew's Antitheses and the Letter of James, however. The argument in the latter writings is more rigorous than that in the Two Ways or the Hasidic literature. Matthew and James independently represent a further development and radicalization of the warnings in Did. 3:1-6, as will be shown in the final part of this paper.

2. For James's dependence upon the Gospel of Matthew, see, among others, Deppe, The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James, 28; Massey H. Shepherd Jr., "The Epistle of James and the Gospel of Matthew," JBL 75 (1956): 40-51; Feliks Gryglewicz, "L'Epitre de St. Jacques et l'Evangile de St. Matthieu," Roczniki Teologicano-kanoniczne 8 (1961): 33-55, R. M. Cooper,

"Prayer: A Study in Matthew and James," Enc 29 (1968): 268-77. The possibility of dependence is often postulated if a second-century dating for James is accepted. Nevertheless, "most scholars," according to Luke T. Johnson, "correctly agree that neither James nor Matthew knows the other"; see Luke T. Johnson and Wesley H. Wachob, "The Sayings of Jesus in the Letter of James," in Authenticating the Words of Jesus (ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans; NTTS 28/1;

Leiden: Brill, 1999), 431-50; repr. in Luke T. Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 142.

LAW AND ETHICS IN MATTHEW AND JAMES

Bly 1. THE Two Ways 3:1-6 The Two Ways opens with two contrasting moral instructions that serve as a framework for the subsequent exposition of two sets of opposing ethical characteristics or antagonistic groups of people associated with the way of life and the way of death. This basic tradition circulated in Christian communities apart from its eventual incorporation and modification in the Didache.

1.1. THE Two Ways IN THE DIDACHE Early versions of the Two Ways are found in Did. 1-6, the Letter of Barnabas

18-20, and the Doctrina Apostolorum, but there are also later recensions of the Two Ways tradition that include church orders, letters, and monastic writings.?

They all prove that the doctrine was widely known in the first Christian centuries and attest to its popularity. Additional evidence supporting this assumption is that the doctrine of the Two Ways was employed within Christian circles in prebaptismal instruction. This is explicitly stated in Did. 7:1, in a verse that follows right after the rendering of the Two Ways section. "Concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after having previously said these things (taita navta mpoetndvtec), baptize" (7:1).4

Early and later Christian writings thus attest to a separate circulation of a form of the Two Ways closely related to Did. 1-6. Recently, David Flusser and I have attempted to produce a reconstruction of the original teaching. Because the text of this pre-Didache source was in Greek, the document may be called the Greek Two Ways.° For our purpose, it is important to establish that this (hypothetical) version is generally reproduced in the precise wording of the Two Ways in the Didache, excepting only the Christianized sections 1:3b-2:1 and 6:2-3.° In 3. The Two Ways tradition in the later recensions as represented by the Apostolic Church

Order, the Epitome of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Life of Shenoute, the Ps. Athanasian Syntagma Doctrinae, and the Fides CCCXVIII Patrum, demonstrate numerous links with the content and structure of the Doctrina and the Didache; see Huub van de Sandt and David

Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (CRINT

3/5; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002), 63-70.

4. In Egypt as late as fourth century, the Two Ways manual was used as a pre-baptismal didactic tool and provided basic instruction about Christian life to neophytes. See Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 86-89. See also the contribution of Alistair Stewart-Sykes in this volume.

5. For the above information and a reconstruction of the Greek Two Ways, see Van de

Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 112-39.

6. Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 55-72. Also the Didache text itself shows the awkwardness of these verses. After the warning in 6:1 to sustain and observe the aforesaid prescriptions in the comprehensive ethical treatise, the subsequent verses (6:2-3) suddenly present a reduction of the previous standards for those unable to "bear the entire

MATTEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

this paper, therefore, I follow the Christian Didache excluding those parts and details that differ from the hypothesized Greek Two Ways.

Once one accepts that Did. 1-6 reflects the pre-didachist Two Ways teaching, the section could be taken to independently reproduce the early Jewish manual that might have been reworked by Matthew and James. Thus, as utilized in the Didache, the Two Ways conceivably provides us with a direct view of the unique material used by Matthew in writing Matt 5:17-48 and one of the sources employed by James. Admittedly, one could refer to other sources as well which show the Antitheses and James to be in line with the agenda of first-century

Judaism." None of these materials, however, has so far provided any external evidence of a similar line of reasoning, a corresponding topical organization or an analogous elaboration of the law. In this respect the comparison of the similarities between the Antitheses and James on the one hand and Did. 3:1-6 on the other turns out to be more relevant.

