[1] Fiebig, P., Jesu Bergpredigt. Rabbinische Texte zum Verständnis der Bergpredigt (Göttingen, 1924) 135–9.Google ScholarKing, G. B., ‘The Mote and the Beam’, HTR 17 (1924) 393–404, 26 (1933), 73–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reveals the obsessive problems created by our text. His objection to ‘mote’ is interesting. Dictionaries assure us that ‘mote’ means a particle of dust seen in a sunbeam. From Wycliffe to the AV ‘mote’ is traditional at our place. But from the account of a late seventeenth century text given by Thomas, K. (Religion and the Decline of Magic [Harmondsworth, 1978/1985] 710)Google Scholar it appears that a woman may be required to fetch ‘7 motes of straw’, where ‘mote’ obviously means ‘fragment’. Manson, T. W., Sayings of Jesus (London, 1949) 58Google Scholar. Schulz, S., Q. Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zürich, 1972) 146–9Google Scholar, improving on ideas of Schürmann and Grundmann, brilliantly observes that ‘if one observes one's “beam” one is deflected from wanting to correct the other party’ (149 n. 60). Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC: Exeter, 1978) 270Google Scholar, claims the passage teaches, with clarity, that judging others is totally excluded.

[2] Excretion of impurity (Matt 15. 17); expulsion of person (Mark 12. 8, cf. Luke 20. 12, 15); rejection of illegitimate (Gen 21. 10 and Gal 4. 30); excommunication (Matt 8. 12, 22. 13, Luke 6. 22, 3 John 10), or the reverse (John 9. 34, 35, cf. 6. 37); exclusion (ironical and ambivalent) (Mark 1. 43); preparation for stoning (Luke 4. 29, Acts 7. 58); dismissal of Satan (John 12. 31); of demons, passim (Heb. YRŠ).

[3] Lightfoot, J., Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in Matt. (Works [London, 1823], xi, 152)Google Scholar. Discussed well by King (n. 1 above). Klausner, J., Jesus of Nazareth (New York, 1959) 385Google Scholar, assumed the sayings were virtually identical.

[4] b. ‘Ar. 16b (Soncino trans., 94), B.B. 15b. (H. Strack–) Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 1, 446Google Scholar. Schulz, , Q., 149 n. 59Google Scholar. See m. ’ Āvôt 6.6(32) ('ohēv 'et hattôkāhôt).

[5] King (n. 1) argues powerfully for ‘teeth’. But he does not consider the possibility that Zech 9. 7 influenced a choice between variant traditions.

[6] Preuss, J., Biblisch-talmudische Medizin (Berlin, 1911) 169, 321Google Scholar. It has been suggested (Schweizer, E.) that Tarfon, R. copied the Christian maxim in mockery, or that Christ's idea passed (anonymously) into wider Jewish currency (H. B. Green). But the existence of a similar saying outside Jewry negatives this implausible ideaGoogle Scholar. Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Matthäus (Stuttgart, 1929) 242–3Google Scholar, suggested Jesus took up a Jewish saying. So Schonfield, H. J., Authentic New Testament (London, 1962) 50, n. 46Google Scholar. Did both use a commonplace?

[7] MBh. 1.69.1, copied in many places. rājan sarsapa-mātrāni paracchidrāni paśyasi / ātmano bilva-mātrāni paśyann api na paśyasi. Sternbach, L., ‘Similar thoughts in the Mahābhārata …’, J. Am. Or. Soc. 91 (1971) 438–42 at 439–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Sternbach, , the acknowledged expert on subhāṣitas, took the MBh form to be older than Matt 7. 3Google Scholar and R. Tarfon's saying. Cf. Dhammapada, , 252 (chaff).Google Scholar

[8] Grotius, H., Annotationes in Libros Evangeliorum (Amsterdam, 1641) 158–9Google Scholar; Pricaeus, J., Commentarii in Variis Novi Testamenti Libros (London, 1660) 51, 257–8Google Scholar; Wetstenius, J. J., H KAINH ΔIAΘHKH (Amsterdam, 1751) I, 338–9Google Scholar; Ramage, C. T., Bible Echoes in Ancient Classics (Edinburgh, 1878) 180–1.Google Scholar

[9] With Cic., Tusc. 3. 30 one may compare the oft-quoted Hor., Sat. I.3.25–27, and there is (apud Stob., 4.23.5) the splendid verse of Menander: ἅπαντές έσμεν εις τò νουθετεīν σοϕοì / αύτοì δ' ⋯μαρτάνοντες οủ γινώσκομεν Cf. Shakespeare, , Love's Labour's Lost IV.iii.129–130.Google Scholar

[10] On Jewish/Christian communication with (Indian) Hinduism/Buddhism see Derrett, J. D. M., ‘A problem in the Book of Jubilees’, ZRGG 14 (1962) 247–62Google Scholar; ‘Greece and India’, Ibid. 19 (1967) 33–64; ‘Greece and India again …’, Ibid. 22 (1970) 19–44; ‘The Samaritan Woman's pitcher’, Downside Review 349 (1984) 252–61Google Scholar. Derrett, , ‘Jewish Brahmins … ’, Cl. & Med. 34 (1983) 75–90Google Scholar. Moore, G. F., Judaism (Cambridge, Mass., 1958) I, 487, III, 148Google Scholar may well be wrong about the lame-and-blind parable (Charlesworth, J. H., ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I (London, 1983) 487, 492–4)Google Scholar: it could have passed from Jewry to India.

[11] Ps 38. 10; 1 En 106. 3. Plato, Tim. 45–6. Pliny, , N.H. 11.51 (ed. Nisard, , 450)Google Scholar. Shakespeare, , Venus & Adonis 485–6Google Scholar; Romeo & Juliet II.ii.13, 17Google Scholar; Merry Wives I.iii.64–7Google Scholar; Rich. II III.iii.68–9; 3Google ScholarH. VI V.ii.17Google Scholar. An encyclopedic treatment: Deonna, W., Le symbolisme de l'œil (École Fr. d'Athènes, Trav. et Mém. 15) (Paris, 1965)Google Scholar. The eye expresses all the personality, the seat of life, soul (23–4, 28)Google Scholar. Littré, Dict., s.v. ‘Oeil’, no. 15. Through the look the soul expresses all sentiment. Derrett, , Law in the New Testament (London, 1970) 204–6Google Scholar. For Betz, H. D. see below, n. 23; also Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (Philadelphia, 1985) ch. 5Google Scholar. Allison, D. C., ‘The Eye is the Lamp of the Body (Matthew 6. 22–23 = Luke 11. 34–6)’, NTS 33 (1987) 61–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar confirms that the idea that the eye is a lamp, and in seeing gives and receives light, was not merely Greek but also Jewish (esp. T. Job 18. 4). Add b. Ber. 60b.

[12] Arrogance: Ps 131. 1; Prov 6. 17; 30. 13, 17; Sir 26. 9 (cf. Shakespeare, , Much Ado III.i. 51–2)Google Scholar; complacency: Prov 3. 7; 12. 15; 16. 2; 21. 2; 30. 12; Is 5. 21; disappointment: Sir 18. 18; expectation: Ps 123. 2; 145. 15; Sir 4. 1(?); greed: Prov 27. 20; Qoh 1. 8(?); 4. 8; grief: Dt 28. 65; 1 Sam 2. 33; Job 17. 7; Ps 6. 7; Prov 23. 29; Lam 4. 17; 5. 17 (cf. Shakespeare, , Sonnet 132)Google Scholar; hatred: Ps 10. 8; 35. 19; Mic 4. 11; joy: Ezr 9. 8; Prov 15. 30; Bar 3. 14; loyalty: Ezek 20. 7; lust: Job 31. 1; Ezek 6. 9; Ps Sol 4. 5, 9; T Iss 7. 2 ff.; 2 Pet 2. 14; 1 John 2. 16; cf. Dio Chrys 33. 52; b. Ber 10a; Shakespeare, , Merry Wives I.iii. 71–3Google Scholar; pity: Dt 7. 16, etc.; 1 Sam 24. 10; Is 13. 18; Ezek 9. 5, 16. 5; Jud 2. 11; benevolence: Winter's Tale I.ii.1389–90; shamelessness: Sir 26. 11; suspicion: 1 Sam 18. 9; tenderness: Gen 29. 17. Note ‘to find grace in the eyes of’. Shakespeare, , As You Like It III.v.10–27Google Scholar is an essay on eye-communication. For the eyes and character see Romeo & Juliet I.iii.85–86.

