Walter T. Wilson, «Matthew, Philo, and Mercy for Animals (Matt 12,9-14)», Vol. 96 (2015) 201-221
After comparing Matt 12,11-12 with its synoptic parallels (Mark 3,4; Luke 13,15-16; 14,5) and with texts that discuss the treatment of animals on the Sabbath (e.g., CD 11.13-14), the passage is compared with Philonic texts (Spec. 2.89; 4.218; Virt. 81, 133, 139-140, 160; cf. Plutarch, Cato 5.5; Esu carn. 996A; Iamblichus, Vit. Pythag. 30.186; Porphyry, Abst. 3.26.6) in which the Alexandrian discerns a principle informing a law that refers to the treatment of animals, and then suggests that the principle applies by analogy to the treatment of people, illuminating the principle with reference to mercy and similar concepts.
03_Wilson_201_221_201_221 10/07/15 12:41 Pagina 203
203 MATTHEW, PHILO, AND MERCY FOR ANIMALS (MATT 12,9-14) 203
citation from one of the prophetic books (12,7; cf. Hos 6,6) 10. To
this triad the second story adds a fourth argument, one based not
on Scripture but on an assumption that Jesus makes regarding the
common experience of his addressees (12,11-12). In what follows,
I investigate the last of these arguments, concentrating on both its
particular form of reasoning (which involves drawing analogies be-
tween the treatment of animals and the treatment of people) and
the manner in which it strengthens the argument in 12,7 (which refers
to the concept of mercy). In doing so, I build on the observations
of Anthony Saldarini, who suggests that in 12,11-12 Jesus “is prob-
ably implicitly appealing to the principle of mercy in Hos. 6:6 (v.
7 in the previous conflict) and applying it to the suffering of the an-
imal and then of the human” 11, and of Lutz Doering, who suggests
that the conclusion in 12,12 is “no halakhic ruling sensu stricto, but
rather a commentary on Jesus’ practice of healing as an exemplifi-
cation of the prerogative of mercy” 12.
I. Sabbath Observance and the Treatment of Animals
An inspection of recent scholarship on Matt 12,11-12 reveals a
concentration especially on two areas of investigation. The first has
to do with comparing these verses with their synoptic co-texts
(Mark 3,4; Luke 13,15-16; 14,5), the second with comparing these
verses with early Jewish texts that discuss the sabbatical treatment
of domestic animals. We begin with Matt 12,12b and Mark 3,4b.
w[ste e;xestin toi/j sa,bbasin kalw/j poiei/nÅ (Matt 12,12b)
e;xestin toi/j sa,bbasin avgaqo.n poih/sai h' kakopoih/sai(
yuch.n sw/sai h' avpoktei/naiÈ (Mark 3,4b)
10
The formula ouvk avne,gnwte in 12,3.5 both lends the unit structural in-
tegrity and draws attention to the scriptural provenance of the references.
11
A.J. SALDARINI, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago, IL
1994) 133. Cf. L. LYBAEK, “Matthew’s Use of Hosea 6,6 in the Context of
the Sabbath Controversies”, The Scriptures in the Gospels (ed. C.M. TUCK-
ETT) (BETL 131; Louvain 1997) 493.
12
L. DOERING, “Sabbath Laws in the New Testament Gospels”, The New
Testament and Rabbinic Literature (eds. R. BIERINGER et al.) (JSJSup 136;
Leiden 2010) 235.
FOLLOW US