Chapter 353 of 404

Notes to Chapter 15

1 Granted, not all “later followers” were sedentary (witness e.g., Syrian monasticism), but I think in terms of first-century churches known to us (e.g., Corinth and Rome).

2 Vermes, Religion, 148.

3 Qumran’s eschatological perspective probably helped shape their radicalism regarding possessions (Murphy, “Disposition”).

4 For a comparison with some other ancient views of wealth, see Keener, Matthew, 229-30. Jesus did not establish a council to enforce his teachings on possessions as at Qumran, but his teachings were countercultural and radical, comparable to Qumran’s. Witherington, Sage, 124, notes that Jesus’ Jewish emphasis on depending on God also differs in content from a Cynic emphasis on self-dependence. Jesus may use hyperbole, the point being that compared to eternal things, possessions were worthless. Subsequent Christendom has rarely heeded the point even as hyperbole.

5 E.g., m. Ab. 2:8.

6 4 Ezra 7:77; 2 Bar. 14:12; 24:1; 44:14; cf. further Tob 4:8-10; 12:8; Test. Levi 13:5; Gen. Rab. 9:9; 53:5; Ex. Rab. 31:2; Lev. Rab. 34:16; Eccl. Rab. 1:3, §1; Song Rab. 7:14, §1; Marmorstein, Merits, 20; Sandmel, Judaism, 190-91; Guelich, Sermon, 327; cf. Col 1:5; 1 Pet 1:4; Gr. Ezra 1:14. Second-century tradition declared that a first-century king who gave to the poor dispensed with earthly treasures to gain heavenly ones (tos. Peah 4:18). For “treasuries” in heaven in a more cosmic sense, cf. e.g., 2 En. 5:1-2; 6; 3 En. 10:6.

7 Jewish law addressed possibly theoretical cases of persons who were half-slave and half-free or jointly owned by two persons (m. Ed. 1:13; Git. 4:5; Pes. 8:1; tos. Ker. 1:17; b. Arak. 2b; B.K. 90a; Git. 43a; Hag. 2a; Kid. 90a; Yeb. 66a); divisions of estates at inheritances could encourage such situations (cf. P. Grenf. 1.21). This seems to have been an uncommon situation (cf. Acts 16:16), but Jesus’ observation seems to have typically obtained: the slave naturally preferred one master to the other (Groenewald, “Mammon”; Beare, Matthew, 183; cf. Lysias Or. 4.1, §100; 4.6, §101; Dio Chrys. Or. 66.13).

8 See Black, Aramaic Approach, 139-40; Hengel, Property, 24; Jeremias, Theology, 6 n. 2; Flusser, Judaism, 153; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:643. It appears negatively in e.g., Tg. Jon. on 2 Sam 14:14; Tg. Isa. on Isa 5:23.

9 Cf. Sir 34:7; Meier, Matthew, 66.

10 For qal vaomer, see e.g., tos. Ber. 4:16-17; 6:19; B.K. 7:6; Ed. 3:4; Kil. 5:6; Maas. 2:2; Shab. 15:16; Peah 3:8; Ter. 6:4; Mek. Pisha 1.38; 2.36-37; 7.48; 7.61; 9.45; 13.105; 16.119, 126; Besh. 1.54; 2.73; 7.128; Bah. 5.90; 11.64, 109; Nez. 1.101; 2.17; 3.43, 69, 128; 10.47, 67; 12.5; 16.92; 18.79, 80, 83, 97; Kaspa 2.26; 5.51, 80, 103; Shab. 1.14; 2.41; Sipra VDDen. par. 2.3.4.3; par. 3.5.3.2; par. 5.10.1.1; VDDeho. pq. 12.53.1.3; Sav pq. 8.80.1.2; par. 9.90.1.3, 8; pq. 17.96.1.1; Sav M.D. par. 98.8.5, 7; 98.9.5; Sh. M.D. 99.3.9; and other sources in Keener, John, 716-17.

11 Cf. “Whoever has a morsel in his basket and says What shall I eat to-morrow? is among those of little faith” (b. Sota 48b in Abrahams, Studies 2:106; cf. Mek. 16:4 in Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 137).

12 See e.g., Mek. Vay. 5.11-14, 84; b. Pes. 24b; 118b; Sot. 48b; cf. Abrahams, Studies 2:191; Held, “Miracle Stories,” 293; Lachs, Commentary, 133. “Of little faith” is acceptable Greek but the term appears only in Semitic literature before the Gospels (Jeremias, Theology, 161; Black, Aramaic Approach, 132), suggesting that even the term may have been early in the Jesus tradition (as in this “Q” saying), though Matthew’s Semitic usage probably expands it (Matt 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; 17:20).

13 See most fully Abrahams, Studies 1:18-29.

14 Later rabbis often discussed the question of the “greatest” commandment; see Hagner, Matthew, 646.

15 I.e., no commandment was so “light” that it could be ignored (m. Ab. 4:2; Sipra Qed. pq. 8.205.2.6; Sipra Behor. par. 5.255.1.10; Sipre Deut. 96.3.2; ARN 35, §77B; Matt 5:19; Jms 2:10-11).

16 Both philosophers like Philo (Wolfson, Philo, 2:277, at length) and the rabbis came to regard some commandments as “weightier” — more significant — than others (SipraVDDeho. par. 1.34.1.3, par. 12.65.1.3; ARN 1, §8B; b. Men. 43b; cf. Matt 23:23; Johnston, “Least of Commandments,” 207). Cf. the Ten Commandments (Vermes, “Phylacteries”) and the prohibition of idolatry (b. Kid. 40a; p. Ned. 3:9, §3).

17 Bonsirven, Judaism, 29; Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 174; for a later example, Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 111. Love for neighbor had long been a fundamental principle of Jewish ethics (m. Ab. 1:12, attributed to Hillel; Jub. 36:4, 8).

18 Sipra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.7; Gen. Rab. 24:7.

19 Cf. the observation of Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 138.

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

21 Test. Iss. 5:2; 7:6; Dan 5:3; Philo Decal. 108-10; cf. Philo Every Good Person Is Free 83; Jos. Ant. 3.213.

22 Gezerah sheva (perhaps borrowed from hellenism, but notably common in Jewish interpretation; e.g., Mek. Nez. 10.15-16, 26, 38; 17.17; Pisha 5.103; cf. CD 7.15-20; Keener, John, 305, 1184, for further sources).

23 With Diezinger, “Liebesgebot”; Flusser, Judaism, 479. Philo headed the most essential laws under the two categories of Godward and humanward (Spec. Laws 2.63; see more fully Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 70; Sanders, Judaism, 192-95; in the rabbis, Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 249).

24 E.g., ARN 27A; 24, §49B; Philo Decal. 154; 4 Macc 2:7-9; cf. Goulder, Midrash, 25; Vermes, Religion, 44.

25 Cf. Vermes, Religion, 43. In Mark the scribe repeats the same words and Jesus appreciates the answer — though the scribe is quoting Jesus. The unnaturalness of the construction might support the Lukan tradition in which the scribe answers directly as being the earlier form (Lk 10:26-27, though Vermes thinks that this is an artificial link for the Samaritan parable; Vermes, Religion, 109). But because it in any case reflects Jesus’ own view as well, even if the view stems from the scribe, the latter might have known it from prior teaching.

26 E.g., Paul’s triad of virtues with love as the greatest (1 Cor 13:13; cf. 1 Thess 1:3; 5:8; Gal 5:5-6; without noting hope, Eph 1:15; 3:17; Col 1:4; 1 Thess 3:6; 2 Thess 1:3; Phlm 5; passim in the Pastorals).

27 Cf. Meier, Matthew, 257.

28 Cf. Manson, Sayings, 80; on the difference between Matthean and Pauline emphases here, see Mohrlang, Matthew and Paul, 45.

29 The Nash papyrus attests the special importance of the Shema already in the first or second century BCE (see Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 68).

30 Cf. also the derivative form in GThom 6.3 (see Chilton, Approaches, 123-49).

31 E.g., Tob 4:15; Let. Aris. 207; Philo Hypothetica 7.6; Syr. Men. Sent. 245-51. Although the idea in the positive form existed in Judaism (Sir 31/34:15; ARN 26A; 29, §60B; Tg. Ps.-Jon. on Lev 19:18), the lack of the form more explicitly suggests to Vermes authenticity of Jesus’ saying by the criterion of dissimilarity (Vermes, Religion, 41); the change, however, is slight. Alexander, “Rule,” compares the similar traditions regarding Hillel’s and Jesus’ teaching.

32 E.g., Isoc. Demon. 21, Or. 1; To Nicocles 38, Or. 2; Nicocles/Cyprians 49, 3.37; Diog. Laert. 1.36, 59 (Thales, Solon); Pub. Syr. 2; Sen. Controv. 1.1.5; in Stoicism, see Epict. Disc. 1.11.25; Hierocles Duties. Fraternal Love 4.27.20; Van der Horst, “Hierocles,” 157.

33 Confucius Analects 43 (5.13); Jochim, Religions, 125.

34 B. Shab. 31a. Some suggest a Hebrew wordplay here (Zipor, “Talebearers”).

35 Later rabbinic material would not have depended on Matthew or Jesus for this summary, though one can debate whether it originates here with Matthew or Jesus, both of whom knew their Jewish context (in Matt 22:40, Matthew adds it to Mark, perhaps from here; Lk 6:31 omits this summary ending). Interestingly, though, cf. Confucius Analects 44 (15.23).

36 Usually regarded as authentic (see e.g., Carter, “Enemies”; Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 251- 74; Wink, “Passivity”).

37 Cf. Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 167-68 (though the supposed implication “that the law is inadequate,” 168, could be explained instead as respectfully building a fence around the Torah).

38 The precise history of its transmission may be debated; cf. (too recently for inclusion in Keener, Marries Another) e.g., Collins, Divorce (cf. Keener, “Review of Collins”); Force, “Encore.” Placing Jesus’ sexual ethic in the context of eschatological urgency (e.g., Levine, “Word,” 523) also bears consideration.

39 Cf. (esp. with reference to Matthew) e.g., Dobschütz, “Rabbi,” 33; Filson, Matthew, 206; Argyle, Matthew, 51-52; Swidler, Women, 231 n. 225; Gundry, Matthew, 377; Ilan, Women, 142; Overman, Crisis, 82, 279. For the Pharisaic debate, see m. Git. 9:10; Sipre Deut. 269.1.1. The more liberal interpretation appears in Jos. Ant. 4.253 (relevant for a hellenistic audience).

40 CD 4.20-5:2; 11QT 56.18-19, prohibiting royal polygamy. Many have thought that the Qumranites applied this passage to prohibiting divorce as well as polygamy (Schubert, “Ehescheidung,” 27; Mueller, “Divorce Texts”), but the Qumran texts themselves prohibit explicitly only polygamy here (Keener, Marries Another, 40-41; cf. Vermes, “Matrimonial Halakah”; Nineham, Mark, 265). A few rabbis, who allowed polygamy but felt it was not the ideal (cf. m. Ab. 2:7; b. Yeb. 65a), also appealed to Genesis (ARN 2, §9B).

41 M. Yeb. 6:6, drawing different applications. See further Keener, Paul, 114-15; Ilan, Women, 125, on Jewish precedents for women drawn from the Eve story.

42 Many Jewish speculations about the future kingdom also viewed it as a sort of recapitulation of the beginning (4 Ezra 8:52-54; Test. Levi 18:10-12; Test. Dan 5:12; m. Ab. 5:20).

43 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 257.

44 I treat this subject more thoroughly in Keener, Marries Another, passim; idem, Matthew, 190- 92, 462-69; and in some more popular essays.

45 Cf. e.g., Jos. Apion 1.167.

46 Cf. e.g., m. M.S. 4.10-11; Ned. 1:1-2; 8:7; tos. M.S. 5:2; Ned. 1:1-2; Carmon, Inscriptions, 75, §167; Mazar, “Splendors,” 59; Fitzmyer, Essays, 93-100; McNamara, Judaism, 200-2; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 53. Others suggest this passage refers to vowing not to perform an act (Zeitlin, “Korban”) or an oath uttered by a son in anger from which Pharisees would not release him (Bligh, “Qorban”). Matthew’s wording is more polemical than Mark’s.

