04_Biblica_1_C_Thiessen_Layout 1 30/01/13 13:16 Pagina 551 04_B ABOLISHERS OF THE LAW IN EARLY JUDAISM AND MATTHEW 5,17-20 551 who abolish the law bring divine judgment upon the people as a whole. Eight times Josephus uses katalu/w, lu/w, or kata/lusij to describe the actions of the Zealots during the Jewish Revolt, demon- strating that he believes the horrific events of 70 C.E. were the direct result of the law-abolishing Zealots. Josephus does his best to dis- tance the Jewish people from the “bandits”, “rebels”, and “Zealots”, so that he can maintain their innocence in the rebellion 15. His use of (kata)lu/w exclusively for the Zealots’ actions during the revolt demonstrates that it is the transgressions of the Zealots in particular which are blamed. III. Matthew 5,17-20 and Accusations against Matthew’s Community We turn now to the threefold occurrence of (kata)lu/w in Matt 5,17-20. Is Jesus guilty of abolishing the law? Presumably this was no academic question but a response to the charge that he was a law abolisher 16, leveled perhaps by certain scribes or Pharisees as suggested by Jesus’ dismissive reference to their righteousness in 5,20 as well as by their antagonistic presence throughout Matthew’s Gospel 17. Considering the above rehearsal of law abolishment in Jewish history, the dangerous nature of this charge becomes appar- ent; the consistent emphasis on the Hellenizers of 167 B.C.E. as law abolishers whose actions provoked the Antiochan persecution may stand behind such an accusation. Consequently, such a charge could be deployed in the following way: “Join with us against the law- M. GOODMAN, The Ruling Class of Judaea (Cambridge 1987) 199, ar- 15 gues that Josephus is providing a scapegoat for the divine hostility evidenced in the destruction, while M. BOHRMANN, Flavius Josephus, The Zealots and Yavne. Towards a Rereading of The War of the Jews (Bern 1989) 192-277, argues that Jewish moderates held the Zealots responsible for the destruction because of their lawless violence. Similarly, J. MARCUS, “The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark”, JBL 111.3 (1992) 441-462, has argued that Mark 11,17 and 13,14 refer to the Zealot occupation of the Temple, and that Mark partially attributes God’s judgment on Jerusalem to this action. Matt 5,17.19.20 have no parallels in Mark or Luke. Verse 18 has paral- 16 lels in Luke 16,17 and 21,33 which lack lu/w, leading most scholars to at- tribute the verse to Q. For analysis of Matthew’s redactional activity in this pericope, see MEIER, Law and History, 41-115. Cf. KONRADT, “Die vollkommene Erfüllung”, 404. 17 © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati