WRITINGS WHICH POSSIBLY INFLUENCED MATTHEW

Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Rabbinic material may have had an effect on Matthew. A few selected examples follow. The Mekilta and the Pirke Aboth are of special value..

2

At one point the Damascus document (XVII) comes very close to Mt. 5.22 as both forbid speaking to a brother in anger, but the former

does not refer to final judgement. On the same subject, the Talmud has: 3 ’’One who shames another in public has no position in the world to come." This is closer to Matthew in that it is related to final judgement, but it is less close owing to the phrase ’in public’. Neither the Damascus document nor Matthew necessarily mean that the angry words are spoken in public. The idea of speaking with ’a hard heart' as the Essene writing. has it is much more akin to the anger which Matthew forbids than the externality of the Talmudic reference.

• 4

Coincidentally the part of the Mekilta most helpful in understanding Matthew also applies to Mt. 5.22. In a parable similar to that of the

talents (Mt. 25.14t30) the man in charge of the straw, equivalent to the servant with one talent, is designated ’Reka’ by his fellow servants in a clearly pejorative sense. This makes it unlikely that those who hold ’Raka’ to be harmless are correct*.

1 On the importance of the Mekilta and its proximity to the time of Matthew see W.O.E. Oesterley and G. H, Box, A Short Survey of the Literature of Rabbinical and Mediaeval Judaism, London, 1920, p.69 and Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi . Ishmael, Philadelphia, 1949, p.xix. All quotations from the Mekilta are from the latter, abbreviated to Mek. See Appendix A. .

On the value of the Pirke Aboth for understanding the N.T. in general and for the datings of most of its parts -see ' ‘ ‘ \ . W.O.E. Oesterley The Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, New York, . 1919, p.xiff. (see--Appendix B.) References to it have been •

■ abbreviated to Ab. •

2 Miller Burrows The Dead Sea Scrolls, London, 1956, p.362f. 3 b BM .58b quoted by Moses Maimonides, The- Commandments,

- . (2 Vols.)ed.. Charles B. Chavel, London, New York, 1967,p.239, No.251

In the Pirke Aboth^ there is a parable comparable with Mt. 7.24-27 in the tree with many roots and few branches and the other oppositely endowed. Judgement according to works (Mt. 16.27) also figures in the Aboth (e.g. 2.1; 3.22). Perhaps the most significant saying, which may

have a bearing on Mt. 18.6ff, is Aboth (5.21): ”... the disciples of Bilearn (Balaam) go down to Gehinnom”. Balaam may here be taken as a

2

type of those who encouraged Israel to apostatize. This could be doubly significant in that Jesus was a potential source of offence

(Mt. 11.6); this is connected, through the use of the same verb with Mt. 16.23 and Mt. 18.6ff. for in 16,23 and probably in 18.6 it

means ’to cause to apostatize'; Herford explains that the rabbis reckoned 3 Balaam to be a type of Jesus, for both encouraged Israel to apostatize.

There are besides many comparable texts, samples of which are: Ab. 5.13 cf. Mt. 7.22 on anger; Ab. 3.23 cf. Mt. 22.1-14 especially the Aboth phrase "everything is ready for the banquet" cf. Mt. 22.4; Ab. 1.7:

"Despair not of divine retribution" cf. Mt. 16.27; 24.28; 25.31ff. etc. on the certainty of judgement; Ab. 3.23, the phrase "whether he knows it or not", cf. Mt. 24.39 "they did not know", in the context of judgement; Ab. 1.5'has a warning which speaks of judgement: "Every time a man

talks overmuch with women he brings evil upon himself and he escapes from studying the words of Torah and his end is that he inherits Gehinnom" cf. Mt. 5.28ff. Matthew's Christology is heightened by the replacing of the Shekinah,ineffably venerable,. Ab. 3.3,with Jesus.Mt. 18.20; likewise, Ab. 3.6, the yoke of the Torah,,cf. Mt. 11.29, Jesus' yoke.

Universalism appears in the teaching that strangers are beloved (Mek. 3.140, cf. Mt. 25.35,43) the high regard in which proselytizing

1 Ab. 3.25.

2 Geza Vermes,Post Biblical Jewish Studies, London, 1975, p. 172. Vermes says that Balaam was an heresiarch. 3 R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash,

London, 1903, pp. 73ff. where he goes into the matter at length.

was held (Mek. 2.173 cf. Mt. 28.18-20) and a straightforward welcome' to everyone to learn the Torah Mek. 2.198, 267 cf. Mt. 11.28f.

Universalism is also found in Ab. 1.12; 3.23. In the latter the phrase ’’the net is cast over all living” is akin to Mt. 13.47-50.

Matthew, however, needed to look no further than the O.T. for

universalism e.g. Gen. 18.25; Is. 2.2ff; 11.10; 42.1,6 (which he quoted); 49.22; Amos 9.7 etc. This is not important for judgement but it weakens the case for a Gentile editor for Matthew.-•

Many other examples could be given but while there is much on ethics in both the Mekilta and the Aboth and a considerable amount on judgement in the latter there is little which carries both an ethical.demand and a threat of judgement at the same place.

There is a great deal of other rabbinic evidence of Matthew’s Jewishness but this will either be noted in the relevant part of the consideration of Matthew’s text or be relegated to an appendix, where also some of the above material will be more fully dealt with. Gnosis will also be briefly considered.

Note on dates of the above Aboth sayings

The following are the known authors of the Aboth sayings, abbreviated Ab.t with their dates as given by W.O.E. Oesterley in The Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, to which the page

references apply: Ab. Ab. Ab. Ab. Ab. Ab. Ab. Ab. Ab. Ab. .. Ab. 1.6 1.7 1.12 2.5 3.3 3.6 3.15 3.22 3.23 5.13 5.16

Joshua ben Perachiah, undated.

Nittai the Arbelite, disciple of Jose ben Joezer of Zeredah who lived about 140 B.C. (p.3 n.6).

Hillel active B.C. 30-10 A.D. (p.9 n.4). • Hillel.

R. Chananiah ben Teradyon, martyred A.D. 135 (p.30 n.3). R. Nechuniah ben ka-Kanah, first century A.D. (p.33 n.3). Eleazar ben Azariah, died about 120 A.D. (p.45 n.4). R. Akiba, killed about 135 A.D. (p.41.n.)

tt »i »i n tt it tt

Anon. Anon.

Thus it can be seen that most of or that they represent.a pool of

these could have influenced Matthew Jewish thought at or near his time. Reference to the appropriate tractate within the Mekilta has only

, SECTION 4. JAMNIA

The evidence that the members of Matthew’s church felt the impact of Jamnia is very strong. (This lends some support to the view that Tyre or Sidon was a more likely place of origin than Antioch, for their respective distances from Jamnia were 80, 100 and 300 miles, approx.). Matthew discloses the influence of Jamnia in the following ways, which

1 are largely a summary of the work of Davies:

1. The expressions, ’’the Jews” (28.15); "their synagogues (4.23; 9.35; 10.17; 12.9; 13.54); "your synagogues", (23.34); "their scribes" (7.29) imply a radical separation between Church and Synagogue such as was intended in the Birkath ha-Minim. Kilpatrick notes that the

> f

pronominal genitive is attached to <7 Wety regularly by Matthew but not by Mark and Luke. In Matthew attempts to explain it by the

context are forced and far-fetched. The only satisfying explanation is 2

the effect of the Birkath ha-Minim.

2. It is possible to claim that references to the maltreatment of Christians are too numerous to be regarded as merely sporadic, and suggest a deliberate policy on Jewish Christianity such as emanated from Jamnia. Thus 5.11 seems to imply the use of the ban; 23.34 (cf. 10.17) points to flogging and even crucifixion (though this was not a Jewish punishment1 2 3 4 5); 10.23 pursuit from town to town, having acquired for Mt. a special significance in describing persecution.

Davies thinks that "the uncontrolled hatred" implied here is more than Jamnia would have been likely to indulge. He seems to believe that the behaviour of the Jamnian Pharisees had to be always consistent with a norm of sobriety. This was not necessarily so. The Birkath ha-Minim

5

was indeed, in its early form discovered by Schechter, an ugly prayer. 1 The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, Cambridge, 1966,

p. 296ff.

2 Op. cit., p.110. See also Davies, SSM, pp. 276,296.

3 It had been before Herod: Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, London, 1977, pp.84,5.

4 SSM, p.297.

5 Quoted by Davies loc. cit., p.275, and Kilpatrick op. cit., p.lll.

The crucial words are: ’’Let Christians and Minim perish in a moment, let them be blotted out of the book of the living and let them not be written with the righteous.” But this was not the only example of extreme hostility. According to Tosephta Baba Mesia 11.33, ’’Gentiles and those who keep small cattle are neither drawn out of nor pushed into

(a pit); Minim are pushed in and not drawn out.” It is difficult not to see these words as licences to kill. Therefore it is hard to see why Davies thinks as he does unless he believes that the Jamnian bark was very much worse than its bite, so much so as to render the bark rather hollow.

