Brill Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Dead Sea Discoveries

The Sectarian Form of the Antitheses within the Social World of the Matthean Community
Author(s): John Kampen

Source: Dead Sea Discoveries, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Nov., 1994), pp. 338-363
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4201486
Accessed: 09-01-2016 13:13 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Dead Sea Discoveries.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 138.73.1.36 on Sat, 09 Jan 2016 13:13:54 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE SECTARIAN FORM OF THE ANTITHESES
WITHIN THE SOCIAL WORLD OF
THE MATTHEAN COMMUNITY'
JOHN KAMPEN
Payne Theological Seminary, Wilberforce, Ohio
Many of the recent attempts to identify the social world of the

Matthean community have concentrated on its Jewish context.
Most studies have focused on the relationship of the Jesus move-
ment advanced in Matthew to those opponents within the gospel
text known as the Pharisees and scribes. While there is by no means
unanimity on the precise description of the characteristics and
membership of this group, the extent of the accord concerning com-
mon basic featuries is surprising. A good summary of some of these
points of agreement is to be found in the concluding comments of
Jack Dean Kingsbury in the volume which emerged out of the 1989
conference on the social history of the Matthean community.2
Included among these features are the following: (1) the Matthean
community was situated in an urban environment, perhaps in
Galilee or Syria, but not necessarily Antioch; (2) while encompass-
ing gentile converts the constituency of the Matthean community
was ethnically predominantly Jewish Christian; (3) the Matthean
community is best thought of as a sect within Judaism; (4) at the
time of writing the Matthean community was encountering severe
I An earlier draft of portions of this paper can be found in "A Reexamination

of the Relationship between Matt. 5:21-48 and the Dead Sea Scrolls," SBLSP 29
(1990) 34-59. Substantial portions of this article were written during the periods
in which I was a Senior Research Fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeology
in Jerusalem and a Visiting Scholar at the Graduate Theological Union in
Berkeley. I am thankful to both instituitions for their assistance. I also thank Dr.
Louis-Charles Harvey, President of Payne Theological Seminary, for his support
of my sabbatical leave which made this article possible.
2 J.D. Kingsbury, "Condusion: Analysis of a Conversation," SocialHistoryof
theMattheanCommunity:Cross-Disciplinary Approaches(ed. D. L. Balch; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1991) 259-69, see pp. 264-65 for this summary of condusions. I excerp-
ted from Kingsbury's list only those features of particular importance for the sub-
ject of this paper. Note that Kingsbury, a literary critic, was identifying points of
an apparent consensus among these presentations on social history and we should
not necessarily assume his personal acceptance of these points.
? E.J. Brill, Leiden Dead Sea Discoveries 1, 3 (1994)
THE SECTARIAN FORM OF THE ANTITHESES 339
opposition from Pharisaic, or formative, Judaism; and (5) at the

center of the quarrel with Pharisaic Judaism was the interpretation
and practice of the Jewish law. I list these points for the sake of
brevity and convenience. An extensive literature could be cited
documenting the manner in which persons who have investigated
this gospel with the various methodologies of the social sciences
have argued for each of these points.
We must recognize that a number of these points contradict
assumptions and hypotheses widely accepted in Matthean scholar-
ship. They are a departure from certain trends which tended to
emphasize the gospel's gentile character, a viewpoint which con-
tinues to have its proponents.3 The Antiochan location of the Mat-
thean community was, and still is, widely accepted, though never
in a unanimous manner.' This means, of course, that we must
acknowledge the tentative nature of these new conclusions before
proceeding. This study, however, accepting for the most part these
five conclusions concerning the social history of the Matthean com-
munity, proposes a hypothesis to advance our understanding of the
sectarian identity of the Matthean community and the nature of its
relationships with other groups in the Jewish community of which
it was a part. Based on an analysis of the form of the antitheses, one
literary unit which reflects elements of the conflict in which the
writer was engaged, this study suggests that they were formulated
in opposition to elements within the local Jewish community who
were influenced by literature we find represented in the remains of
the scrolls from Qumran.
3 J.P. Meier, "Matthew: Gospel of," ABD 4.622-41, see pp. 625-26 for a list
of studies arguing that the final redactor of the gospel was a gentile. Note also the
arguments of MJ. Cook, "Interpreting 'Pro-Jewish' Passages in Matthew,"
HUCA 54 (1983) 135-46.
4
The composition of the book of Matthew is most commonly ascribed to
Antioch: J.P. Meier, Law andHistoryin Matthew's Gospel:A Redactional Studyof Mt.
5:17-48 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976) 8-9; idem, The Visionof Matthew:
Christ,ChurchandMoralityin theFirstGospel(New York: Paulist, 1978) 12-15; J.D.
Kingsbury, Matthew(Proclamation Commentaries; Philadelphia: Fortress, 19862)
96-107; idem, Matthewas Story(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 120-33. The various
proposals are collected by W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., TheGospelAccord-
ing to SaintMatthew(ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988) 1.138-47. Note the sum-
mary of various proposals by A.J. Saldarini, "The Gospel of Matthew and
Jewish-Christian Conflict in Galilee," TheGalikein LateAntiquity(ed. L.I. Levine;
New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992) 23-38, see pp. 26-27.
340 JOHN KAMPEN
Form Criticism and Sociology

One of the methodologies of NT studies which earlier in this cen-
tury attempted to answer sociological questions was form criticism.
As is well-known, one of the major objectives in the founding of the
discipline was to provide a vehicle for establishing the Sitz-im-Leben
of a text. This purpose is stated clearly by Rudolf Bultmann in the
introduction to the volume which became the definitive work in the
field:
The proper understanding of form-criticism rests upon the judge-
ment that the literature in which the life of a given community, even
the primitive Christian community, has taken shape, springs out of
quite definite conditions and wants of life from which grows up a
quite definite style and quite specific forms and categories.... The
Sitz-im-Lebenis not, however, an individual historical event, but a
typical situation or occupation in the life of a community. In the same
way, the literary 'category', or 'form' through which a particular
item is classified is a sociological concept and not an aesthetic one,
however much it may be possible by its subsequent development to
use such forms as aesthetic media in some particular literary
product.5
The connection between form criticism and sociological analysis
has continued to be noted.6
In his appraisal of sociological approaches to the NT, Bengt
Holmberg notes that the introduction of sociology into NT studies
via form criticism was never fulfilled, i.e., completed.' Due in part
to the theological tenor of the times the exclusive focus of the form
critics became the growth of the texts in the Christian community.
As observed by Theissen in his survey of the history of sociological
exegesis:
Yet here too the sociological impulses were neutralized. The require-
ments of the early congregations molded the New Testament texts:
s Rudolf Bultmann, Historyof the SynopticTradition(trans. J. Marsh; Oxford:

Blackwell, 1972) 4.
6 S. Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical
Investigations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 6; V.K. Robbins, "Form Criticism
(NT)," ABD 2.841-44, see pp. 843-44; G. Theissen, Social Reality and the Early
Christians: Theologv, Ethics, and the Worldof the New Testament(trans. M. Kohl; Min-
neapolis: Fortress, 1992) 33-34.
7
B. Holmberg, Sociologyand the New Testament:An Appraisal (Minneapolis: For-
tress, 1990) 1.
that was the postulate. But of all these many congregational require-
ments, only the religious ones were perceived; and the only part of
the social context to which scholars paid any attention was congrega-
tional life.8
Form criticism failed to live up to its own promises. In their study
of christological titles in Matthew, Malina and Neyrey point out
that their work differs from form criticism precisely at this point.
While form critics postulated that the development of these titles is
to be explained in terms of church liturgy and preaching, social
science models presume that these appellations were applied in the
crucible of conflict between acclaimers and accusers.9 The narrow
horizons of the life situations identified by the form critics failed to
provide the basis for a more complete exposition of the social set-
ting(s) of the compositions found in the NT, thereby hindering the
exploration of many facets of the social history of nascent Chris-
tianity.
Quite early in the study of the documents attributed to the caves
from Qumran, scholars made connections with some of the ter-
minology found in the Sermon on the Mount. Works such as those
of Krister Stendahl and Kurt Schubert pointed to elements in
ideology and terminology shared by the gospel of Matthew and
various works among the Qumran scrolls.10 While many others
should be cited, the most important work concerning the Sermon
was the classic 1964 study of W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon
on the Mount. Davies suggested that parts of Matthew 5 originally
must have arisen out of a confrontation between Jesus and the
Essenes." Included in this material "with an Essene undertone"
were Matt. 5:13-15, 22b, 34, 43ff., 48 and 19:21. He proposes that:
"The Sermon reveals an awareness of the sect and perhaps a
polemic against it. " 12 But the study by Davies was primarily a form
a Theissen, SocialRealityand the Early Christians,9.

