The state of the question

The controversy regarding the meaning of the Matthaean concept of righteousness has revolved primarily around the following question: Does the term ‘righteousness’ (dikaiosynē) refer to God's gift to man or God's demand upon man? This question has basically been answered in four different ways; that is, two diametrically opposed positions and two mediating views have been presented.

The positions of G. Strecker and M. J. Fiedler are representative of the diametrically opposed views. Strecker asserts that in all seven dikaiosynē-passages, righteousness refers to Rechtschaffenheit. It is always seen as a demand upon man; never as the gift of God.

Fiedler, on the other hand, claims that in all seven dikaiosynē-passages in the Gospel of Matthew, righteousness is both the eschatological gift and the demand of God. The gift, however, precedes the demand. Accordingly, Fiedler views righteousness essentially as the gift of God.

The two other views are essentially attempts at finding a mediating position between the two extreme views just expressed. These two mediating views are similar insofar as they both acknowledge that the term dikaiosynē does not have the same meaning in each occurrence. In some cases it refers to the gift of God while in others it refers to the demand made upon man. The point of contention between these two views stems from the relative importance assigned to these two aspects of righteousness.

In one mediating view greater significance is assigned to those passages in which dikaiosynē is interpreted as referring to the gift of God.

Introduction

It has been demonstrated that in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Tannaitic literature the terms tsedeq, tsedaqah and tsaddiq represent the righteousness terminology. In turning to the Gospel of Matthew the question thus emerges: are these Hebrew terms related to the Matthaean righteousness terminology?

As will become evident as this study progresses, tsedeq is in fact equivalent to dikaiosynē, tsedaqah in its meaning of alms to eleēemosynē and tsaddiq to dikaios. While in the final analysis only the foregoing conclusion based on the Gospel of Matthew itself provides a definitive answer to the question posed above, a look at the Greek translation equivalents employed in the LXX for the Hebrew terms under discussion is also illuminating inas-much as the Septuagintal usage points to trends reflected in the Gospel of Matthew.

It should not be surprising that Matthaean usage corresponds to Septuagintal usage in this case. Not only has the general conclusion been drawn that the ‘LXX constitutes the bridge between the OT and the NT’ and that it provides the ‘vocabulary for the NT writers’ but it has also been specifically demonstrated that Matthew made use of the LXX in the writing of his gospel.

In the Hebrew OT there are 115 occurrences of the noun tsedeq, 158 of the noun tsedaqah and 208 of the adjective tsaddiq. Ziesler has noted that out of the total number of occurrences of these three terms ‘only about 32 are not represented in LXX by some form of ικαι-’.

Introduction

This study of the words connected with the root ts-d-q in the Dead Sea Scrolls is not an end in itself but is undertaken for the purpose of providing a basis of comparison with the use of the concept of righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew. In the study of the Gospel of Matthew, stress will not only be placed on determining the meaning of terms such as dikaiosynē and dikaios but also on determining the overall significance of the use of the concept of righteousness in this gospel. In order to provide a valid basis of comparison, the twofold approach of determining specific meanings of various terms and their overall significance must also be applied to the study of the words connected with the root ts-d-q in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In order to make a valid comparison, however, it is not sufficient merely to apply methodological principles consistently to various bodies of literature. It is of the utmost importance that the methodological principles be applied to bodies of literature which represent compatible literary categories. Specifically, the question must be asked whether the Gospel of Matthew can be compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls as a whole or whether distinctions must be made amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. In other words, the question of the homogeneity of the Dead Sea Scrolls must be faced.

The New Testament discipline of Redaktionsgeschichte has shown that the Gospel of Matthew is composed of various traditional materials which were brought together by a redactional process, the final stage being carried out by a specific individual or a group of persons.

I am grateful to Professor E. P. Sanders for initiating me into the complex world of Rabbinic thought and making me aware of the intricacies of relating this knowledge to the study of the New Testament. While following his research on the relationship between Paul and Palestinian Judaism, my interest in the application of this type of criticism to the Gospel of Matthew was kindled. After various general investigations, my research began to focus on the relationship between the Matthaean concept of righteousness and that of the Tannaitic literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

My exhaustive analysis of the righteousness terminology in the Tannaitic literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls led to the unmistakable conclusion that the concept of righteousness is not to be equated with the soteriological system inherent in this literature. For the overall view of the intrinsic soteriology of Palestinian Judaism, I am, however, indebted to the work of Professor Sanders. On the other hand, the distinction between righteousness and soteriology in the Gospel of Matthew is based entirely on my own research.

Under the supervision of Professor Sanders this study was submitted to McMaster University as a doctoral dissertation and the degree of Doctor of Philosophy was granted in 1975.

The financial support provided by the Canada Council throughout my doctoral studies is deeply appreciated. I am particularly indebted for the grant which made it possible for me to engage in a year of research in Israel. At the Hebrew University of Jerusalem it was especially Professor D. Flusser who stimulated my thinking. Life in Israel presented numerous diversions which mitigated the painstaking work involved in word studies.