47 Some scholars contend that the only kind of vow that one school of Pharisaism in Jesus’ day would not release was a vow to the temple (Falk, Pharisee, 98-99; cf. Black, Aramaic Approach, 139). One could also prohibit others from using one’s property (say, eating his figs) by declaring them dedicated to the temple or perhaps “as if they were” so dedicated, hence, “forbidden to you” (m. Ned. 3:2; Baumgarten, “Korban”; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 54-55).

48 See Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 57.

49 See e.g., Sir 3:8; Syr. Men. Sent. 9-10, 20-24, 94-98; Ps.-Phoc. 8, 180; Let. Aris. 228, 238; Jos. Apion 2.206; Philo Ebr. 17; Spec. Laws 2.234-36; Prob. 87; Sib. Or. 1.74-75; 2.275-76; Jub. 7:20; 29:14-20; 35:1-6, 11-13; Mek. Pisha 1.28; Bah. 8.28ff; Sipre Deut. 81.4.1-2.

50 See Sir 3:7; Jos. Life 204; Test. Ab. 5B; Test. Jud. 1:4-5; b. Kid. 31ab; Pesiq. Rab. 23/24:2.

51 Cf. Sir 3:12-15; Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 500-6; Montefiore, Gospels, 2:226; Derrett, Law, 110; Pesiq. Rab. 23/24:2; cf. Prov 28:24. Hagner, Matthew, 431 cites tos. Ned. 1.6.4 for a vow taking precedence over a biblical commandment, but notes that in later times honor of parents took precedence over a vow (m. Ned. 9:1).

52 E.g., ARN 37A; 45, §124B.

53 E.g., Contest of Homer and Hesiod 322; Homeric Hymn 25.4-5; Pindar Threnoi fr. 137 (in Clem. Alex. Strom. 3.3.17, using olbios); Polyb. 26.1.13 (using makarios); Mus. Ruf. frg. 35, p. 134; Apoll. K. Tyre 31; Babr. 103.20-21; Philost. Hrk. 4.11; Porph. Marc. 16.276-77; Aune, Prophecy, 61, 64; Guelich, Sermon, 63- 66. For makarios in Stoic and Christian literature, see Vorster, “Blessedness.”

54 See e.g., Ps 40:4; 41:1; 65:4; 84:4-5, 12; 94:12; 112:1; 119:1-2; 128:1; Is 56:2; Jer 17:7; Dan 12:12; Bar 4:4; with a different term, Jdt 13:18; 14:7; 15:10. The term makarios appears 66 times in the LXX, including 25 times in the Psalms (including 1:1; 2:12; 31:1-2=32:1-2), 11 times in Sirach (14:1-2, 20; 25:8-9; 26:1; 28:19; 31:8; 34:15; 48:11; 50:28) and 4 times in Proverbs (Prov 3:13; 8:34; 20:7; 28:14).

55 E.g., 1 En. 99:10; 2 En. 42.6-14; 44:5; Ps. Sol. 4:23; 5:16; 6:1; 10:1; 17:44; 18:6; 4 Macc 7:15, 22; 10:15; 17:18; 18:9; Jos. Asen. 16:14/7; 19:8, MSS; Sipra VDDeho. par. 5.44.1.1; b. Ber. 61b; Hag. 14b; Hor. 10b, bar. At Qumran, see 4Q525 (see Roo, “4Q525”; Brooke, “Beatitudes”; Viviano, “Beatitudes”; Viviano, “Qumran”; Viviano, “Publication”). In early Christianity, makarios appears about 50 times in the NT and 40 times in the Apostolic Fathers; this includes Lk 1:45; 6:20-22; 7:23; 10:23; 11:27-28; 12:37-38, 43; 14:14-15; 23:29; in Acts, only 20:35 and 26:2 (Luke-Acts comprises 34% of NT uses).

56 Jeremias, Sermon, 15-16; cf. Black, Aramaic Approach, 156-58.

57 Test. Zeb. 8:1; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 226.

58 Jeremias, Theology, 24 (citing a three-beat rhythm).

59 Some commentators note that the salt deposits of the Dead Sea are so impure that they leave unsalty “salt” when the the real salt eventually dissolves, or that salt could be mixed with so many impurities “as to become useless” (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:473 on Pliny N.H. 31.82). (Cf. Hellestam, “Saltet”: one could accidentally get magnesium salt with one’s cooking salt; the former tasted bitter and was used only on roads to hold down weeds and dust.) But Jesus may refer here to a more graphic, inconceivable situation of real salt losing its taste (cf. Hill, Matthew, 115; Vermes, Religion, 83).

60 R. Tarfon in b. Bek. 8b (Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 229; Lachs, Commentary, 82; Vermes, Religion, 83). In that society everyone knew that mules are half-breeds (Babrius 62) and are consequently sterile (e.g., Livy 26.23.5; Appian C.W. 1.9.83; 2.5.36; Sipre Deut. 119.2.3; Gen. Rab. 41:6), hence lacking after-birth.

61 Manson, Sayings, 154; Vermes, Religion, 19-20 n. 11.

62 B. Sanh. 107ab; p. Sanh. 2:6, §2; Gen. Rab. 47:1; Lev. Rab. 19:2; Num. Rab. 18:21; Song Rab. 5:11, §4.

63 P. Sanh. 2:6, §2; Song Rab. 5:11, §3; cf. Ex. Rab. 6:1. The Greek letter iota used here might be a rough equivalent; cf. the play on the Latin “i” in Mart. Epig. 2.93. Rulers were known to prescribe a capital sentence against those found chiseling out a single letter of their inscriptions (Dio Chrys. Or. 31.86 in Boring et al., Commentary, 57); the 22 letters of the alphabet were prepared to testify against Israel’s transgressions of Torah (Lam. Rab. Proem 24).

64 In the Greek of this period, “great” could mean “greatest,” as translators frequently recognize in Matt 22:36 (cf. Mussies, “Greek,” 1042).

65 E.g., m. Ab. 2:8.

66 E.g., Sipra VDDeho. par. 1.34.1.3; 12.65.1.3; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 64; Flusser, Judaism, 496; cf. Matt 23:23.

67 This tradition, at least, is wider than the later rabbis (see Let. Aris. 228; Jos. Apion 2.206; Ps.-Phoc. 8).

68 E.g., Urbach, Sages, 1:350; Keener, Marries Another, 116; see Johnston, “Least of Commandments.”

69 M. Ab. 2:1; cf. Sipre Deut. 96.3.2; 115.1.2; ARN 2 A.

70 ARN 35, §77 B; Sipre Deut. 48.1.3; cf. m. Kid. 1:10; ARN 28 A.

71 See Moore, Judaism, 1:467-68.

72 M. Hor. 1:3; Sipre Deut. 54.3.2; ARN 27 A; 1, §8 B; cf. Jms 2:10; Test. Asher 2.2-8.

73 Sipra Qed. pq. 8.205.2.6; Behuq. par. 5.255.1.10; more fully, Keener, Marries Another, 115-17.

74 See Test. Iss. 7:2; Reub. 4:8; b. Nid. 13b, bar.; Shab. 64ab; p. Hallah 2:1, §10; Lev. Rab. 23:12; Pesiq. Rab. 24:2; further, Keener, Marries Another, 16-17. Jesus may read Ex 20:14 in light of Ex 20:17.

75 Note Essenes in Jos. War 2.135; Ant. 15.370-71; Philo Every Good Man Free 84; Vermes, Religion, 35; cf. Black, Scrolls, 94, 120. Apparently, however, not all Essenes agreed (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 53; McNamara, Judaism, 197). Meier, “Oaths,” thinks that Jesus went beyond his Jewish contemporaries on this point.

76 Cf. m. Ned. 1:1; Naz. 1:1; Vermes, Religion, 34-35; Schiffman, Law, 137-38; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 53-54; Keener, Matthew, 194.