1 2

Both Kilpatrick and Davies, the latter tentatively, set the date of the Birkath ha-Minim at A.D.85. Davies produces abundant evidence of

3

contrast between Jews and Christians. So, it seems probable that

persecution of Christians by Jews did take place. Motive and opportunity

were both present. _

4 What are we to make of what Perrin called the "rancorous dialogue”

5 between Christian and Pharisee shown in Mt.23 particularly? Kilpatrick observes that in Mark the differences between Jesus and the Pharisees lie in certain controversial issues whereas in Matthew the animus is directed against the Pharisees themselves in distinction from the controversial issues. At Mt. 3.7 "Pharisees and Sadducees”, for which Luke has "crowds”

(Lk, 3.7), shows that "generation of vipers” is directed in part against the Pharisees. At Mt. 12.24 the Pharisees are introduced (Mark has scribes, Mk. 3.22). Luke in his partial parallel (Lk. 11.14,15) has "some of

the people”. In the parallel to Mt.12.38, Lk. 11.29 again has crowds

instead of Matthew’s scribes and Pharisees. Mark has no parallel. So when

1 Op. cit., p.lll. 2 Op. cit., p.276. 3 . Op. cit., p.277f.

4 Norman Perrin, The Resurrection Narratives, London, 1977, p.48. 5 Op. cit., p.H9ff.

the venomous phrase "generation of vipers" is again introduced at 12.34 ■.and |7OL^eL^jS at 12,39, Matthew's description of them is stronger than

that of Luke. The addition of verses I2t14,( no parallel in Mark) to the passage in Mt. 15.1-20 (Mk. 7.1-23) turns the controversy into an attack on the Pharisees themselves. This is specially significant for the theme of judgement for Matthew is saying that a group of people who evade the Fifth Commandment, who do lip service to God while their heart is not in

it, who teach "precepts of men" as if they were doctrines of God^are plants not planted by "my heavenly Father" (Mt. 15.13). A probable allusion to Is. 60.21 brings the idea that the Pharisees ought to have known that only the genuine righteous are planted by God. Like Matthew they were people of a Book. Six times Matthew makes Jesus enquire "Have you not/never read?" (12.3,5; 19.4; 21.16,42; 22.31). On three of these occasions the question is addressed specifically to Pharisees and once to scribes along with chief priests.

The final use of the phrase "brood of vipers" (23.33) has no parallels. We must agree then that Perrin is correct. The attitude to the Pharisees

is "rancorous", "positively venomous"/ This can only be explained by the Birkath ha-Minim.

Kilpatrick summarizes thus; "We must not infer that the controversies had been lost sight of in a mutual antipathy, but that they had hardened

„2 into a sectarian hostility.

A passage penned by Perrin neatly summarizes a matter which we cannot take time to pursue further. It implies interaction between the Pharisees at Jamnia and the church from which and to which Matthew addressed his Gospel;

1 Op. cit., p.48. 2 Op. cit., p.121.

’’There are striking phenomenological parallels between Mt. and the Pharisees at Jamnia. Both understood religion as essentially a matter of response to verbal revelation and both felt the need for the revelation to be authoritatively interpreted within the community of which it was the

constitutive base.”-^-

This discussion tends to show that when Matthew speaks of judgement he is likely to refer to those criteria that apply to religious persons rather than to the sins of non-religious or profane persons.

3. It was at Jamnia that the term ’’rabbi” became a title for • 2

ordained scholars rather than a mark of courtesy. Thus only Jamnian controversy can help us to understand 23.5-10. By contrast with the pretentiousness of Jamnia, Jesus was ’’gentle and lowly in heart” (11.29 21.5). He was-supremely a teacher who taught by example.

4. Matthew is particularly interested in,the fall of Jerusalem, • 3

which occasioned the removal of the Sages to Jamnia. This is quite a weighty, though indirect consideration. In 22,7 and 23.37f. reference is made to the destruction of Jerusalem. The context of the latter is a fulmination against the Pharisees whereas in the comparable place in Lk. 13.31-33, the Pharisees are friendly and warn Jesus about Herod’s designs.

In 16.21 Matthew makes a direct reference to Jerusalem absent from Mark and Luke. In 21.10 Matthew records that the city was disturbed whereas Mark and Luke are silent on the matter. Matthew also notes

the disturbance in Jerusalem at the arrival of the Magi (2.3) and this whole passage is peculiar to him. Matthew’s special concern is also revealed in 28.11 and 27.53. Even the Jerusalem crowds are hostile to Jesus during his passion, though not uniformly so in Luke (Lk. 22.2;

23.27). .