1.2. DID. 3:1-6 WITHIN ITS JEWISH SETTING

Did. 3:1-6 contains a general introduction followed by five small textual units. Apart from some slight changes, they are constructed in the same framework and employ the same terminology. The verses 2-6 display a particular yoke of the Lord." Didache 6:2 unexpectedly indicates that partial compliance with all previous admonitions is sufficient. Furthermore, with respect to food, everyone is allowed to determine what is to be eaten and only a minimum requirement is stipulated (6:3). A second remarkable feature occurs in Did. 1:3b-2:1. The passage clearly interrupts the connection between Did.

1:3a and 2:2 and it stands out from the immediate context in chapters 1-6 with respect to its large number of close parallels to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. This is all the more striking because a similar accumulation of traditional Gospel motifs is absent from the remainder of the Two Ways manual of Did. 1-6.

7. As for Matthew, see Ingo Broer, "Anmerkungen zum Gesetzesverstandnis des Matthaus," in Das Gesetz im Neuen Testament (ed. K. Kertelge; QD 108; Freiburg: Herder, 1986),

128-45: 131-33; Hans D. Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49) (Hermeneia;

Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 277-85; Gerald Friedlander, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav 1969), 40-53; Str-B 1:276-82, 298-301;

Claude G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (1st ed. 1930; repr. New York:

Macmillan, 1970), 38-56; Ernst Percy, Die Botschaft Jesu: Eine traditionskritische und exegetische Untersuchung (LUA n.s. 49; Lund: Gleerup, 1953), 131-63.

As for James, see, among others, Louis Massebieau, "L'Epitre de Jacques est-elle l'oeuvre d'un Chrétien?" RHR 32 (1895): 249-83; Friedrich A. W. Spitta, "Der Buch des Jacobus," in Der Brief des Jakobus: Studien zum Hirten des Hermas (vol. 2 of Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums; ed. F. A. W. Spitta; Géttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896); Hartwig

Thyen, Der Stil der jiidisch-hellenistischen Homilie (FRLANT 65; Géttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1955); Willi Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. G. Buswell; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968).

LAW AND ETHICS IN MATTHEW AND JAMES

repetitive pattern in that each is divided into two parallel halves. The first half contains a warning against a specific minor transgression because such a sin, so it says, "leads to" a major transgression. Then, in the second half, an admonishment is offered against two or more minor sins, for these too are considered to "give birth to" a major transgression. With respect to the Matthean and Jacobean materials at issue, the first three verses are rendered here:

(3:1) My child (téxvov pov), flee from all evil and from everything resembling it.

(3:2) a. Be not angry (1) yivov dpyidos), b. for anger (Opyr)) leads to murder (gévov), c. nor jealous (dé CnAwti}¢) nor irascible (yndé EptotiKdc) nor hottempered (undé Guptkdc) d. for from these murders are born (gdovot yevv@vtat).

(3:3) . My child, be not desirous (7) yivov émOvpntis), . for desire (émi6vpia) leads to fornication (mopveiav),

. nor foul-mouthed nor indiscreetly peering . for from all these adulteries are born (poryeiat yevv@vtat). an oo Pp In two clauses (a and c) minor transgressions are mentioned that "lead to" or "pring about" major sins (b and d): murder (3:2), fornication and adultery (these two are classed together in 3:3),8 idolatry (3:4), theft (3:5), and blasphemy (3:6).

The concept that Did. 3:1-6 presupposes is the common Jewish distinction between minor and major commandments.' The passage not only requires strict

8. See below, n. 56.

9. See 4 Macc 5.19-21, dismissing the suggestion that less weighty sins are less serious:

"Accordingly, you must not regard it as a minor sin for us to eat unclean food (pi) pexpav obv elvat vouions tavthy, ei prapopayroaipev, Guaptiav); minor sins are just as weighty as great sins (16 yap éni pixpoic Kal peyddorc napavoueiv ioodbvapdv éotiv), for in each case the law is despised"; trans. H. Anderson, "4 Maccabees," in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H.

Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983-85), 550.

In Philo's view, the observance of the light commandments is as essential as having no basic part of a building removed or destroyed; see Legat. 117 and compare also Philo's

Alleg. Interp. 3.241; further, Isaak Heinemann, Philo's griechische und jiidische Bildung:

Kulturvergleichende Untersuchungen zu Philons Darstellung der jiidischen Gesetze (Breslau,

1929-32; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962), 478-80.

An equally strict or even more rigorous attitude is found in rabbinic sources:

Ben Azzai said: Run to fulfill the lightest precept even as the weightiest and flee from transgression; for one precept draws another precept in its train, and one transgression draws

MATTEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

observance of the major precepts, but also adherence to the minor commandments as well.