[13] Job 11. 17; 29. 24 (cf. 30. 26, 28); Ps 4. 6; 44. 3; 89. 15; cf. Ps 31. 16; 67. 1; Prov 16. 15; cf. Job 19. 8 (LXX). While light goes with hilarity (Est 8. 16; Ps 97. 11; Prov 13. 9) and moral goodness (Ps 112. 4; Is 5. 20), darkness implies God's anger (Ps 69. 23; LXX Ps 68. 24) and death (Job 10. 21; 15. 23; 28. 3; Ps 107. 10; 143. 3; Qoh 11. 8; Jer 13. 16; Ep Jer 60). See Am 5. 18–20. Chaff and darkness are associated at Job 21. 17–18; Ps 35. 5–6.

[14] For ‘ayin rā’â, etc., see Kohut, A., ed., Aruch Completum VII (1891) 193Google Scholar. Levy, J., Neuhebräisches u. Chaldäisches Wörterbuch 3 (1883) 639–40 is goodGoogle Scholar. Deonna, , Symbolisme, 144–7.Google Scholar

[15] In general the ‘evil eye’ is involuntary: see Dundes, A., The Evil Eye (Berkeley, 1984)Google Scholar. But see Rheubottom, D., ’The seed of evil within’ in: Parkin, D., ed., The Anthropology of Evil (Oxford, Blackwell, 1985) ch. 5Google Scholar. Conscious malignity is not rare: Mark 7. 22; Sir 14. 5–10. It was known to Jews: Tg. Ps.Jon.; Gen 42. 5; Exod 33. 8; b. Ber 20a; B.M. 30a, 84a, 107b, Ned. 50 a. Midr. R. Gen. LIII.13 (Soncino trans., 472). Cf. Plut. Mor. 680D-E, 681E, 682D. Deonna, , Symbolisme, 148–58.Google Scholar

[16] Tg. ps.Jon., Num 33. 55. Billerbeck, , Komm. I, 833–4.Google Scholar

[17] Dt 15. 9; Prov 23. 6–7; 28. 22; T. Ben. 4.2–4 (σκοτεινòς όϕθαλμός) is very important. Matt 6. 23; 20. 15; Mark 7. 22, m. 'Āv. 2.9.11; b. Šabb. 74a. This is Jewish. The σκοτεινòν őμμα of Eur., Alc. 385 is quite another matter, also the πονηρία όϕθαλμν of Plato, , Hipp. Min. 374D. Niggardliness is recommended by the devil: Qur'an 37.268.Google Scholar

[18] Sir 32(35).10.12. Allison, ‘The Eye is the Lamp of the Body’, 77 takes ‘eye’ as ‘intent’, or ‘disposition’. Lachs, S. T., A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament (New Jersey, 1987) 127, 138 n. 13.Google Scholar

[19] j. (ed. Krotoshin) B.B. 4, 14d, 10; b. B.B. 64b, Šabb. 140b, t. Hull. 1.7.

[20] b. Šabb. 108b, Sôt. 38b. Jastrow, , Dict. 1071Google Scholar. Such a one is an enemy of man and of Israel: Ibid. 1299. According to Levenston-Sivan, , Megiddo Modern Dictionary (⁵ 1977)Google Scholar, sar ‘ayin is still Hebrew for ‘mean’. For the large eye see Deonna, , Symbolisme, 108–9.Google Scholar

[21] Tob. 4.7, 16. m. 'Āv. 2. 11 (Billerbeck on Matt 20. 15), 5. 13. Est. Rab. to 1. 4.

[22] Spicq, C., ‘La vertu de simplicité dans l'Ancien et le Nouveau Testament’, R. Sc. Phil. Theol. 22 (1933) 5–26Google Scholar. Schmid, J., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Regensburg, 1955) 138Google Scholar, took Luke 6. 41–42 to have nothing to do with compassion. Schniewind, J., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Göttingen, 1962) 92Google Scholar, rejects ‘meanness’ as the allusion in Matt 6. 22. Amstutz, J., ΆΠ∧ΟΤΗΣ (Bonn, 1968)Google Scholar. Allison, , ‘The Eye is the Lamp’, 76 (ethical and physical need not be distinguished).Google Scholar

[23] LXX Prov 11. 23–28; T Iss 3. 4, 8; 4. 6; Rom 12. 8; 2 Cor 8. 2; 9. 11, 13. Hermas, mand. 2.4 (cf. 6). Bar 19. 2. Phavorinus, followed by Hammond, H. (1605–60), A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament I (Oxford, 1845) 25Google Scholar; III, 52 (excellent). Suicerus, J. C., Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus (Amsterdam, 1728) I, 436–7Google Scholar. J, A.ülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (Tübingen, ² 1910) II, 100–1Google Scholar. Brandt, W., ‘Der Spruch vom lumen internum’, ZNW 14 (1913) 177–201 at 199Google Scholar. Schonfield, H. J., Authentic New Testament (London, 1962) 49, n. 42Google Scholar. Bauernfeind, O., TWNT I, 385 needs modificationGoogle Scholar. Schlitter, , Matthäus, 223 noted Jos., Ant. 7.332, Sifre Num. §110 and Exod R XXXI.1, but did not use the informationGoogle Scholar. Cadbury, H. J., ‘The single eye‘, HTR 47 (1954) 69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar (mammon after all suggests greed). Fenton agrees, Manson rejects the idea (basing his study on Luke), Gaechter ignores it, and Schweizer discards it. Betz, H. D. ignores the point and hence his complicated exposition at ‘Matthew vi.22f and ancient Greek theories of vision’ in: Text and Interpretation. FestGoogle Scholar. Black, M. (Cambridge, 1979) 43–56.Google Scholar

[24] m. 'Āv. 2.11; Prov 22. 9; T Iss 3. 4.

[25] Sir 14. 8, 9, 10; 31. 13; T Iss 3. 8 and T Ben 4. 1–2 are all but conclusive. Lightfoot, , Works, xi. 150–1. 1 Chr 29. 17Google Scholar. Well argued by Hatch, E., Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford, 1889) 80–82Google Scholar. Charles, R. H., Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (London, 1908) 106, note to T Iss 4Google Scholar. 6 (ethical unsoundness degenerating into ‘enviousness’, ‘grudging’). Plummer, A., An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (London, 1909) 113, agreed, noting the evil eye at 6. 23Google Scholar. So Brandt, , ‘Spruch’, 193. See Matt 7. 9–11 (even the mean give good gifts to their own children)Google Scholar. Gaechter, P., Das Matthäusevangelium (Innsburck-Vienna, 1963) 240Google Scholar did not understand the value of πονηροì őντες, which he dismissed. Nor Jülicher, Gleich. II.40; Lachs, Rabb. Comm. 142.

[26] Preuss, , Medizin, 321Google Scholar. Was B's eye afflicted with corneal opacity, trachoma (common in the Middle East), or Pterygium? Not relevant, for our saying takes 20/20 vision for granted; it is the spirit of the judgment which is defective. In spite of B's alleged defect his accusation of A is well founded.

[27] N. 4 above. Sifre. A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, trans. Hammer, R. (New Haven and London, 1986) 24Google Scholar with the important editorial note at 390 (‘there is no one free enough from sin to be fit to rebuke others’).

[28] b. ‘Ar. 16b (Soncino trans., 95). 1 Sam 20. 30, 33. YKH also means to testify, argue and prove (i.e. convince). Impatience of reproof (Job 13. 1–12, 21. 34; Prov 1. 25; 5. 12; 15. 10; Am 5. 10) may well lead to iterated recrimination (Job 20. 3). Reproofs may be useless: Hos 4. 4. Love of reproof is saintly (Ps 141. 5), and few can take it as did Abimelech (Gen 21. 26–27). Nissen, A., Gott and der Nächste im antiken Judentum (WUNT 15) (Tübingen, 1974) 304–5.Google Scholar

