03_Wilson_201_221_201_221 10/07/15 12:41 Pagina 217 217 MATTHEW, PHILO, AND MERCY FOR ANIMALS (MATT 12,9-14) 217 ment of animals in terms of their implications for the treatment of people, Matthew addresses a legal question about the treatment of people with an illustration about the treatment of animals. In each case there is a presupposition that human beings not only have an obligation to extend mercy to animals, but also that this obligation constitutes a basis for reflecting on the obligations that human be- ings have to one another. While both authors tether their analogical arguments to the concepts of e;leoj and crhsto,j, the frameworks within which they do so differ significantly. For his part, Philo re- lates the concepts to the principle of filanqrwpi,a. In the First Gospel, on the other hand, the concept of mercy (12,7) is probably best construed as an extension of the love command (cf. 5,7.43-46) 59, while the concept of kindness (11,30) is probably best understood at least partly as a manifestation of Jesus’ humility (11,29) 60. Further differences can be discerned when we take into account the dynamics of the two authors’ respective socio-rhetorical cir- cumstances. While Philo’s basic purpose in writing is overtly apolo- getic, the arguments in Matt 12,5-7 and 12,11-12 contribute to an agenda that can be described as sectarian in nature, that is, they serve to differentiate Jesus from his Pharisaic opponents with respect to a core aspect of Jewish identity. As Anthony Saldarini notes, during the Second Temple period the rhetoric of sectarian legitimation and differentiation often surfaced in debates about the correct interpre- tation of the Law 61. By the same token, comparison with texts from Plutarch, Porphyry, and Iamblichus suggests that the sort of analogy being drawn in Matt 12,11 (including the logic informing Jesus’ 59 DAVIES – ALLISON, Saint Matthew, II, 321; LUZ, Matthew, II, 187-188. The duty of mercy for all living things in T. Zeb. 5.1 may be based on the command to love one’s neighbor (Lev 19,18), as suggested by R. BAUCKHAM, “Jesus and Animals I: What Did He Teach?”, Animals on the Agenda. Ques- tions about Animals for Theology and Ethics (eds. A. LINZEY – D. YA- MAMOTO) (Urbana, IL 1998) 34. 60 The themes of withdrawal and humility in 12,15-21 (the passage that immediately follows the pair of controversy stories about Sabbath obser- vance) recall 11,28-30, as noted by FRANKEMÖLLE, Matthäus, II, 141; LAANSMA, Rest, 210; J. GNILKA, Das Matthäusevangelium (HTKNT 1/1-2; Freiburg 1986) I, 453. 61 SALDARINI, Community, 100-134. Cf. D.C. SIM, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism. The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Com- munity (Edinburgh 1998) 115-150.