9 B.J. Malina and J. H. Neyrey, CallingJesus Names: The Social Valueof Labels
in Matthew(Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1988) 137.
10 K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew:And its use of the Old Testament
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968 [orig. 19541)and K. Schubert, "The Sermon on the
Mount and the Qumran Texts," TheScrollsandtheNew Testament (ed. K. Stendahl;
New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957) 118-28.
11 W.D. Davies, 7he &tting of the Sermonon the Mount (London: Cambridge
University Press, 1964) 252. Important for the purposes of this paper is the fact
that he included vv. 22b, 34, 43ff. and 48 in his listing of these texts.
12 Davies, Setting,235.
342 JOHN KAMPEN
critical study, an attempt to isolate short passages, usually no more

than one clause in length, and to locate their Sitz-im-Leben:
What originally arose out of a confrontation of Jesus and the Essenes

serves in Matthew the purposes of a confrontation of Church and
Synagogue, and is designed... to clarify the relationships between the
Gospel and Pharisaic Judaism.'3
He saw only scattered pieces of evidence which indicated an

awareness of Qumran thought and he attributed what he found to
some pre-Matthean phase of composition. His reliance on the
methodology of the earlier form critics limited his analysis to the
isolation of phrases for which he identified literary connections.
In his recent description of "Form Criticism" in the new Anchor
Bible Dictionary, Vernon Robbins points out that rhetorical criticism
has its roots in this discipline.'4 Within rhetorical criticism we find
a move to the analysis of blocks or units of material rather than
individual instances of literary figures or tropes. Scholars of this
endeavor have selected larger literary units for analysis which
exhibit recognizable patterns of argumentation.'5 While those per-
sons involved in the development of rhetorical criticism have con-
centrated their work on the identification in New Testament texts
of rhetorical patterns found in classical Greek sources,'6 the atten-
tion that they have paid to recognizable patterns of argumentation
in larger blocks of texts provides in part the rationale for this study.
While the move from rhetorical analysis to social setting is dis-
cussed, Burton Mack in his introduction to the methodology claims
that this has not yet become a dominant feature of scholarship in
this field.'7 Significant for this study is the inclusion of the question
of social setting as one of the four features of rhetorical criticism
mentioned in Mack's introduction.
13 Davies, Setting,252.
14 Robbins, ABD 2.841-44.
15 B.L. Mack, Rhetoricand theNew Testament(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 21.
16 B.L. Mack and V.K. Robbins, Patternsof Persuasionin the Gospels(Sonoma:
Polebridge, 1989). Note the bibliography in Mack, RhetoricandtheNew Testament,
103-10. Note also B. Fiore, "NT Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism," ABD
5.715-19.
"I Mack, Rhetoricand theNew Testament,24.
RhetoricalAnalysis of the Antitheses

In this paper the rhetorical unit to be analyzed is comprised of
the antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. 5:21-48. Matt.
5:20 is often called the "heading" of the antitheses. The major
point of that verse is to emphasize the "greater righteousness"
which is seen to be related to the question of Jesus and the law in
vv. 17-19. As noted by David Daube, Matt. 5:21-48 proclaims a
general principle in v. 20 which is then illustrated by six examples
(or cases), the antitheses. 18 Each of these cases, in turn, is made up
of two sections. In the antitheses the writer presents a legal formula-
tion rejected by Jesus followed by his statement of an alternative
principle. The author then provides examples-more accurately
called focal instances'9-for each case, except for the issue of
divorce in vv. 31-32, to illustrate the point of the saying.20 Now the
form of the general statement encompassing the initial legal for-
mulation and Jesus' response to it is the same in all six instances,
even though it is frequently abbreviated. In its shortest version it
appears in vv. 31-32 concerning divorce, while only vv. 21-22 con-
cerning killing and anger and vv. 33-36 concerning the swearing of
oaths contain the full text. W.D. Davies is probably correct when
he suggests that the full text in v. 33 which begins with aXLtV
("again") breaks the unit into two triads.2" In this study I will
examine the form in which the six examples are presented,
evaluating its significance for understanding the social history of
the Matthean community.
Commentators who looked to rabbinic materials for an explana-
tion of this form found in these verses an outline of the "M YMV
(literally, "I might hear" or "I might understand") syllogism, the
purpose of which was to correct what the rabbis considered to be
an incorrect inference from a verse.22 David Daube points out that
this syllogism is most frequently related to a literal, narrow under-
standing of the biblical statement and suggests that the use of the
Is David Daube, The New Testamentand Rabbinic Judaism (London: Ath]one

Press, 1956) 63-66.
'9 Robert C. Tannehill, The Sword of His Mouth (Philadelphia: For-
tress/Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975) 67-77.
20 See Perry Yoder, From Wordto Life: A Guideto theArt of Bible Study (Scottdale:
Herald, 1982) 66-67, 72-73, for the use of this structure for the antitheses.
21
Davies and Allison, Saint Matthew, 1.504.
22
Daube, New Testament,55-62.
344 JOHN KAMPEN
term Y?:V("to hear") is related to Tpxouax'o("you have heard") in

the antitheses. Solomon Schechter had earlier argued a similar
case.23 Schechter claimed that the talmudic formula "originally
[had] something to do with" these verse in Matthew. Wilhelm
Bacher already rejected any connection between nxoUaasxin Matt.
5:21-48 and 3flt' in rabbinic literature.24 In response to Schechter,
Montefiore argued that the formula fits only the two verses
Schechter had mentioned, i.e., vv. 21 and 27, and is not suitable
for or rather awkward with the other four.25 Daube did note that
Matthew had altered the rabbinic form to suit his own purposes.26
It is not immediately apparent how Matthew could have derived
the form of the antitheses, "You have heard that it was said" from
the formal 3flV type of argumentation. The Matthean form does
not very easily fit into a rabbinic framework, thereby raising one
possible objection to a hypothesis that would ascribe the origin of
these sayings to that provenance.27 It will be shown below that the
rabbinic formulation does not provide an adequate explanation for
the use of either the word 'pp'07 ("it was said")281T&
or the phrase
1
'XE'yc iZv ("but I say to you").29 Missing from the analysis of
all these commentators is some explanation for the fact that
23 Solomon Schechter, "The Rabbinic Conception of Holiness," JQR 10

(1898) 11, n. 3: "I suspect that the expression in the N.T., 'You have heard,' had
originally something to do with the Talmudic formula, Yfltr 5-n... 137 kt5
or t"n.. t:." This is also found in Aspects of Rabbinic Theology:Major
Conceptsof the Talmud (New York: Schocken, 1961[orig. 1909]), 214, n. 1. See also
"Some Rabbinic Parallels to the New Testament," JQR 12 (1900) 427.
24 W. Bacher, Die adtesteTerminologiederJaidischenSchriftauslegung(Leipzig: J .C.
Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1899) 190, n. 3.
25 C .G . Montefiore, The SynopticGospels:Edited with an Introductionand a Commen-
tary (2nd ed.; 2 vols; New York: Ktav, 1968 [orig. 1927]) 2.56. Basically
Montefiore finds it unbelievable that a first-centuryJew could have refuted or con-
tradicted the Torah.
26 Daube, New Testament, 58.
27 See Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:506. In his work on
Matt. 5:33-37, D.
Duling briefly surveys the options regarding the form of the antitheses: "One may
therefore conclude that the form has some general approximations to Jewish,
especially rabbinic, sayings but in the narrowest sense it is formally distinctive"
("Against Oaths: Crossan SayingsParallel 59," Forum6 [19901 99-138, see pp. 102-
103, italics are his). There is no evidence that he or any of the works he cites con-
sidered any Jewish forms other than those presented by the Rabbis. U. Luz
reaches a conclusion similar to Duling (Matthew 1-7: A Commentary[trans. W.C.
Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 19891 276).
28 See pp. 351-53 below.
29
See pp. 356-57 below.
pxou6aotin Matthew is in the plural whereas the rabbinic M flU'

syllogism is in the singular, not to mention the difference in per-
sons. Any theory concerning the structure of the antitheses must
come to terms with these differences.30 Some attention to the unit
as a whole helps place this material in a different perspective. An
examination of the literary context for this unit suggests an alter-
nate explanation.
While 5:20 serves to introduce the main theme of the material
which follows, it also functions as one side of a bracket around the
antitheses, with the conclusion in v. 48, which speaks of being per-
fect, providing the other.3' The cases cited in vv. 21-47 are to be
viewed as examples of both righteousness and perfection. Now
these are all Matthean issues: perfection, righteousness and the
law. While these terms are not unique to Matthew in the NT, it
justifiably can be argued that their meaning and significance are
distinctive within that corpus.
In his study of the social world of the Matthean community, J.
Andrew Overman argues that 6LXaLOaUoV7is a term selected to
designate "the proper behavior and disposition of the members of
his community, in contrast to those with whom the community con-
tends."'32 Overman emphasizes the importance of this term for
understanding the expected behavior of the members of that com-
munity. Alan Segal also notes that this term is a distinctively Mat-
thean word.33 While in his study of BtxcxtoaiVn in Matthew Benno
Similarly unconvincing is the attempt to fit what he considers to be issues of

halakah into the hellenistic genre of the epitome by H.D. Betz, "Sermon on the
Mount/Plain," ABD 5.1106-12, see pp. 1107-08. He regards the Sermon on the
Mount as an independent Jewish Christian composition from the middle of the
first century CE in conflict with both Pharisaic Judaism and Gentile Christianity,
but which does not reflect the viewpoint of the author of this gospel, whose
perspective is to be seen in Matt. 28:18-20. See his Essays on theSermonon theMount
(trans. L.L. Welborn; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 19-22. For a critique of his
perspective see G.N. Stanton, "The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Sermon
on the Mount, " Traditionand Interpretationin the New Testasment: Essays in Honor of
E. Earle Ellis for his 60th Birthday (eds. G.F. Hawthorne and 0. Betz; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans/Tuibingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987) 181-92. Note Daube's rejec-
tion of the possibility of Greek antecedents, New Testament, 66.
31 B. Przybylski, Righteousnessin Matthew and his world of thought(SNTSMS 41;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980) 85-87.
32 J.A. Overman, Matthew's Gospeland FormativeJudaism: The Social Worldof the
Matthean Community(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 93-94.
"3 A.F. Segal, "Matthew's Jewish Voice," Social History of the Matthean Com-
munity. Cross-disciplinaryApproaches(ed. D. L. Balch; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991)
346 JOHN KAMPEN
Przybylski did not find it to be the central term for the gospel's self-
understanding of what it means to be a follower of Jesus, he did
discover a very particular and important role for it.34 Its function
is polemical, appearing in contexts where Jesus is in debate with
Jews other than those who are his followers. It is a term which pro-
vides a point of contact with these other Jewish groups. Not
insignificant for the present subject is the emphasis on a polemical
context. A number of studies have argued for the essential role of
the term M'j71S ("righteousness") in the self-understanding of the
literature from the Qumran sect.35 This is true particularly for the
legal literature such as the Temple Scroll ( l1QT), Jubilees, the
Zadokite Documents (CD) and the Community Rule (1QS). The
use of the term DIn ("perfection") in phrases such as r*j:?^'Inn
("the perfect of the way") is so common in this same literature that
it requires no further justification.36 Torah is essential to all of it.
It would be no surprise to find in literature attributed to the sec-
taries at Qumran some legal materials within an inclusio bracketed
by i and rntzn.
Such a possibility provides the justification, not only for analyz-
ing these verses as a literary unit, but also for the hypothesis that
the antitheses are a block of material which finds explanation as a
response to viewpoints expressed and considered important in
Essene literature. Support for this hypothesis can be found by
examining two aspects of the relevant text, its form and its content.
This paper is confined to the question of form.37
While our sources documenting the relationship between the
various Jewish groups of the late second temple period are rather
3-37, see p. 21 concerning 8Lxoocr6VTI. See also Stanton, Traditionand Interpretation,

185.
34 Przybylski, Righteousness,105-23. Both studies, of
course, take issue with any
effort to "Paulinize" Matthew by arguing that BtXlOa6VV1 in some way designates
a gift from God.
35 D. Hill, "Dikaioi as a Quasi-Technical Term," NTS 9 (1964-65) 296-302;
J.M. Baumgarten, "The Heavenly Tribunal and the Personification of Sedeq in
Jewish Apocalyptic," ANR W II. 219-39.
36 The centrality of M'Mn(= E'XELO) in the Qumran literature is noted
by
Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1.561-62.
37 Some attention to the content of these statements can be found in my paper
in SBLSP 29 (1990) 34-59 and "The Matthean Divorce Texts Reexamined," New
QumranTextsand Studies: Proceedingsof theFirst Meetingof the InternationalOrganization
for QumranStudies(ed. G. Brooke with F. Garcia Martinez; STDJ 15; Leiden: E.J.
Brill) 149-67.
limited, we do find in what is available to us some evidence of the

disputes between the various Jewish "sects."38 Both sides of a
dispute are noted in m. Mak. 1:6, where the disagreement concerns
whether false witnesses in capital crimes are put to death only after
the execution:.
False witnesses are executed only after the verdict is complete. For
the Zadokites say, "Until he (i.e. the convicted) has been killed, as
it is said, 'Life for life' (Deut 19:21)." The Sages said to them, "Has
it not already been said, 'Then you will do to him as he determined
to do to his brother' (Deut 19:19). Then his brother is still alive...."
The positions of both the Zadokites and the Sages in this legal
dispute are introduced through the use of the plural verb and the
reply of the Sages is addressed to their opponents using the plural
pronoun.39 In the well-known account of the origin of the sects in
'Abot R. Nat. A, 5, the opinion of the Zadokites is transmitted via
a direct quotation and introducted with the plural verb :DnIN
("they say").40 The point may appear obvious, but for our pur-
poses it is important: when the positions of competing groups are
presented in a dialogical or polemical format, it is natural to use
plural nouns and verbs. In both instances the dispute involves the
Zadokites, a Hebrew term frequently translated Sadduces. Note
that the position of the Zadokites emphasizing a literal under-
standing of "life for life" coincides with the use of that phrase in
1 1QT and Jubilees.41
Of particular importance with regard to the Matthean texts is the
evidence from Mishnah Yadaim. The well-known texts from
Yadaim record some of the areas of dispute between the M"trlmD
("Pharisees") and the WnpM'("Zadokites" or "Sadducees"):
3B For a discussion of this term see pp. 358-59 below.