In the preceding chapter it was shown that the concept of righteousness does not play a crucial role in Matthew's self-understanding as a follower of Jesus. While the Gospel of Matthew clearly indicates that salvation is the gift of God, righteousness is seen only as the demand of God made upon man. Those who are properly religious in a Christian sense are not ‘the righteous’. They are ‘disciples’. The essence of discipleship is not expressed as ‘righteousness’ but as ‘doing the will of God’.

Having seen the limitations of the use of the concept of righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew, let us now consider the positive side of its use more closely. Why in fact does Matthew make use of the concept of righteousness in his gospel?

It is the conclusion of this study that the concept of righteousness is used in the Gospel of Matthew to provide a point of contact between the religious understanding of first-century Palestinian Jews and the teaching of Jesus as Matthew understood it. In other words, the concept of righteousness is used as a teaching principle leading from the known (contemporary Jewish teaching) to the unknown (the teaching of Jesus).

The concept of righteousness thus is cast in the role of a provisional concept. As a provisional concept it can only facilitate the bridging of a gap in understanding. It is the nature of such a provisional concept that it can never fully express the view to which it points.

Introduction

In the discussion concerning the method of the present study the general rationale behind the treatment of the Tannaitic literature was outlined. Before turning to the analysis of the terms tsedeq, tsedaqah and tsaddiq it is, however, necessary to deal specifically with the nature of this literature.

The Tannaitic period is generally defined as spanning A.D. 10 to A.D. 220, that is, beginning with the disciples of Shammai and Hillel and ending with the contemporaries of R. Judah ha-Nasi. The Rabbis who lived during this period are known as the Tannaim and their sayings and discussions form the Tannaitic literature.

The Tannaitic literature has been preserved in two distinct forms. In the mishnaic form the materials are arranged according to topical criteria, while in the midrashic form the materials follow the sequence of the biblical book which is commented upon. Both types of writings are primarily halakic rather than haggadic in content.

The Tannaitic literature of the mishnaic form consists of the Mishnah, Tosefta and various traditions in the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds which are attributed to Tannaim. The latter sayings are generally referred to as baraitot. The Tannaitic literature of the midrashic form consists of the halakic midrashim such as the Mekilta on Exodus, Sifra on Leviticus, Sifre on Numbers and Deuteronomy, Sifre Zuta on Numbers, Mekilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai on Exodus, Midrash Tannaim on Deuteronomy and baraitot in later midrashim such as Midrash Rabbah.

Having analysed the meaning of the component terms of the concept of righteousness, we are now in a position to discuss the question: what relative significance is attached to the use of the concept of righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew?

In the previous chapter it was demonstrated that the terms dikaiosynē, dikaios and eleēmosynē, insofar as the latter is included in the doing of dikaiosynē, are used to describe the demand of God upon man to live according to a certain norm, the law. Although the nature of the law never changes the possibility of varying interpretations of the law is taken into account. Consequently, there are degrees of righteousness, the righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees being that which corresponds to the interpretation of the law given by Jesus.

It should be noted that even the reference to God's righteousness in Mt 6:33 does not provide an exception to this general meaning of righteousness. God's righteousness is seen primarily as a norm for man's conduct. Consequently, the view expressed by Ziesler, Schrenk, Fiedler and Bornkamm, for example, that the concept of righteousness plays a significant role in Matthew's theology insofar as it relates both to the demand made upon man and God's eschatological gift for man, is not supported by the present study.

If this view does not have a foundation in the actual text of the Gospel of Matthew, why has it been promulgated by a large number of scholars?

Nous venons de voir comment et pourquoi la foi en la résurrection de Jésus et en sa messianité a pu s'exprimer en des récits de résurrection. Dans la premiéré partie de cette étude nous avions essayé de faire apparaïtre le sens et la portée théologiques que chaque évangéliste avait donnés à son ou ses récits. Penchons-nous maintenant sur l'étape intermédiate, celle de la premiere tradition chrétienne, qui se situe entre la prédication de Jésus comme Messie et la rédaction des Evangiles. Quelle portée ces récits ont-ils eue dans la vie des communautés primitives? Comment les premières Eglises ont-elles compris et interprété les premiers récits de résurrection?

On n'atteint la première tradition chrétienne que dans les couches qui se sont sédimentées dans les récits et que la critique littéraire permet de déceler. L'archéologie de ces textes, la comparaison de ces récits avec d'autres recits de miracle, et Fhistoire de la formation des textes, temoignent que la premiere predication de ces récits s'est cristallisée autour de la personne de Jésus, du probléme du sommeil et de la mort et des pleurs. Nous avons déjà parlé de la christologie impliquée dans ces récits lorsque nous avons interprété les textes: il est inutile d'y revenir.