[29] b. ‘Ar. 16b (Sonc. 94) (cf. m. 'Āv. 3. 11). m. 'Āv. 3. 12. One must continue (hokeah) even up to a hundred times: b. B.M. 31a (Sonc. 193). Cf. Matt 18. 22. Tg. ps.Jon. Lev 19. 17; Tg. Neof. is. literal. Note the Golden Rule at Tg. ps.Jon. Lev 19. 18, also in the margin of Tg. Neof. Ibid. Maimonides, Code, I, II, vi, 3.7.8 (p. 55b). Moore, G. F., Judaism (Cambridge, Mass., 1958) II, 153.Google Scholar

[30] Ezek 3. 26; b. Yev. 65b with the notes at the Soncino translation, 437. Maimonides, Code, I, II, vi.7. Only the sober are to be rebuked: Sir 31. 31.

[31] CD 9.3, 7–8; 17–18. 1QS 5.24–6. 1 (Lev 19. 17 expounded: a neighbour should be rebuked in truth, humility, and mutual charity). Gad, T. 6. 3, 7. Nissen, Nächste, 304–5, 309.Google Scholar

[32] b. ‘Ar. 16b (Sonc. 94). Bahya ben Joseph ibn Paquda, Duties of the Heart (Jerusalem – New York, Feldheim, 1970) II, 236/7–238/9Google Scholar is very laconic here. The qualifications of the rebuker are ignored though Ibn Paquda is elsewhere eloquent on self-examination. Moore, , discussing this subject, does not attend to Matt 7. 1–5, nor (needless to say) does Nissen.Google Scholar

[33] b. B.M. 107b, B.B. 60b, Sanh. 18a, 19b. Midrash on Psalms, Ps 53, on Zeph 2. 1. King, ‘Mote’, 400. Billerbeck, , Komm. I, 446 (1, third citation onwards).Google Scholar

[34] Rom 2. 1–3, 19–21. It is known that Rom 2. 1 relates to Matt 7. 1–5, Luke 6. 37, John 8. 7.

[35] ‘Do not as I do, but as I say‘ is the typical rebuke of a parent or teacher. The theme of Shakespeare's Measure for Measure is different; there the judge incurred the offence for which he had previously condemned another to execution (III.ii.261–270, V.i.109–12).

[36] On Mark 10. 42–45 see Derrett, J. D. M., The Making of Mark (Shipston-on-Stour, Drink-water, 1985) 177–80Google Scholar; id., Studies in the New Testament 3 (Leiden, 1982) 215–29Google Scholar. YKH is God's role: Gen 31. 42; 1 Chr 16. 21; Ps 6. 1; 38. 1; 39. 11; 94. 10; Prov 3. 12; Ezek 25. 17; Mic 6. 2, etc. Or the Messiah's: Is 2. 4. For Job 19. 5; Ps 38. 16 (also Ps 55. 12; Mic 7. 8; Zeph 2. 10 and Ps 35. 26) see below. ‘What eye but such an eye would spy out such a quarrel?’: Shakespeare, , Romeo & Juliet III.i.21.Google Scholar

[37] Chrysostom, , Hom. 23Google Scholar, in Cramer, J. A., ed., Catena in Evangelia S. Matthaei et S. Marci (Oxford, 1840) 51–2Google Scholar. Gaechter, , 236Google Scholar is an example. But as early as the Didache (2. 7; 4. 3; 15. 1–3) the requirement of self-examination before reproving had disappeared, while the ranks of bishops, deacons, prophets and teachers were established. It is pointless to list conventional treatments of our topic. Tannehill, R. C., The Sword of his Mouth (SBL Semeia Supp. 1) (Philadelphia and Missoula, 1975) 114–18Google Scholar, concentrates on the relative size of the parties' faults. Spicq, C., Théologie Morale du Nouveau Testament 2 (Paris, 1965) 525 n. 4Google Scholar (end), could take the meaning as beyond discussion.

[38] Hertz, J. H. (The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, London, 1956, 497) writes of Lev 19Google Scholar, ‘This remarkable chapter occupies the central position in Leviticus and therefore in the Pentateuch. The Rabbis rightly regarded it as the kernel of the Law and declared that ‘the essentials of the Torah (rôv gûfēy tôrâ) are summarized therein’ (Sifra). This chapter has in fact been looked upon as a counterpart of the Decalogue itself, the Ten Commandments being in essence repeated in its verses … ’.