39 E. Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978) 138-39, has
noted the manner in which this and other disputes center on the question of law
or halakah.
40 This translation is from J. Goldin, The FathersAccordingto Rabbi Nathan (New
York: Schocken, 1974 [original,. 1955]) 39:

So they arose and withdrew from the Torah and split into two sects, the Sad-
ducees and the Boethusians: Sadducees named after Zadok, Boethusians
after Boethus. And they used silver vessels and gold vessels all their lives-
not because they were ostentatious; but the Sadducees said, "It is a tradition
amongst the Pharisees to afflict themselves in this world; yet in the world to
come they will have nothing."
41 11QT 61:11-12; Jub. 4:31-32 (cf. 21:19-20).
348 JOHN KAMPEN
"The Zadokites say, 'We denounce you, Pharisees, for you say,
"The Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean, but the writings
of Homer do not render the hands unclean".'.'42 Note the plural
form of the direct speech which characterizes this polemical interac-
tion between these two groups. Of particular interest is the second
person plural phrase, "for you say. " In this vivid portrayal of the
differences between the two groups the Zadokites charge the
Pharisees using the words, "for you say," with "you" in the
plural.43 Noteworthy is the polemical nature of this form-the
accusation as a quotation from direct address to characterize the
stance of the opponent. indicates its disputatious nature. What we
have here is not a sophisticated mode of argumentation rooted in
a specific set of exegetical principles peculiar to a particular scribal
group in second temple Judaism, such as for example a proto-
rabbinic movement, but rather a style of vigorous argumentation
frequentlybased on volume and popularappeal ratherthan logic.44
The following mishnah concerning j1712("an unbroken flow of
liquid") is of the same nature.45 Even when in m. Yad. 4:8 the
opinion is that of a Galilean heretic,46 an individual, the quotations
are still in the plural. When the Pharisees reply to his charges they
42 M. Yad. 4:6. On these texts, see E. Rivkin, "Defining the Pharisees: The
Tannaitic Sources," HUCA 40-41 (1969-70) 205-49; idem, Hidden Revolution, 131-
36; A.J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribesand Sadduceesin Palestinian Society:A Sociological
Approach(Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988) 231-34. Note also J. Lightstone,
"Sadducees versus Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources," Christianity,Judaism and
OtherGreco-RomanCults: Studiesfor Morton Smith at Sixty (ed. J. Neusner; Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1975) 3.206-17. While there may be some validity to his critique of
Rivkin found on p. 216, where Lightstone argues that there is no general rubric
under which these dispute texts can be organized, it is important to note that his
interest is in an evaluation of the pre-70 disputes. If we assume that these disputes
are representative of viewpoints held in the post-70 era, the interest of this paper,
he would probably come to a different conclusion. On p. 215, for example, he
notes "that they [these dispute passages] take as their starting point differences in
specific legal opinions." For the purposes of this paper this is an important obser-
vation.
43 I have omitted, because it is irrelevant to the point being made, a discussion
of the fact that these Zadokite charges are found in a document which is assumed
to be Pharisaic.
' This means examples of
IT'ci X -ir ("but I say") from rabbinic literature
cited by Morton Smith (Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels [JBLMS 7; Philadelphia:
SBL, 1951] 28-29) are not significant for developing an understanding of the Mat-
thean text and may simply be an example of "parallelomania."
45 See the discussion of this mishnah on p. 351.
46 Some later versions read Iprt rather than l': ("heretic").
say, "We denounce you, Galilean heretic, foryou (plural) write(the

name of) the ruler along with the Divine name on the same
page...." The similarity in the construction of these nl7w= does
suggest that there was a set literary form employed by their author.
I, of course, am not arguing that the word YtZtV never appears in
the plural in rabbinic literature. The theoretical question which is
being addressed, however, is whether the Matthean statements are
related to a talmudic syllogism. The instances of -the use of this term
in the plural cited by Strack-Billerbeck such as M. 'Ed. 7,47 for
example, are not relevant to this argument since they are not part
of a formal rabbinic syllogism but are rather found in simple
declarative sentences. One must also note that the instances cited
are written in the third person (11Y') rather than in the second.48
What we have found is evidence for the use of certain literary form
employed for the purposes of describing the positions of two groups
in disagreement over some matter considered important by them.
What is the relationship of this form to those documents whose
origin is traced back to the caves on the- shore of the Dead Sea?
A relationship between the positions held by the W'pTrdescribed
in the texts just discussed and the jvlTI":n as one of the names used
with reference to the sect described in the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls
has been posited.49 There is a good basis for understanding some
references to the 0'jvlwt1in talmudic literature as indicators of the
same ideology which characterized a certain sectarian viewpoint we
have identified with the archeological and literary remains
attributed to the Qumran site. 4QMMT (711nn 't:p: M-M "cA
Portion of the Works of the Torah") also contains forms similar to
those already discussed and may turn out to be its best exemplar.50
17 Str-B 1.253. By explaining in their headings for these sections that 7xpoU'Cr(re
really means "ihr habt als Tradition empfangen" and LppEOrn "es ist als Tradition
gelehrt worden," these commentators make the examples appear much closer to
the Rabbinic tradition than the text of Matthew itself necessarily warrants.
48 It is interesting to note that W3713r,
the second person plural form, appears
only three times in the entire Talmud: b. Yebarn. 16a, b. B. Bat. lOb, b. Qidd.
61b.
49 Ben Zion Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torahand the Teacher
of Righteousness(Cincinnati: HUC Press, 1983) 115-16, 135-40.
50 On 4QMMT see E. Qimron andJ. Strugnell, "An Unpublished Halakhic
Letter from Qumran," The Israel Museum Journal 4 (1985) 9-12; idem, "An
Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran," Biblical ArchaeologyToday (ed. Janet
Amitai; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities in cooperation with ASOR, 1985) 400-407; L.H. Schiffman, "The
350 JOHN KAMPEN
It is a long letter of which we have fragments of 12 columns, written

by a sectarian leader, perhaps the Teacher of Righteousness,
itemizing numerous points of difference in legal matters between
the sect and the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem.
In the 1984Jerusalem Congress on Biblical Archaeology Moshe
Weinfeld, responding to the description of this text by Elisha
Qimron and John Strugnell, already made mention of the
similarity of the formula in 4QMMT 'm:nn l ml1, '3v ("con-
cerning this subject we say") to the antitheses' nIxo6craz'
("you have
heard") ..' '
X'Tw ("but I say").51 He suggests that this is
probably a manner of polemical exchange. Qimron and Strugnell
note that the letter is characterized throughout by the use of
polemical formulae such as wnvin unre \4lM Wn30 and Dnf
D"lYI.52 We observe again the use of the second person plural,
presumably to point out opinions or observations concerning the
group which are in opposition to the views presented in the docu-
ment. Lawrence Schiffman notes the manner in which the second
person singular in the introductory section changes to the second
person plural in the section concerning legal disputes.53 Since the
group whose viewpoint is represented in the manuscript t="
("separated") from the majority of the Jewish people, we have here
a first hand account of sectarian identity.
New Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Sect," BA 53
(1990) 64-73; idem, "Misqsat Ma'aseh Ha-Torah and the Temple Scroll," RevQ 14
(1989-90) 435-57; Z.J. Kapera, ed., Qumran Cave IV and MMT. A Special Report
(Krakow: Enigma, 1991); Bruno W.W. Dombrowski, An Annotated Translation of
Miqsit Macasih ha-Tora (4QMMT) (Weenzen: privately published, 1992); E.
Qimron, "Miqsat Ma'ase Hatorah," ABD 4.843-45.
5' Biblical ArchaeologyToday (ed. Janet Amitai; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society/Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities in cooperation with ASOR,
1985) 430. This is also mentioned by G.M. Stanton, A Gospelfor A New People:
Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992) 93.
DtT)'i (you knew)
52 Biblical ArchaeologyToday, p. 402. Note that the use of l'DYrf'
in 'Abot R. Nat. B is similar to the last of these formulae (see Schechter,

7ru 'inrmx 13b or Wacholder, Dawn of Qumran, p. 265, n. 12 for text).
53 Schiffman, "The New Halakhic Letter;" note also the description by
Qimron, ABD 4.844. He notes that the second person plural (listed as sometimes
singular), may be the leader of Israel, being compared to David, and the third per-
son plural is a group about whom they talk, where the reference is to some specific
halakic practice, such as those identified with the Pharisees. A connection between
the polemical tone of "we say" in 4QMMT and the same phrase in m. Yad. 4:7
is noted by J. M. Baumgarten, "Recent Qumran Discoveries and Halakah in the
Hellenistic-Roman Period,'"Jewish Civilization in theHellenistic-Ronan Period(ed. S.
Talmon; JSPSup 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 147-58, see p. 151.
Evidence of the relationship between 4QMMT and mishnaic

citations of disputes between the Sadducees and the Pharisees can
be found in m. Yad. 4:7, which I skipped over briefly above. J.T.
Milik had already in his discussion of the Copper Scroll quoted a
line from 4QMMT which reads, "and concerning flowing liquids
we say, 'they have no purity in them'."54 This same subject with
almost identical wording appears in m. Yad. 4:7.55 Note in the
works of Baumgarten, Schiffman and Wacholder just cited sugges-
tions concerning other topics covered in both literatures.
It is within the context of these inter-sectarian debates of first
century Judaism that the form of the antitheses finds its setting.56
Let us continue the argument by examining one of the references
where the formula is given in full, Matt. 5:21-22. The first term,
1xo)ao'rF("you have heard"), is in the second person plural. I
would suggest that this plural form refutes any consideration that
these verses find their basis in the ':M YltY' syllogism and raises
grave doubts about any hypothesis involving a classic rabbinic form
as its predecessor. This is apart from any consideration of the prob-
lematic issues regarding the dating of these literatures. When Mat-
thew places the word 4xo6'aate.in the mouth of Jesus he rather
means, "You, as members of my group, as the adherents of my
particular Jewish sect, have heard that...." This context of inter-
sectarian debate follows from the second person plural form utilized
in the opening term.
The next term in this formulaic expression is rppe'i ("it was
said"). Robert Guelich and Robert Gundry interpret the passive
form of this verb as representing the voice of God which here is
speaking through the Hebrew Scriptures.57 While Gundry men-
DJD 3.225, as translated in Wacholder, Dawn of Qumran, 165.