The preoccupation of the teknon section as a whole, however, is expressed in the introductory sentence: "My child (tékvov j10v), flee from all evil and from everything resembling it" (3:1). A similar statement occurs in rabbinic literature! and has played a formative role in a particular type of rabbinic Judaism, that is, in a refined ethics represented by the rabbinic Derek Eres tractates. Oral tracts with subjects concerning Derek Eres existed as early as the second century C.E. and part of these writings reflect the teachings of pious circles on moral behavior.

The early layer reflects a lifestyle that is called "derek hasidut," the way of the pious. It reveals the teachings of the early Hasidim who "placed extreme stress on self-deprival and the performance of good deeds and acts of loving kindness in lieu of pure academic 'ivory tower' scholarship."!! The treatise Yir'at Het ("fear of transgression") is a separate denotation of chapters I-IV and IX of the Derek another transgression in its train; for the reward of a precept (done) is a precept (to be done), and the reward of one transgression is (another) transgression (m. 'Abot 4:2).

See George F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (3 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927-1930), 1:470-71. The focus on the light commandments also occurs in other general instances of rabbinic literature: m.

'Abot 2:1; b. Menah 44a, top; b. Ned. 39b; y. Pe'ah 1,15d; Sipre Deut 79 to Deut 12:28 (Louis Finkelstein, ed. Siphre ad Deuteronomium [CT 3/2; Berlin: Jiidischer Kulturbund, 1939; repr New

York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969], 145); Sipre Deut 82 to Deut 13:1 (ibid., 148), Sipre

Deut 96 to Deut 13:19 (ibid., 157). See also Wilhelm Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jiidischen Traditionsliteratur (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1899; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1965), 1:172-74.

An echo of the rabbinic usage of "light" and "weighty" precepts is also found in the wording of Jesus: "and you have neglected the weightier matters of the Law" (Bapbtepa tod vopov) in Matt 23:23b, 10. "For R. Eliezer did teach: 'one should always flee from what is hideous and from whatever seems hideous" and "But the Sages said: 'Keep distant from what is hideous and from whatever seems hideous"; see ¢, Hul. 2:24 (M. S. Zuckermandel, ed. Tosephta [Pasewalk 1881; repr. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1970], 503) and ¢. Yebam. 4:7 (Zuckermandel, Tosephta, 245), respectively. For detailed substantiation of the following, see Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 140-90.

11. Myron B. Lerner, "The External Tractates," in The Literature of the Sages (ed. S. Safrai;

CRINT 2/3; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1987), 1:380. See also Shmuel Safrai, "Teaching of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature," JJS 16 (1965): 15-33: 25-28; idem, "Hasidim we-Anshei Maase," Zion 50

(1984-85): 133-54; idem, "Jesus and the Hasidim," Jerusalem Perspective 42-44 (1994): 3-22; idem, "Jesus and the Hasidic Movement," in The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (ed. 1. M. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer, and D. R. Schwartz; Jerusalem:

Graphit Press, 1996), 413-36 (Hebrew). See also Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its

Jewish Sources, 165-69 and 172-73.

LAW AND ETHICS IN MATTHEW AND JAMES

Eres Zuta tract. Chapters I-III of this tract represent an early segment, probably dating from Tannaitic times.!? It states:

Keep aloof from everything hideous and from whatever seems hideous (19 ATTA 71 AWWA 1 prin) lest others suspect you of transgression (1,13).!3

The urge to abstain from anything hideous, which is synonymous with evil,!4 incited pietistic Sages to keep not only to the literal meaning of a commandment but also to its broad intention, surpassing the scope of widely accepted precepts. It exceeds the halakah's legal corpus. The early layer of Derek Eres literature embodied a refined human ethic highlighting acts of charity, modesty and humility. Prominent in this doctrine is a rigorous attitude towards the prevailing halakah and the propensity for good deeds in public life, such as the redemption of captives, the restoration of property, the consolation of mourners, the giving of alms. Because they believed that a literal interpretation of the commandments resulted from a lack of positive motivation, they did more than the law required.

The most pertinent parallel to the preamble in Did. 3:1 and the subsequent strophes in 3:2-6 is found in the treatise Yir'at Het II,16-17. It concerns the fol12. The early (Tannaitic) part of Yir'at Het is identical with Masseket Derek Eres Zuta, chapters I-III (minus I,18-20) in M. van Loopik, ed., The Ways of the Sages and the Way of the World (TSAJ 26; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 172-251 (with commentary) = Masseket

Derek Eres, chapters I-II, in The Treatises Derek Erez: Masseket Derek Erez; Pirke Ben Azzai;

Tosefta Derek Erez (ed. M. Higger; New York, 1935; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1970), 1:55-96

(Hebrew) and 2:33-42 (English). See Van Loopik, The Ways of the Sages, 9 and 16-17.