[39] The Appendix shows 23 sections, of which 13 have parallels of the first, and 7 of the second-class plausibility, leaving only 3 in a third class. In the first come 5. 21–26, 27–30, 33–37, 38–42, 43–48, 6. 1–4, 16–18, 19–21, 22–23, 24; 7. 1–5, 13–14, 21–23 (in part).

[40] Job 21. 18; Ps 1. 4; 35. 5; Is 17. 13; 29. 5; 41. 16; Hos 13. 3 (for LXX Cod. Vat. see Qoh. 12. 3). Gen R LXXXIII.5 (Soncino trans., 768). Tg Is 33. 11. Zeph 2. 2. Midrash on Psalms, Ps 2 §13 (trans. Braude, W. G., I, 44).Google Scholar

[41] śâkâ is bough, stake at Jdg 9. 48–49; śukôt are stakes (? spears) at Job 40. 31 (= 41. 7); m^e śûkâ is a thorn hedge (Is 5. 5; Prov 15. 9); ŚWK is ‘to fence’ at Job 10. 11 (cf. 1. 10), cf. m^esûkâ (sic) at Mic 7. 4; cf. Ezek 28. 13. That śēk means ‘stake’ and not ‘thorn’ was the revised opinion of Pagninus, S. and Mercerus, J., Thesaurus Linguae Sanctae (Geneva, 1614), col. 2895.Google Scholar

[42] j. ‘A.Z. 43a; Šabb. 9. 11d; Midrash on Psalms, Ps 14.

[43] Num 15. 24; b. B.B. 4a; j. Ta'an. 4. 49a.1 (Zech 11. 17). Hobab: Num 10. 31 (MT, Tgg.). Rabbis did not appropriate to themselves the rules disqualifying priests and judges with blemished eyes (b. Sanh. 34b). The blind guides idea occurs only at Matt 15. 14, 23. 16.

[44] Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (London, 1963) 42, 167Google Scholar. John 7. 49 is part of such a polemic, a masterpiece of irony. Schweizer, E., The Good News according to Matthew (London, 1976) 169.Google Scholar

[45] Basil, , Letters 22Google Scholar (Loeb edn., i, 1950, 130, 136 [ignore editor's notes]) reveals an excellent understanding of Christ's precept. Unlike Gaechter I do not see Gal 6. 1 and Jas 5. 19–20 as directed exclusively to ‘leaders of the community’. Schweizer (on v. 5) accuses Jesus of an inconsistency (Matthew, 169): there is none. Read Tit 2. 15 with 6–8.Google Scholar

[46] m. Men. 9. 5. Luke 6. 38. For a judgment of peace as well as truth see Zech 8. 16–17.

[47] b. Šev. 30a (Sonc. trans., 167). Sifra on Lev 19. 15 suggests a bias towards innocence. Przybylski, B., Righteousness in Matthew and his World of Thought (SNTSMS 41) (Cambridge, 1980) 64–5Google Scholar. See in. ‘Āv. 1. 6 and 6. 6(37).

[48] Jeremias, J., Sermon on the Mount (London, 1961/1977) 12, 25Google Scholar. Green, H. B., The Gospel according to Matthew (Oxford, 1975) 94Google Scholar. Manson, , Sayings, 58Google Scholar, finds one absurdity expressed by another; giving prominence to Luke who may be paraphrasing the text we have in Matthew. Schniewind, , Matthäus, 97–8Google Scholar, interestingly comments on the absurdity: conscious of what we owe God (Matt 18. 26) we are better able to judge others. The idea that the saying was absurd led some to think (led by K. Furrer) that ‘eye’ was a mistranslation for ‘well’ (Webster, C. A., Ex T 39 [1927] 91–2Google Scholar, rejected by Hedley, P. L., Ex T 39 [1928] 427)Google Scholar, but the latter position would be worse than the former.

[49] For Doeve, J. W.'s wholly independent and original reconstruction of the Sermon's compilation in two stages by reference to books of the Torah see his Jewish Hermeneutic in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen [1953]) 192–8Google Scholar. In several places his recognition of Matthew's interest in Leviticus agrees with mine. Doeve was before his time and reviewers could not cope with him.