5 Note also J . M. Baumgarten, "The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies
about Purity and the Qumran Texts," JJS 31 (1980) 157-70; Wacholder, Dawn
of Qumran, 164-67; H.W. Basser, "The Rabbinic Citations in Wacholder's Dawn
of Qumran," RevQ 11 (1982-84) 549-60, see pp. 557-59; L.H. Schiffman, "The
Temple Scroll and the Systems of Jewish Law of the Second Temple Period,"
TempleScrollStudies(ed. G.J. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 239-
55, see pp. 250-51; J.M. Baumgarten, "Recent Qumran Discoveries," 151; E.
Qimron, ABD 4.844.
56 This is the setting in which the Sermon is placed as well by H.D. Betz, Essays
on the Sermon, 92. Betz is also aware of and notes its polemical setting.
5' R.A. Guelich, The Sermonon the Mount (Waco: Word, 1982) 180-81; R.H.
Gundry, Matthew: A Commentaryon His Literaryand T7heological Art (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1982) 83. Note also Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1.507; Luz, Matthew
352 JOHN KAMPEN
tions the frequency with which EXpcis used in Matthew and cites
examples of its use in the citation of texts from the Hebrew Scrip-
tures, he fails to note that the particular form used consistently in
the antitheses, EppEOn, is unique to this section in Matthew.58The
evidence for the hypothesis that he is using the formula to cite
passages from the Hebrew Scriptures is lacking, particularly in
view of the fact that all of the citations do not appear in any known
versions of the sacred texts. It is, on the other hand, conceivable
that the author is attempting to make the text read as though it is
appealing to the voice of God. While some texts attributed to God
at Qumran prefer the passive fl,: ("it is written") to -InR;v ("it
was said"), there is no doubt that regularly attention is called to
God via the passive voice. 59 Terminology meant to make the reader
think of the voice of God is employed, however the actual content
of what is heard is not limited to the words found in the Hebrew
Scriptures. How could a writer employ such a peculiar notion? It
is not without precedent.
The blending of the voice of God with certain sectarian claims
and stipulations can already be found in I 1QT, and even in the
Book ofJubilees. When W.D. Davies chooses to follow Guelich and
Gundry by arguing that "Matthew is concerned with the Torah,
not with tradition, 60 he is arguing against a rabbinic mode of
interpretation which always maintained a firm distinction between
the word and its interpretation. But the two alternatives presup-
posed by Davies, Gundry and Guelich are not the only ones
available. In 11QT, where major legislative innovations are put in
the mouth of God and delivered to Moses "on this mount," that
distinction is blurred and not valid.6' Sectarian legislation is from
God. Thus "what was said" does not have to be canonical in the
1-7, 278. This is rejected by D.R.A. Hare, Matthew (Interpretation; Louisville:

John Knox, 1993) 50. See also Jack Dean Kingsbury, "The Place, Structure and
Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount Within Matthew," Int 41 (1981) 131-41.
On p. 139 he suggests the thrust of this passage is that Matthew is pitting the
authority of Jesus against that of Moses. This seems good but its implications
require further development.
58 The most common form used elsewhere in the Gospel is pOkv ("that which
was spoken"), the participle.
-1 For the use of the term in Qumran literature see J.A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the
SemiticBackgroundof thzeNew Testament(London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971) 10-12.
60
Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1.51.
61
Wacholder, Dawn of Qumran, 1-32.
same manner as the Christian and Jewish traditions have inter-

preted that term.62
In both vv. 21 and 33, passages which introduce the two major
sections of this literary unit and hence give the fullest form of the
mode of argumentation, the next term requiring attention is
&pxoLoLSwhich I will leave untranslated for the moment. While
some commentators note its use in the classical Greek sources,63
Gerhard Barth, along with many others, sees this as an allusion to
the Sinai generation, but in the context of its rabbinic meaning
where a continuous tradition of interpretation and legislation is
seen to be rooted in the revelation of the law on the mountain.64 In
other words, the ancients are those who received the law from God
in the wilderness, however they are mentioned here because the
rabbis saw their teachings as being in direct continuity with and a
part of that revelation. As has often been pointed out, however, the
wording of the statements attributed to the ancients in this chapter
does not always agree either with that found in the rabbinic texts
or with the sentiments expressed therein. Another explanation is
possible.
It is in the work of Kurt Schubert that we find a different pro-
posal. He notes that the term lo31NI, a Hebrew word meaning the
"first ones," the "early ones," or the "ancients," is used in CD
1:4 and 4:10.65 In CD 4:7-10, as well as other places which can be
noted in the work, "first" refers either to the founders of the sect
or to its earlier membership:66 "[Such are the fir]st [men] of
holiness whom God pardoned, who declared the just man just and
the wicked, wicked; Then all those who entered (the covenant) after
62 I am making no claims here

in the argument concerning the content of the
canon in the first century CE. There does seem to.be enough evidence to support
the notion that the majority of the canon was utilized as such by that date.
63 WO. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentaryon the Gospel Accordingto St.
Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 19123) 47. Note also W.F. Albright and
C.S. Mann, Matthew: A New Translationwith Introductionand Commentary(AB 26;
Garden City: Doubleday, 1971) 60.
64 G. Bomkamm, G. Barth and H.J. Held, Traditionand Interpretation in Matthew
(trans. P. Scott; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 93. Note also Str-B 1.253-54.
65 K. Schubert, Scrollsand theNew Testament,125. He lists CD 8:4, it should read
1:4. VIMRI is a more likely reading than MIMnip'Demployed in the Delitsch
translation or recorded in the later text published by George Howard, The Gospel
of Matthew Accordingto a Primitive Hebrew Text (Macon: Mercer University Press,
1987) 18.
66 CD 1:16; 3:10; 4:6, 8; (6:2?); 8:17; 19:29; 20:8, 31. Cf. IQS 9:10.
354 JOHN KAMPEN
them to act according to the exact tenor of the law in which the first
had been instructed until the consummation of time [according to
the number] of those years. "'67 In the Community Rule this term
has a different but related referent, "And they will be judged by the
first commandments in which the men of the commune initially
were instructed." First here points to the original or initial legisla-
tion pertaining to communal life.68
Elsewhere in the Qumranic literature we can look to the book of
Jubilees for uses of this term. This is not the place for an extensive
discussion of the claim that Jubilees is a work from the Qumran sec-
taries. Permit me, however, to mention a few points. I must first
of all recall the citation of an abbreviated version of the title of
Jubilees in CD 16:3-4: "The book of the divisions of the times
according to their Jubilees and their Weeks." The Damascus
Document shows the influence of the Book of Jubilees in a number
of places, so we should not be surprised to discover this allusion.
Both works have been shown to have a strong connection with
I 1QT, the longest and most recent of the Qumran scrolls to be
found and published. In fact, some scholars have argued that
Jubilees and the Qumranic Torah together comprise one work.69
Jubilees begins at creation and ends at Exodus while the Qumranic
Torah begins with Sinai and ends in Deuteronomy. Of course, we
must also note James VanderKam's study of the fragments of
Jubilees found at Qumran.-70 He has documented the manner in
which I QT and Jubilees belong to the same legal and exegetical
tradition.71 Now the obvious point has been made a number of
times that evidence of works found at Qumran does not mean they
67 A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writingsfrom Qumran (trans. G. Vermes;

Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1973 [orig. 1961]) 127.
68 IQS 9:10. This general usage is also to be found in rabbinic literature. Note
the references to the "first mnishnah"in m. Ketub 5:3; m. Nazir 6:1; m. Git. 5:6;
m. Sanh. 3:4; m. cEd. 7:2. These references are found in Davies, Seting, 267.
69 M. Smith, "Helios in Palestine," Eretz-Israel16 (1982) 199*-214*, see 206*-
207*; B.Z. Wacholder, "The Relationship Between 1IQ Torah (The Temple
Scroll) and the Book ofJubilees: One Single or Two Independent Compositions,"
SBLSP 24 (1985) 205-16.
70 J.C. VanderKam, Textualand Historical Studies in the Book ofJubilees (HSM 14;
Missoula: Scholars, 1977) 255-83.
71 J.C. VanderKam, "The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees," Ternple
Scroll Studies (ed. G.J. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 211-36.
Note also G. Brin, "Regarding the Connection between the TempleScroll and the
Book of jubilees," JBL 112 (1993) 108-109.
THE SECTARIN FORM OF THE ANTITHESES 355
were authored by the sectarians. However, the three works men-

tioned here share enough linguistic and ideological similarites that
the evidence is quite convincing for considering Jubilees to be a
composition of the tradition which also produced 11QT and CD.
In Jub. 1:26 as God speaks to Moses we read the following:
"And do you write down everything I tell you on this mountain,
the first things and the last things that shall come to pass...."72
When we translate this phrase "the first things and the last things"
into Hebrew from the Ethiopic, we fmd the words D3'br0i
01nnitmn("the first and the last"). The same phrase appears to lie
behind the translation of Jub. 1:4 by C. Rabin in his revision of
Charles, "And Moses was on the mount forty days and forty
nights; and God taught him the fit things and the last things, and
the division of all the days of the law and the testimony."73 What
precisely the author of Jubilees had in mind has been a matter of
considerable dispute. What is clear is that in the context of chap.
1 of this work we are speaking of the authority of a new Torah
which God is giving to Moses, having already written "the book of
the first law" which the author refers to in 6:22. Given the attribu-
tion of this pseudepigraphic cQmposition, "first" is a reference to
the original Torah and/or the Sinai experience. The authoritative
claim being made here is that this law which appears to be new was
also given to Moses at Sinai. While in Jubilees this appears to refer
to the Torah as understood by its author(s?), the writer of CD
applies this same concept of revelation to legislation attributed to
earlier phases in the history of the sect. The authority attributed to
the "first" is claimed by the author of that work to apply to the
legislation derived from the founders of the sect rather than to the
Torah? How does this relate to Matthew's use of &pxcxot;?
Since we now know that the particular legal formulations
attributed to the Qumran sect were considered to be the result of
revelation,"' it is plausible to argue that this is the former revelation
suggested in the gospel of Matthew." From this perspective the
72
R.H. Charles, revisedby C. Rabin, "Jubilecs," in H.F.D. Sparks(ed.), The
ApocryphalOld Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984) 13.
"1 Charles and Rabin, The ApoceyphalOld Testament, 11.
14 L.H. Schiffman, TheHakka as Qusma (SJLA 16; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1975)
22-76.
75 This ideology is not confined to Qumran sectarians in Second Temple
Judaism, however it does receive great emphasis in that literature. Along with
as an instrumentaldative. This
many others I reject any reading of 'roi-&pXcgiot
356 JOHN KAMPEN
protasis in these Matthean formulations is to be understood as con-

taining an injunction which was reccived by revelation. Via this
formula the author argues that what is presently being presented is
in contrast with some former revelation. Clearly the text refers to
those persons in the past who were the recipients of revelation, like
those with the same designation in the Zadokite Documents, rather
than to the things revealed, as in lQS and Jubilees. The use of the
term IT3VIC, as in the Qumran texts, is then deliberate and of
some significance.76
We can see the author of this gospel, the product of a new sec-
tarian Jewish movement, in dialogue and/or dispute with another
Jewish sectarian movement of greater antiquity. This text is an
attempt to undergird an authoritative dair by positing a relation-
ship between some prior event or text and this new revelation,
which either supersedes the old or becomes the authoritative inter-
pretation of it. Could the author of Matthew have adopted this ter-
minology to set off this new revelation against one that had once
been advanced in this same manner but which he/she now regarded
as old? In other words, did Matthew now regard the sectarian view-
point which was expressed in the writings found at Qumran as
"former" revelation? A positive answer to that question must, of
course, find further validation in an examination of the content of
these formulations. What has been demonstrated, however, is that
this is a plausible hypothesis derived from the basis of the form of
this literary unit and the vocabulary which comprises it.
The audacious nature of the dause TyCxU XMTyco 6Iqtv("but I say
to you") lends credence to this argument. Its character was already
noted by David Daube in his comparison of this section of Matthew
with what he characterized as a more scholastic rabbinic form:
"The tone is not academic but final, prophetic, maybe somewhat
defiant. Nor is there any reasoning. ""7 Rather than looking to rab-
binic formulations I would argue that the spirit of the response in
these antithetical formulations is to be identified with the you-we
is aso rejectedby Guelich, SermonontheMowit, 179 and Gundry, Matthew, 84. The
"first" here are those spoken to, not the speakcr.
'" It must be noted, of course, that the rabbiscan speak of 0'rin on and
Dn't' lrp. See my discussion in The Hasidns and th Origin of P/arisaism: A
Studyin 1 and 2 Macabees (SCS 24; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 187-207.
7' Daube, New Testament, 57-58. Albrightand Mann follow his interpretaton,
Matthew, cix.
statements of Mishnah Yadaim or 4QMMT. The difference, of

course, is the presence of the first person singular in Matthew
rather than the first person plural. The centrality of the figure of
Jesus for the early Matthean community accounts for this dif-
ference. The authority of the new revelation is rooted in that figure,
hence the articulation of certain differences with other sectarian
groups is attributed to him. The revelatory nature of the sectarian
viewpoint represented in that gospel is grounded in the figure of its
founder, hence the use of the first person singular to articulate its
legal principles and tenets. Could not the author of the gospel of
Matthew, who wanted to argue that its hero is the authoritative
spokesman of the will of God, have been cognizant of the
pseudepigraphic tradition represented in works such as 1IQT,
Jubilees and 4Q Second Ezekiel where God speaks in the first per-
son?78 If so, the first person is employed in these texts to enhance
the figure of Jesus as the one who speaks for God, the author of
revelation. "I
What emerges from the mouth of this authoritative spokesperson
for the will of God is the particular sectarian viewpoint propagated
by the writer of the gospel of Matthew. Such a condusion has been
reached through an analysis of the rhetonrcalform of the arguments
advanced in the antitheses. The justification for pursuing this route
of investigation was provided by noting the original sociological
interests underlying the origin of the discipline called form
criticism. The development of rhetorical criticism has called atten-
tion to the need for the analysis of larger blocks of material. What
are the implications of the foregoing analysis for our understanding
of the social history of Matthean community?
Implicationsfor Social History

