04_Biblica_1_C_Thiessen_Layout 1 30/01/13 13:16 Pagina 553 04_B ABOLISHERS OF THE LAW IN EARLY JUDAISM AND MATTHEW 5,17-20 553 Since Jesus did not come to abolish the law as Matthew makes clear in 5,17-19, the members of the Matthean community are supposed to live in a way that their opponents would not be able to bring such charges against them: “Matthew’s position is that the whole Mosaic law must be observed (by Jewish Christians) until the eschaton has come in its fullness” 22. The Sermon on the Mount indicates the strict- ness of the law observance required. Moving to the offensive in 5,20, Matthew’s Jesus levels his ac- cusation against the scribes and Pharisees by calling into question their own righteousness. Matthew, similar to Qumranic claims that the Pharisees were seekers of smooth things 23, asserts that the fol- lowers of Jesus hold to a higher degree of righteousness than do the Pharisees. As J.A. Overman argues, “The nub of this contention is legal interpretation and piety or praxis. He believes the compet- ing group distorts the law for their agenda and ends. His commu- nity, as a result of the interpretation provided for them through Jesus, is the group that should guide God’s people in this place and time” 24. Consequently, Matthew counters claims that the Jesus observance. Yet 5,16 appears to undermine this interpretation and in fact leads quite nicely into 5,17-20’s explicit emphasis upon the law. VIVIANO, Matthew and His World, 237. Cf. Daniel MARGUERAT, “Pas un 22 iota ne passera de la loi … (Mt 5,18). La loi dans l’évangile de Matthieu”, La Loi dans l’un et l’autre Testament (ed. C. FOCANT) (LD 168; Paris 1997) 149-174. Cf. CD 1.14-2.1; The Thanksgiving Psalms 10.31-38; 12.9-11; 4Q177; 23 4Q163 fragment 23 2.10-13; 4Q169 fragments 2–4, and in contrast to the claims of Josephus (cf. B.J. 1.110; 2.162; Vita 191; A.J. 17.41) and Luke’s Paul (Acts 22,3; 26,5), who describe the Pharisees as “precise” (a)kri/beia) in their interpretation of the law. On these references to the Pharisees in Qum- ran literature, see, most recently, J.C. VANDERKAM, “The Pharisees and the Dead Sea Scrolls”, In Quest of the Historical Pharisees (eds. J. NEUSNER ‒ B.D. CHILTON) (Waco, TX 2007) 225-236, 459-462. If this identification is incorrect, it would not take away from Matthew’s criticism that the Pharisees’ ethical righteousness is insufficient, since B. PRZYBYLSKI, Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought (SNTSMS 41; Cambridge 1980), has demonstrated that the word dikaiosu/nh in Matthew always refers to ethical righteousness, not forensic righteousness. J.A. OVERMAN, “Problems with Pluralism in Second Temple Judaism: 24 Matthew, James, and the Didache in Their Jewish-Roman Milieu”, Matthew, James, and Didache. Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings (eds. H. VAN DE SANDT ‒ J.K. ZANGENBERG) (SBLSymS 45; Atlanta, GA 2008) 259-270 (263). © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati