Cette contribution se situe dans le sillage d'un précédent travail qui portait sur les sources non-littéraires, archéologiques et épigraphiques, du judéo-christianisme ancien.1

Narrative criticism has called our attention to the fact that the Gospels have plots. Still, the actual work of describing the plots of our various Gospels has only just begun. This article intends to further that project with regard to the Gospel of Matthew. It will review and critique work that has been done so far and will then offer a more precise formulation than has been proposed previously.

Recent discussion of the genre of Q suggests that a consensus is not yet emerging. On the one hand there is the view of John Kloppenborg that the stages in the development of Q were, firstly, the assembling of a number of wisdom speeches followed by, secondly, an expansion by various groups of sayings, many formed as chriae, and then, thirdly, a move in the direction of a bios by means of an historicizing tendency and the addition of the temptation story (Q 4.1–13).1 Within this approach traditions which seem prima facie to exhibit prophetic form or content are strictly subordinated to, or at least controlled by, their setting in a wisdom collection. That is, the wisdom Makrogattung determines how any prophetic Mikrogattungen are to be viewed. On the other hand there is the view of Migaku Sato that Q should be compared with prophetic books, and that it grew in several redactional stages, each of which was informed by the prophetic tradition and conditioned by prophetic mission.2 On this view the prophetic Makrogattung determines how any sapiential Mikrogattungen are to be viewed.

The Sayings Gospel Q is notable for lacking an account of Jesus' death.1 It is surprising that one early Christian document is apparently so indifferent to an event which plays a profound role in others (e.g., Romans, Mark). Scholars have, to be sure, observed that the issue of persecution and/or death is often referred to in Q, and many have come to believe that these references are casting an implicit glance at the death of Jesus himself. According to this line of thought, early Christians would have used the deaths of the prophets to connect Jesus' death with those of his followers. I do not intend to argue against this. Rather, I will propose that there is also another view according to which Q related Jesus' death and those of his followers. This view involved common, Cynic-Stoic ideas of the time.

Students of Paul's theology have directed much attention in recent years to the coherence of Paul's view of the law. Fascination with the subject is understandable since, at least for some, nothing less than the value of Paul's thinking for Christian theology is at stake in the debate.1 Most of the debate's energy has naturally focused not upon First Corinthians but upon the three epistles in which Paul speaks most fervently and frequently about the law: Gal-atians, Romans, and Philippians.2 Paul does, after all, use the word νόμος only eight times3 in First Corinthians whereas in Galatians, Romans, and Philippians, he uses it over a hundred times. In these three letters, moreover, the issue of the law is front and centre, for Paul is arguing energetically in all three against opponents who are trying to impose the law upon his Gentile converts. In First Corinthians, however, even if Cephas at one time passed through the community, there is nearly nothing to indicate that Judaizing had become a problem.4

In Gal 3.11–12 und Röm 10.5–10 stellt der Apostel Paulus Lev 18.5 in Beziehung zu jeweils einer anderen Schriftstelle, in Gal 3 zu Hab 2.4 und in Röm 10 zu Dtn 30.12–14. In der Exegese wird die Beziehung oft als eine hermeneutische Antinomie dargestellt. So schreibt Ph. Vielhauer1 zu Röm 10.5–8: ‘Hier stellt Paulus zwei Schriftworte einander entgegen … und spielt das zweite gegen das erste aus …’ Nach Vielhauer kann Paulus das tun, weil er die Erkenntnis der iustificatio impii als einen Kanon im Kanon gebraucht. Nach E. Käsemann2 übt Paulus an einer Stelle wie dieser die Unterscheidung der Geister der Schrift gegenüber und verwendet dabei die Rechtfertigungsbotschaft als Kriterium. Zu Gal 3.11–12 schreibt J. Chr. Beker:3 ‘In a daring move, Paul opposes Scripture to Scripture … and thus splits Scripture apart, because Lev 18.5 is antithetical to God's will in Christ.’4

In the third chapter of 2 Thess, the author of this letter addresses himself to the problem that some members of the church behave ἀτάκτως, ‘in a disorderly way’, and not according to the tradition (3.6). As it seems, this behaviour amounts to a refusal to work for a living. The brothers in question take advantage of others (cf. 3.8), and busy themselves with useless things, causing unrest (3.11–12).

The description of Wisdom in Sirach has exercised a profound influence on the interpretation of Matt 11.28–30. Many scholars, impressed with the evident parallels between Sir 51.23–7; 6.23–31 and the Matthean logion,1 have regarded the latter as dependent on the former.2 Others, taking a further step, have felt justified in interpreting the logion with reference to a wisdom christology. According to this view, Jesus, represented as Wisdom incarnate,3 offers rest to those burdened by the legal interpretations of the Pharisees4 through his yoke, which stands for his teaching, or, more precisely, for his interpretation of the law.5 This approach to the logion has had its detractors,6 and some scholars have questioned the suitability of positing any connection between Sirach and the logion.7 It is not the purpose of the present discussion to enter into this debate, but rather to draw attention to what might be termed a neglected feature in the discussion of Matt 11.28–30, namely the relation of the logion to certain OT prophetic themes.8