A word of explanation is needed concerning my use of the term
Qumran. I consider the manuscript evidence found in the caves
7" J. Strugnell and D. Dimant, "4Q Second Ezekiel," RevQ13 (1988) 45-58.
7" That the formulation of the antitheses is the responsibility of the Gospel
writer is documentedvery well in Gundry, Mattho, 82-84, as weUas in his subse-
quent commentaryon each section. This is contra Davies and Allison, Matthew,
1.504-505, where one can find a discussion of the relevant literature. See also the
literaturecited in n. 27 above as well as G. Strecker, TheSemwnon he Mount:An
ExegeticalCommentary (trans. O.C. Dean, Jr.; Nashville, Abingdon, 1988) 63.
358 JOHN KAMPEN
near Wadi Qumran to be the literary remains of a movement which

was scattered throughout the provinces ofJudea and Galilee. While
I accept the identification of the Essenes with the evidence of a sec-
tarian existence at the site of Qumran, I suspect that the Essene
designation is inadequate to encompass all of the groups associated
with the literary products of what we term Qumran. I think it is an
accident of preservation due in large part to its desert locale that all
the manuscripts we have of this sectarian movement come from the
same geographical area. Thus, while I sometimes refer to this
evidence as Qumran, I am regarding it as a movement that was
much more widespread than that one location and whose history
spanned at least two centuries, if not more. I also consider the
movement of which Qumran was a representative to be sectarian,
a term which I will discuss below. I recognize that there are
problems classifying the literary compositions of this group from
that standpoint. I propose, however, that attempting to circumvent
this problem by not using the category is to produce a historical
misunderstanding concerning the nature of the group. An impor-
tant attempt to categorize the various literary remains of the
Qumran area from the standpoint of their sectarian nature can be
found in the work of Carol Newsom.A0 Sectarianism is an issue
when we attempt to understand the social world of Matthew.
In his study of the Matthean community J. Andrew Overman
presents a very good portrayal of the sectarian context of first cen-
tury Judaism. Helpful for the purposes of this paper is his discus-
sion of the definition of the term:
While avoiding a comprehensivedefinition of the term sect, we follow
J. Blenkinsoppin taking the term sectarzanto mean a group which is,
or perceives itself to be, a minority in relation to the group it
understandsto be the "parent body." The sect is a minority in that
it is subject to, and usually persecutedby, the group in power. The
80 C A, Newsom, " ' Sectually Explicit' Literature from

Qumran, " The Hebrew
Bible and Its Interpreters(eds. W.H. Propp, B. Halpern and D.N. Freedman;
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 167-87. Interestingly, in her descriptive discus-
sion of this issue in Qumran literature the question of definition never appears.
For a discussion of the problems which can arise in the use of this term in describ-
ing Second TempleJudaism see Rivkin, Hidden Revolution, 8, 316-18, n. 1; S.J.D.
Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Library of Early Christianity 7;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 124-27; Kampen, Hasideans and the Origin of
Pharisaism, 87-94.
dissenting group is in opposition to the parent body and tends to

claim more or less to be what the dominant body claims to be."'
Important in this discussion is the emphasis on a "parent group"
against which the sect defines itself. Also significant is the competi-
tion with the dominant body concerning the validity of claims.
An examination of the portrayal of the adversaries of Jesus in
modern studies of the social world of Matthew is instructive. In
Alan Segal's attempt to use early Christian sources "for under-
standing and dating the development of rabbinic Judaism, "81 we
see two groups of somewhat equal power vying for influence among
the people. This is the picture that emerges from a hypothesis which
assumes the synagogue to be the battlefield for this competition and
which understands the early Christian community to be such a
threat that the VIZ1 lm:could be directed against it. 3 Were the
followers of Jesus strong enough in the last two decades of the first
century to evoke this kind of response, particularly in Galilee or
Lower Syria?84 One wishes for more evidence before advancing
such a proposal.
When Overman comes to his final condusions concerning "The
Nature and World of the Matthean Community," the title of his
last chapter, we find that "Formative Judaism and the Matthean
community may have been roughlyequal in size and shape."85 The
problem, as Overman sees it, is that the Matthean community
perceives itself to be losing ground to the rising force of formative
Judaism. The portrait appears to be one where two forces of
roughly equal power are locked in a contest for the allegiance of
81 Overman, Matthew's GosPel, 8-9. His citation of Blenkinsopp is from "Inter-

pretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism: An Aspect of Second Temple
History," Jewish and ChristianSelf-Definition(eds. E.P. Sanders, A.L. Baumgarten
and A. Mendelson; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 2.1-26, see pp. 1-2 for this
discussion. Note also L.M. White, "Crisis Management and Boundary
Maintenance: The Social Location of the Matthean Community," Social History
of the Matthean Community:Cross-DisciplinaryApproaches,211-47, pp. 223-24. This is
based on his earlier discussion, "Shifting Sectarian Boundaries in Early Chris-
tianity," BJRL 70 (1988) 7-24.
82 Segal, Social History, 3.
83 Segal, Social History, 33-36.
84 Segal, Social History, 19.

85 Overman, Matthew's Gospel, p. 155. Other studies seems to hold this same
viewpoint: JE. Stambaugh and D.L. Balch, The New Testamentin its Social Environ-
ment (Library of Early Christianity 2; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 103;
White, "Crisis Management," 211-47, see pp. 238-40.
360 JOHN KAMPEN
Jews in the area. It must be noted, however, that this portrait

appears at the point where Overman is describing the two groups
relative to Roman power in the geographical region of Galilee,
where Overman thinks the gospel was composed. When he
describes the relationship of the adherents of the gospel to the
Pharisees and scribes, we see: "Matthew's community was clearly
sectarian.... Matthew's community constituted the minority in a
struggle with a parent group, which was in this case Formative
Judaism."8 But Overman does seem torn concerning whether the
Pharisees and the scribes in theJewish community under discussion
were sectarian. In his introductory discussion of sectarianism he
had stated: "Matthean and formative Judaism reflect the sectarian
nature of their social world in their makeup, the claims they make,
their language, and in their relations with one another. "87 How
does Overman reconcile the sectarian identity of formative Judaism
with their portrayal as the parent group in Matthew? The answer
is not self-evident. At some points Overman reflects the sociological
orientation of the gospel of Matthew; in that portrayal the scribes
and Pharisees represent the parent group. Does this coincide with
the historical data attested in other sources? That question requires
further clarification. Other scholars have been less ambivalent on
this point.
A different perspective is advanced by Graham Stanton when he
compares Matthew with the Damascus Document.88 He chooses
these two works because he understands the groups they represent
to be in sharp conflict with parent bodies. Like CD, the polemic
directed at the leaders of the dominant group is one way the
minority community distances itself. The strong arguments for
group solidarity in passages such as 7:13-27 or in the explanation
of the parable of the weeds in 13:36-43 reflect the internal dynamics
of a sect in that they exhibit the hostility a group in conflict shows
towards internal dissent.89 As in the case of CD Matthew
86
Overman, Matthew's Gospel, 154. He has discussed his use of the term on pp.
8-9.
87 Overman, Matthew's Gospel, 16.
88 Stanton, Gospelfor a New People, 85-107.
89
Stanton, Gospelfor a New Peopl, 102. While not stressing the sectarian nature
of the gospel S. Freyne notes the primacy of the teaching role in this work which
contains rites for admission and expulsion similar to Qumran and other sectarian
halakah ("Vilifying the Other and Defining the Self: Matthew's and John's Anti-
Jewish Polemic in Focus," "To See Ourselvesas OthersSee Us": Christians, Jews,
legitimizes itself in part by arguing that the new group does not
depict itself as innovative; it is the parent group which has gone
astray. Notice that in this study the Pharisees and scribes are
understood within the gospel of Matthew ,to be representative of
that parent body which has gone astray.
A potentially productive direction for investigation is to be found
in the work of Bruce Malina. Drawing on studies from the field of
cultural anthropology concerning witchcraft, he (in a work co-
authored with Jerome Neyrey) observes how the function of the
charges of demon-possession directed against Jesus were meant to
serve to categorize the proponents of the gospel of Matthew as
deviant.90 This negative labelling serves as an act of social retalia-
tion by the Pharisees, another interest group which opposes what
Jesus stands for. There is some lack of clarity at this point, since
the study fails to give sufficient weight to the fact that the descrip-
tions we are dealing with are from the followers of Jesus. Further
confusion comes with the disdaimer that the work is not based on
the final version of the gospel.91 More importantly, it is not evident
to me how on the basis of this model the authors can claim that the
Pharisees in this work are portrayed as a minority but threatened
group in the same way that the Matthean community perceives
itself.92 However, the application of deviance theory to the
phenomenon we usually refer to as demonology is an important
contribution.
Anthony Saldarini has employed the sociology of deviance in
his analysis of the Matthean community.93 He describes the
community as well as its spokesperson, the author of the gospel of
Matthew, as deviant in the sense that it accepts all the major com-
mitments of first century Judaism but modifies the interpretation
or actualization of the law in such a way that it conflicts with other
Jewish groups.'" He describes these alterations as typical of deviant
"Othas" in LateAntiquity[eds. J. Neusner and E.S. Frerichs; Chico: Scholars