1 Op. cit., p.58. 2 SSM, p.298.

5. The beginnings of the Mishnah. are traceable to Jamnia. So codification was in the air. Such we do find in Matthew throughout. His genealogy, for instance, is governed by the mystic fourteen. His ’’Abraham begat” (1.1) corresponds to ’’Moses received” of Mishnah Aboth 1.7 and ARN 1.1.

6. The mention of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and the wife of Uriah was possibly an attempt to answer some of the abuse hurled at the obscure

1

mother of Jesus and the doubt cast upon his legitimacy. Matthew is the only Gospel which mentions these women of whom two committed harlotry, one was a Moabitess and one, an adultress. Even David’s family tree was not free of taint. Yet for Matthew Mary is a virgin. He quotes from the LXX which uses TKfdzVOi to translate ^lmah (= young woman) at Is. 7.14. (This is evidence that he was Greek speaking). Matthew ' is perhaps answering the charges against Mary obliquely. If God can use Tamar etc. why not a pure woman even if obscure?

7. Consistent with Jamnian influence on Matthew is that his attacks 2

were chiefly mounted against the Pharisees. To Kilpatrick, they were the one important Jewish sect contemporary with Matthew. Mark reflects Jewish Palestine before the war of A.D. 66-70, while Matthew is more akin

to the Rabbinism of Jamnia. In Mark, Jesus is in contact with Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians and most of all the common people (Mk. 12.37c for instance: "the great throng heard him gladly" has no parallel in Matthew or Luke). In Matthew the Herods and the Herodians almost fade out as do the historical Sadducees. The Pharisees and the controversies with them come into the forefront and beside them even the common people take a second place.

1 Kilpatrick gives evidence of this, op. cit., p.113. 2 Op. cit., p.121.

3 See Kilpatrick, op, cit., p.106, from part of which this paragraph is a modification.

8. Another matter which possibly indicates contact between Matthew's 1

church and Jamnia is the way in which teaching was set out. At the fall of Jerusalem, R. Johanan ben Zakkai reformulated the three pillars of Judaism as follows: 1. Study and teaching Torah; 2. Prayer; 3. Performance of all the commandments.

Davies sees the triadic way: •

1. 5.17-18 2. 6.1-18 3. 6.19-7.12

teaching of Jesus set out in a roughly parallel,

Torah of Jesus True worship True Piety

though in substance this is closer to the pillars of Simeon the Just - 1

the law, the Temple service, deeds of loving kindness.

Matthew's section on worship is again triadic: almsgiving, prayer,- 2

fasting, all of which were emphasized at Jamnia.

It might seem from the foregoing that Matthew could not have been a Jew. He was too severe on his fellow Jews. It is at least possible however that his severity was intended in love. More in sorrow than in anger he saw his nation rejecting its Messiah and tried every means of warning them. In any case, most of his denunciations are aimed at the

3

leaders. Paul S. Minear sees the crowd in Matthew as filling a highly positive role as followers of Jesus, accepting his prophetic authority. An exception has, of course, to be made of the crowd at the Trial before

Pilate. Except to suggest that Matthew's analysis of the character of the Pharisees might require some inside information, our study of the Jamnian relationship does not throw any real light on his identity.

Matthew is writing for a persecuted church and so one might expect a statement about the judgement on the persecutors of God's people as .in so many of the Psalms, e.g. Pss. 59.9,10; 69.22,23; 109.6-20,28,29; 137.9;

1 SSM, p.305.

2 Loc. cit., p.3O7. •

3 "The Disciples and the Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew" ’•& Anglican Theological Review, Supp. Sec. 3 ('74) passim it

139.16; or as in Revelation 6.10. One does find threats as in 15.13,14; woes as in 23. passim, and one direful threat of final judgement in 23.33, but the warnings of final judgement for sins of omission, 25. passim, outweigh the passages 21.28-41, 23.33 which warn of final judgement for active persecution.

In 6.1-18 the chief, and in 23.1-32 one of the chief, sins is ostentation. One might suppose that this would incur final judgement but Matthew is too profound for that. He goes beneath the ostentation to the attitude and announced final judgement not on those who make a parade of their piety in the ways mentioned but on what underlies their self-glorification, namely their basic selfishness, their disregard for the needs of people.Matthew does record what seem to be final judgements

’’depart from me ..." 7.23; 25.12; "the door was shut" 25.10 - on what amounted to outward profession without real allegiance, but these

instances have not quite the same flavour as 6.1-18 and 23.1-32, because the emphasis in the former cases is on self-satisfaction and complacency.

The church to which Matthew belongs and for whom he writes has

evidently a set of church leaders roughly parallel to the leaders of the