Lerner ("External Tractates," 383, n. 108) refers to Higger's Masseket Derek Eres I-II,7 (=

Treatises, 55-93) as representing the earlier segment, which portion corresponds with Masseket

Derek Eres Zuta I-III,15 in Van Loopik, The Ways of the Sages, 172-246.

13. According to Van Loopik, The Ways of the Sages, 194-7 (with commentary) = Masseket Derek Eres 1,12 according to Higger, Treatises, 1:63 (Hebrew) and 2:35 (English). Compare also the following saying: "Keep aloof from anything hideous and (even) from whatever seems hideous"; see Derek Eres Zuta VIII,3 according to Van Loopik, The Ways of the Sages, 290 =

Masseket Derek Eres VII,2 according to Higger, Treatises, 1:126 (Hebrew) and 2:50 (English).

See further Masseket Yir'at Het, version a, chapter 2 in Minor Tractates (Massekhtot Zeirot)

(ed. M. Higger; New York, 1929; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1970), 76 (lines 3-5); and version b,

Perek Yir'at Heta in Higger, Minor Tractates, 82 (line 22)-83 (line 1) and Masseket Derek Eres

Zeira, chapter 4, in Higger, Minor Tractates 90 (lines 12-13).

14. For the term 11w"> ("ugliness") as ethically offensive, see the warning in S. Eli. Rab., chapter 2: "for ugly things that aren't fitting" (rmx [PRY OAT OMIA OMIT (Seder Eliyahu

Rabba and Seder Eliyahu Zuta (ed. M. Friedmann, Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1969], 13); see also

S. Eli. Rab., chapter 25 (ibid., 139); chapter 7 (ibid., 32); chapter 14 (ibid., 67); chapter 18 (ibid.,

104).

See

MATTEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE

lowing ethical rule, which serves as a résumé of moral codes in the Derek Eres tractates:!5

Keep aloof from that which leads to transgression, keep aloof from everything hideous and from what even seems hideous. Shudder from committing a minor transgression (9pm NoMN), lest it leads you to commit a major transgression

(n19n Non). Hurry to (perform) a minor precept (9p m1¥N%), for this will lead you to (perform) a major precept (7719n [mrynd]).16

The saying shows that the popular apophthegm to be as careful of unimportant precepts as of important ones,!7 was originally an alternative form of the advice to "flee from all evil and from anything resembling it" in the teknon section.

These themes and terminology evidence sufficient parallels to suggest that the early layer of Derek Eres tracts and the rabbinic traditions representing similar spiritual and ethic thought provide the most appropriate framework for understanding Did. 3:1-6. The agreement between the maxims in Yir'at Het 1,13;

II,16-17 and Did. 3:1-6 is not surprising, since there is a close affinity between the ideas and ethical principles in the early Derek Eres doctrine and the views in the Greek Two Ways.!8 Both sets of instructions emphasize not a strict legal, halakic approach to the law but a moral, personal and ethical attitude to life.

Within pious Jewish circles in the Tannaitic period the belief was prevalent that fulfillment of explicit halakic duty did not exhaust moral responsibility. Rather than scrupulously discussing the specificities of Torah, the Greek Two Ways and the early parts of Derek Eres present high ethical rules that appeal to a universal morality, 15. See Gottlieb Klein, Der dlteste christliche Katechismus und die jiidische PropagandaLiteratur (Berlin, 1909), 69: "Die kiirzeste Formel fiir Derech Erez lautet: Halte dich fern von der Siinde und von dem, was hisslich ist."

16. Yir'at Het (or Derek Eres Zuta) II,16-17 according to Van Loopik, The Ways of the Sages, 229-31 (with commentary) = Masseket Derek Eres 1,26 according to Higger, Treatises,

1:78-79 (Hebrew) and 2:38 (English). The phrase "keep aloof from everything hideous" in the first sentence of this paragraph is not found in Higger's edition. Van Loopik acknowledges that this clause is missing in some manuscripts (ibid., 229). He maintains the above translation however with reference to the "nearly identical form" of this dictum in 'Abot R. Nat. A 2; see

Aboth de Rabbi Nathan (ed. S. Schechter; Vienna 1887; repr. New York, 1945; corr. repr. New

York: Feldheim, 1967), 5a. Further, see also Masseket Yir''at Het, version a, chapter 1, in Higger,

Minor Tractates, 75 (lines 20-23) and version b, Perek Yir'at Het a, in Higger, Minor Tractates,

83 (lines 23-25).

17. See Felix Bohl, Gebotserschwerung und Rechtsverzicht als ethisch-religiése Normen in der rabbinischen Literatur (FJS 1; Freiburg i. B.: Schwarz, 1971), 59-63 and 85-109. Further, see above, n. 9.

18, See Van de Sandt and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources, 172-79.

↑ Back to top