Pres, 1985J 117-43, see p. 120). This emphasis serves the purpose of making
absolute caims for the communitywhich is attachedto the Jesus figure portrayed
in the story (p. 121).
" Malina and Neyrey, CalingJesw Names, 3-33.
91 Malina and Neyrey, CallingJesus Names, 5.
9' Malina and Neyrey, CallingJesus Names, 61-62, 66-67.
'3 Aj. Saldarini, "The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict,"
Social Histo'y of the Matthan Communpi!:Cross-Disciptinary Approaches, 38-61.
94 Saldarini, "The Gospel of Matthew," 48-49.
362 JOHN KAMPEN
communities and religious sects.95 In his utilization of the deviance

model, however, he has departed from the role for the Pharisees
portrayed by Segal and, in part, Overrnan:
Matthew is deviant because he is a minority against the majority and
because he recommends a more fundamental reorientation of the
tradition than many other Jewish movements. Matthew modifies or
rejectsmany specificJewish practicesand teachings that he attributes
mosdy to the scribes and Pharisees.96
In his book on the Pharisees he claims that they, in their portrayal

in Matthew, are more representative of officialdom than in Mark.97
While this is not to be confused with any notion of normative
Judaism, we see in these studies that the Pharisees are represen-
tative of the parent or dominant group. Elsewhere in his analysis
of Matthew's attacks on the Jewish leadership in chap. 23, he finds
Matthew exhibiting the characteristics of a sectarian group protec-
ting itself from dominant social institutions and rival sects.98 I think
it is important to note that in the work of both Overman, already
discussed above, and in Saldarini, they certainly are not arguing
that there is a normative Judaism. But they both advance signifi-
cant arguments for the proposition that the author of Matthew
wrote as though the scribes and Pharisees were representative of a
parent group which regarded itself as "sitting" in that position.99
The question of the relationship of the members of the Matthean
community to the scribes and Pharisees within the Jewish com-
munity of which they were a part may in part be clarified by some
attention to the issue of chronology. While I find Christopher
Rowland's description of all Judaism prior to 70 as sectarian to be
both inaccurate and less than helpful, he does clearly distinguish
this period from the time after the destruction of the temple when
it is no longer possible to speak of Jewish sectarianism.100 Blenkin-
95 Saldanrni, "The Gospel of Matthew, " 54.

96
Saldarini, "The Gospel of Matthew," 49-50.
97 A.J. Saldarini, Pharisees,Scribesand Sadducees,166. Note that he differentiates
the scribes from the Pharisees, pointing out that the Pharisees are linked more
closely with the leadership class on a consistent basis than the scribes (pp. 161-63).
9B A.J. Saldarini, "Delegitimation of Leaders in Matthew 23," CBQ54 (1992)
659-80, see pp. 666-70.
9' See Matt. 23:1-2.
100 Christopher Rowland, Christian Origins: From Messianic Movement to Christian
Religion (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985) 65-66. Note the critique by B. Holmberg,
Sociologyand the New Testament,98-99.
sopp notes that the Pharisees "do not look much like a sect in the
period immediately prior to the great revolt against Rome."'01 It
might prove illuminating to classify sociological analyses of
Pharisaism as to whether their primary interest rests in the period
before or after the destruction of the temple. Interesting is Shaye
Cohen's portrait of the emerging rabbinic coalition in the wake of
the destruction of the temple. He questions the dominance of the
Pharisees in this new configuration.'02 What is important for our
analysis is the recognition that we are dealing with the gospel of
Matthew, composed after the destruction of the temple within a
Jewish community which is experiencing these historic
developments. Such an attempt clearly differentiates this study
from those works which are trying to elaborate on the social loca-
tion of Jesus and his disciples.'03
The analysis of the form of the antitheses conducted in this study
supports the hypothesis that the scribes and Pharisees in the gospel
of Matthew are to be viewed as representative of the parent or
dominant group. The recognition that the form of the rhetorical
unit which is the subject of this article is analogous to the disputa-
tions recorded for other groups in the first century which are
specifically recognized as sectarian is one argument in the iden-
tification of the social setting of this work. The fact that linguistic
and vocabulary features utilized in this form point to certain
elements in Qumran literature demonstrates a more specific sec-
tarian setting for the antitheses, a viewpoint substantiated by the
vocabulary found in the literary setting provided by Matt. 5:20,48.
Further work is required to develop the chronological and
geographical implications of this hypothesis.
101 J. Blenkinsopp, "Interpretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism," 2.2.

102
S.J.D. Cohen, "The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis and the
End of Jewish Sectarianism," HUCA 55 (1984) 27-53.
103 I
think of studies such as the following: R.A. Horsley with J.S. Hanson,
Bandits,ProphetsandMessiahs:PopularMovements at the Timeofjesus (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1985); Stambaugh and Balch, New Testamentin its SocialEnviron-
ment, 103-06; R.A. Horsley, Jesus and theSpiralof Violence:PopularJewish Resistance
in RomanPakstine(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); Holmberg, Sociologyand
the New Testament;G. Theissen, SocialRealityand the Early Christians,33-156.

Brill Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Dead Sea Discoveries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brill Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Dead Sea Discoveries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sectarian Form of the Antitheses within the Social World of the Matthean Community

Author(s): John Kampen

Many of the recent attempts to identify the social world of the

I An earlier draft of portions of this paper can be found in "A Reexamination

? E.J. Brill, Leiden Dead Sea Discoveries 1, 3 (1994)

opposition from Pharisaic, or formative, Judaism; and (5) at the

Form Criticism and Sociology

s Rudolf Bultmann, Historyof the SynopticTradition(trans. J. Marsh; Oxford:

a Theissen, SocialRealityand the Early Christians,9.

critical study, an attempt to isolate short passages, usually no more

What originally arose out of a confrontation of Jesus and the Essenes

He saw only scattered pieces of evidence which indicated an

RhetoricalAnalysis of the Antitheses

Is David Daube, The New Testamentand Rabbinic Judaism (London: Ath]one

term Y?:V("to hear") is related to Tpxouax'o("you have heard") in

23 Solomon Schechter, "The Rabbinic Conception of Holiness," JQR 10

pxou6aotin Matthew is in the plural whereas the rabbinic M flU'

Similarly unconvincing is the attempt to fit what he considers to be issues of

3-37, see p. 21 concerning 8Lxoocr6VTI. See also Stanton, Traditionand Interpretation,

limited, we do find in what is available to us some evidence of the

3B For a discussion of this term see pp. 358-59 below.

York: Schocken, 1974 [original,. 1955]) 39:

say, "We denounce you, Galilean heretic, foryou (plural) write(the

It is a long letter of which we have fragments of 12 columns, written

in 'Abot R. Nat. B is similar to the last of these formulae (see Schechter,

Evidence of the relationship between 4QMMT and mishnaic

DJD 3.225, as translated in Wacholder, Dawn of Qumran, 165.

1-7, 278. This is rejected by D.R.A. Hare, Matthew (Interpretation; Louisville:

same manner as the Christian and Jewish traditions have inter-

62 I am making no claims here

67 A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writingsfrom Qumran (trans. G. Vermes;

were authored by the sectarians. However, the three works men-

protasis in these Matthean formulations is to be understood as con-

statements of Mishnah Yadaim or 4QMMT. The difference, of

Implicationsfor Social History

near Wadi Qumran to be the literary remains of a movement which

80 C A, Newsom, " ' Sectually Explicit' Literature from

dissenting group is in opposition to the parent body and tends to

81 Overman, Matthew's GosPel, 8-9. His citation of Blenkinsopp is from "Inter-

84 Segal, Social History, 19.

Jews in the area. It must be noted, however, that this portrait

"Othas" in LateAntiquity[eds. J. Neusner and E.S. Frerichs; Chico: Scholars

communities and religious sects.95 In his utilization of the deviance

In his book on the Pharisees he claims that they, in their portrayal

95 Saldanrni, "The Gospel of Matthew, " 54.

101 J. Blenkinsopp, "Interpretation and the Tendency to Sectarianism," 2.2.

You might also like