^{page 85 note 1} The School of St Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (Philadelphia, [1954], 1868).Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 2} New Testament Apologetic (London, 1961).Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 3} All the citations from the Torah are in the Synoptics, there being none in the Gospel of John

^{page 86 note 1} Omission of αύτο⋯ in many MSS is apparently only a literary improvement. See Torrey, C. C., Documents of the Primitive Church (New York and London, 1941), p. 74.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 2} See Montefiore, C. G., The Synoptic Gospels (London, 1909), 1, 235.Google Scholar In fact, it was considered an imperative duty to divorce one's wife for certain unseemly acts. Cf. Midrash Rabbah (Naso, Num. ix. 12).

^{page 87 note 1} Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus ² (Cambridge, 1935), p. 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It must be maintained with Branscomb, B. H., The Gospel of Mark (The Moffatt New Testament Commentary) (New York and London, n.d.), p. 178, that Mark retains the original point of the discussion: the permissibility of divorce and not the grounds for divorce.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 2} Thus, e.g., Fitzmyer, J. A., Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London, 1971), p. 37.Google ScholarSee Waard, J. de, A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1966), p. 33, for list of scholars both opposed to and supporting the above position.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 3} A connection between the citation of Gen. i. 27 in CD and in the Gospel has been postulated because of their similar introductory phrases (‘the basic principle of creation’ in CD) and the appeal which goes beyond the immediate intention of the verse in Genesis, e.g. Fitzmyer, J. A., op. cit. p. 38Google Scholar, and Winter, P., ‘Sadogite Fragments IV 20, 21 and the exegesis of Genesis 1²⁷ in late Judaism’, Z.A.W. 68 (1956), 78Google Scholar; but a distinction in the application between the two is maintained by Bruce, F. F., Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1959), p. 29Google Scholar, and Lehmann, M. R., ‘Gen 2²⁴ as the basis for divorce in Halakhah and New Testament’, Z.A.W. 72 (1960), 266.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 4} Cf. Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 72 ff.Google Scholar, and Winter, P., op. cit. pp. 78 ff.Google Scholar; but see Lehmann, M. R., loc. cit.Google Scholar The inclusion or omission of the phrase και προσκολληθήσεταı πρ⋯ς τήν γυναικα άύτο⋯, omitted by some principal Marcan MSS, does not affect the argument in Mark, as suggested by Daube, but may reflect the discussion in rabbinic and/or gnostic circles about the original androgynous nature of man. Professor R. McL. Wilson has kindly corresponded with me about this and other points in the article.

^{page 87 note 5} Lehmann, M. R., op. cit. pp. 264 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Midrash Rabbah (Bereshith, Gen. xviii. 5).Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 6} Contra Lehmann, M. R., loc. cit.Google Scholar This seems to be a more valid reason for the conjunction of these citations than that offered by Daube, D., op. cit. p. 71, who maintains that a precept had to be added to an example in order to be used in serious, scholarly controversy with the rabbis.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 1} The original combination of these two commandments is disputed: Abrahams, S., Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (Cambridge, 1917), 1, 18Google Scholar, referring to the occurrence of the combination in Test. Dan. v. 3 and Test. Issachar v. 2, vii. 6, considers it probably ‘a common-place of Pharisaic teaching’, while Waard, J. de, op. cit. p. 35 n. 4Google Scholar, says the pre-Christian existence of this combination is not proved by these texts, as the hand of a Christian compiler can be seen in them.

^{page 88 note 2} Schultz, S., ‘Markus und das Alte Testament’, Z. Th. Kirche 58 (1961), 193Google Scholar, seems to go too far in thinking that for Mark this summary annuls all other laws of the Old Testament. As Anderson, H., ‘The Old Testament in Mark's Gospel’ in Efird, J. M., ed., The Use of the Old Testament in the New and other Essays (Durham, N.C., 1972), p. 301Google Scholar, indicates, there may be ‘implied a critique of and disregard for the letter of the Law and its manifold injunctions’. Funk, R. W., Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York, 1966), p. 222Google Scholar, more pertinently observes in connection with this passage that ‘Jesus attempted nothing less than to shatter the whole tradition that had obscured the law’.

^{page 88 note 3} For detailed analysis of this argument, see Thomas, K. J., ‘Liturgical citations in the Synoptics’, N.T.S. 22 (1975–1976), 205–14.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 4} Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition ³ (Oxford, 1963), p. 50Google Scholar, and Daube, D., op. cit. pp. 56 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 5} This uncharacterisfic setting of one quotation of scripture agaiast another is cited by Bultmann, R., op. cit. pp. 49 f., as a possible mark of an authentic saying of Jesus.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 6} See esp. Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel according to Saint Mark (The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary) (Cambridge, 1959), p. 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also conceded by Montefiore, C. G., op. cit. 1, 237.Google ScholarContra Anderson, H., op. cit. p. 304Google Scholar, who, following Rawlinson, considers Jesus' position a virtual abrogation of a Pentateuchal law.

^{page 89 note 1} See Thomas, K. J., loc. cit. ‘Do not defraud’ from Deut. xxiv. 14 LXX^AP is found in the Jewish catechetical tradition and is an appropriate addition to be addressed to a man of wealth. ‘Honour your father and mother’ and ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ are both important in the teaching of Jesus. But they have been added later to the four prohibitions, as is evident from the position of the fifth commandment after the prohibitions, instead of before as in the Decalogue, and the command to love one's neighbour being found only in Matthew.Google Scholar See Stendahl, K., op. cit. pp. 62 f.Google Scholar, and Branscomb, B. H., op. cit. p. 182.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 2} See Suhl, A., Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium (Gütersloh, 1965), p. 78.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 3} Bultmann, R., op. cit. p. 135Google Scholar; Knox, W. L., The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, 1957), 2, 20Google Scholar; and Barth, G., ‘Matthew's understanding of the Law’, in Bornkamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. J., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia, 1963), p. 94Google Scholar, consider the three prohibitions of vv. 21, 27 and 33 not to be abolished but surpassed or reinterpreted.

^{page 89 note 4} Cf. the assertion of Fuchs, E., Glaube und Erfahrung (Tübingen, 1965), pp. 242 f.Google Scholar, cited by Achtemeier, P. J., An Introduction to the New Hermeneutic (Philadelphia, 1969), pp. 135, 179Google Scholar, that the antitheses of Matt. v. 21 ff. are an example of Jesus' language functioning to disturb one's picture of the world and thus challenging one to see the world in a new way.

^{page 90 note 1} The omission of you twice in Matt. xv. 4a is a stylistic improvement on Mark. See Torrey, C. C., op. cit. p. 70.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 2} The pronoun αύτο⋯ is omitted twice to correlate with the first citation and the wording of the tradition in the following verse.

^{page 90 note 3} On the nature of this tradition see Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts³ (Oxford, 1967), p. 139Google Scholar, and Fitzmyer, J. A., op. cit. p. 97.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 4} Schneider, C., art. ‘κακολογέω’ in Kittel, G., ed., Theological Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1965), 3, 468.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 5} Branscomb, B. H., op. cit. p. 124.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 6} Ibid. Note the objection of C. G. Montefiore, op. cit. 1, 167, to the assumption that Jesus differed from contemporary rabbinic tradition, and the rebuttal by A. H. M'Neile, The Gospel according to St Matthew (London, 1915), p. 225.

^{page 91 note 1} Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St Mark (London, 1952), p. 340.Google ScholarBultmann, Both R., op. cit. p. 49Google Scholar, and Taylor, V., op. cit. p. 339, consider this scripture could have originally been used by Jesus in his own confrontation with the oral law.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 2} This corresponds to the general observations of K. Stendahl and B. Lindars with regard to mixed text citations. Cf. above, p. 85.

^{page 91 note 3} O'Rourke, J. J., ‘Explicit Old Testament citations in the Gospels’, Studia Montis Regii 7 (1964), 54 f.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 4} The word ε⋯γος is borrowed from Lev. v. 11^LXX, where the same sacrifice is prescribed for a sin offering by one who failed to witness to a matter known to him when publicly adjured to do so. See Holtz, T., Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (Texte and Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 104) (Berlin, 1868), p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 1} Gundry, R. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel (Leiden, 1967), p. 38.Google Scholar In abbreviating the passage, δο⋯ναı has been chosen in Matt. xix. 7 instead of γράψαı. Actually both actions are necessary to complete a divorce. See Swete, H. B., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1898), p. 203.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 2} Taylor, V., op. cit. p. 481Google Scholar, notes that Matthew recast the sentence in smoother form and Luke simplified it. O'Rourke, J. J., op. cit. p. 49Google Scholar, concludes that Mark and Luke are closer to the LXX than Matthew but that the Hebrew does not provide a basis for Matthew's version. Cf. Torrey, C. C., op. Cit. p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 3} Daube, D., op. cit. pp. 158–63.Google ScholarBultmann, R., op. cit. p. 26Google Scholar, asserts that the thoroughgoing rabbinic character of the passage betrays its origin in the theological discussions of the church, in which the Sadducees figure as opponents because it was traditional for them to deny the resurrection.

^{page 92 note 4} Branscomb, B. H., op. cit. p. 216.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 1} E.g., according to Midrash Rabbah (Shemoth, Exod. xlv. 5) Moses mistakes the voice of God for that of his father and thinks to himself, ‘My father has come from Egypt’.

^{page 93 note 2} Branscomb, B. H., op. cit. p. 218Google Scholar, and Lindars, B., op. cit. p. 273 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 3} Daube, D., op. cit. pp. 432 f.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 4} Anderson, H., op. cit. p. 300.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 5} Doeve, J. W., Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen, 1954), p. 106Google Scholar, points out that the synagogue also would not have used this text as evidence for the resurrection of the dead, since it indicates that the dead are already alive now, rather than that they will be resurrected in the future.

^{page 93 note 6} It is commonly recognized that the antithetical pattern was probably originally used by Jesus, but that several of the antitheses in Matt. v were structured by the Evangelist on the basis of genuine sayings of Jesus. There is no consensus, however, as to which of these were original with Weinel, Jesus. H., Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments² (Tübingen, 1913), p. 88Google Scholar, attributes only the first in vv. 21 f. definitely to Jesus but concedes the possibility of vv. 27 and 33 being authentic. Dobschütz, E. von, ‘Matthäus als Rabbi and Katechet’, Z.N.W. 27 (1928), 342Google Scholar, considers only the first two in vv. 21 f. and 27 f. original. Bultmann, R., op. cit. p. 136Google Scholar, followed by Barth, G., op. cit. p. 93Google Scholar, maintains that vv. 21 f., 27 f. and 33–7 are older formulations which gave rise to the other analogous formulations. Cf. Suggs, M. J., Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew's Gospel (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), p. IIICrossRefGoogle Scholar, who considers the whole series of antitheses to have been constructed by Matthew to provide suitable settings for the appended logia, since the sayings themselves do not require an antithetical form.

^{page 94 note 1} Cf. Barth, G., op. cit. p. 94.Google ScholarMontefiore, C. G., op. cit. II, 508Google Scholar, considers Mark x. 5 more likely to be historical than Matt. v. 31 f.

^{page 94 note 2} In one sense it could be said that to swear not at all would ensure that one would not swear falsely. But as Knox, W. L., op. cit. pp. 22 ff., has pointed out, the wording of vv. 33 ff.Google Scholar seems to indicate that the original source contained a condemnation of rabbinical casuistry along the lines of Matt. xxiii. 16 ff. and probably had no direct prohibition against swearing. Also significant is the observation of Knox that this antithesis does not include ‘whosoever’ as in the first two antitheses and in the Matt. xxiii. 16 ff. material.

^{page 94 note 3} Montefiore, C. G., op. cit. II, 513Google Scholar, and Barth, G., op. cit. p. 94Google Scholar, and Knox, W. L., op. cit. 11, 24Google Scholar, point out that the lex talionis was extended in rabbinic teaching to be the principle governing compensation in cases of insult.

^{page 94 note 4} Attempts have been made to find the origin of this statement in rabbinic tradition, e.g. Abrahams, I., op. cit. 1, 16Google Scholar, and in the Qumran writings, e.g. Schubert, K., ‘The Sermon on the Mount and the Qumran Texts’ in Stendahl, K., ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament (New York, 1957), p. 120Google Scholar, and Seitz, O. J. F., ‘Love your enemies’, N.T.S. 16 (1969–1970), 50.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 5} Knox, W. L., op. cit. II, 25Google Scholar; Schubert, K., op. cit. p. 121Google Scholar; Barth, G., loc. cit.Google Scholar; and Seitz, O. J. F., op. Cit. p. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 6} Significantly, the latter two are from Luke's Sermon on the Plain, which is parallel in many ways to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount.

^{page 95 note 1} Torrey, C. C., op. cit. p. 56Google Scholar; Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘Matthew iv. 4’, J.T.S. 45 (1944), 176Google Scholar; and Gundry, R. H., op. cit. p. 67.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 2} Gerhardsson, B., The Testing of God's Son (Lund, 1966), p. 61.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 3} Torrey, C. C., op. cit. pp. 56 f.Google Scholar; Johnson, S. E., ‘The biblical quotations in Matthew’, H.T.R. 36 (1943), 145Google Scholar; and Gundry, R. H., op. cit. p. 69.Google Scholar Gundry mistakenly lists προσκυνήσεıς as the reading in Pap. 963 and thus misunderstands S. E. Johnson's argument, i.e. the witness of Pap. 963 and LXX^A is divided, and thus they have not been totally assimilated to the New Testament and to each other.

^{page 95 note 4} Gerhardsson, B., op. cit. p. II.Google Scholar Cf. Bultmann, R., op. cit. p. 256.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 1} This method of citation is also used by other New Testament writers. See Ellis, E. E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1957), p. 46Google Scholar; Thomas, K. J., ‘The Old Testament citations in Hebrews’, N.T.S. 11 (1964–1965), 303 ff.Google Scholar; Lindars, B., op. cit. pp. 24 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 2} Conclusion reached by Suggs, M. J., op. cit. p. 119, following Käsemann.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 3} See, e.g., Funk, R. W., op. cit. p. 129.Google Scholar