77 As noted earlier, for resemblance with the Kaddish, which would not depend on Jesus’ prayer; see e.g., Bonsirven, Judaism, 133; Jeremias, Prayers, 98; idem, Theology, 21; Moore, Judaism, 2:213; Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 136; Hill, Matthew, 136-37; Perrin, Language, 28-29; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 43; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:595; Luz, Matthew, 371; pace Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:361-62 n. 36; Lachs, Commentary, 118.

78 Many compare the Jewish maxim: “By the measure by which a man metes it is measured to him” (judgment in the present era in m. Sot. 1:7; b. Sot. 8b; Pesiq. Rab. 39:2; more fully, Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 135; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 225; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:670; Bivin, “Measure”). Perhaps only one stream of Jewish tradition applied it to the day of judgment as Jesus does (cf. Rüger, “Ruch”), but it is at least implied elsewhere: a person judged mercifully by another (“with the scale weighted in my favor”) prayed that God would also judge the other mercifully at the judgment (ARN 8A).

79 Possibly a figure of speech; attested in b. ?Arakin 16b; b. B.B. 15b (Vermes, Religion, 80; other texts in Lachs, Commentary, 137), if it is not a polemical distortion of Jesus’ teaching.

80 Sipre Num. 88, cited in Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 138; Lachs, Commentary, 142.

81 E.g., Sipre Deut. 173.1.2; b. Sanh. 101a; at Qumran, cf. Schiffman, Law, 97-98; Davies, Sermon, 79; Brown, “Scrolls,” 4. See further discussion in Keener, Matthew, 453-54.

82 Keener, “Heavenly Court”; idem, Matthew, 182-84 (with fuller documentation; cf. also Tg. Ps.-Jon. on Deut 5:31); Lachs, Commentary, 92, 94. Matthew’s context (Matt 5:25) reinforces this likelihood even though the explicit rabbinic sources are later.

83 See e.g., Dalman, Jesus in Talmud, passim; idem, Jesus-Jeshua, passim; Jeremias, Theology, passim; Lachs, Commentary, passim; Keener, Matthew, passim.

84 See Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 221-51 (for Jesus’ contacts with the unclean, see 233-37).

85 “Q” notes the cleansing of lepers (Matt 11:5//Lk 7:22). Jewish law forbade touching lepers (Lev 5:3), quarantined lepers from regular society (Lev 13:45-46; Jos. Ant. 3.261, 264), and people avoided contact with them (2 Kgs 7:3; Jos. Ant. 9.74; Apion 1.229, 233, 281; Sipra Negaim; Sipra Mesora par. 1-5). Nevertheless, Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:11 show (from m. Negaim passim) that their isolation was not total.

86 Mark’s phrase p?g? tou haimatos (Mk 5:29) refers in the LXX to an impure genital flow in every occurrence (Lev 12:7; 20:18), as does his rhusei haimatos (Mk 5:25; Lev 15:19, 25; 20:18). Strict pietists sought to avoid unnecessarily exposing themselves to this impurity (e.g., Jos. Ant. 3.261; m. Niddah), even if it was impossible for married men to avoid that state totally (Sanders, Judaism, 228- 29) and menstruation did not require quarantine (Levine, “Responsibility,” 389-90). At least in rabbinic theory any strict Jewish man must learn whether a woman who touched his clothing was unclean and therefore had rendered him unclean (m. Toh. 5:8). Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:128 list Jewish texts displaying restriction or abhorrence regarding women’s menstruation (Ezek 36:17; CD 4.12-5.17; 11QTemple 48.15-17; Jos. War 5.227; Apion 2.103-4; m. Zab. 4:1).

87 In support of the authenticity of Mk 7:15, see Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 245-49.

88 Cf. Saldarini, Community, 134, 139.

89 Even in Matt 9:20-21, Levine, “Responsibility,” 384 doubts that Matthew indicates or implies vaginal bleeding. Because Matthew’s verb appears in the LXX only with respect to vaginal bleeding (Lev 15:33), I am skeptical of this interpretation. Even if it is correct, however, Jesus touches the leper in Matthew (Matt 8:3).

90 Many might agree with his emphasis on inward purity, yet insist that this emphasis did not relieve one of the responsibility of pursuing outward purity as well.

↑ Back to top