Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T14:20:49.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Right and Left: the Implications For Matthew 25.31–46

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

J. M. Court
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The antithesis between right and left is a commonplace idea of our modern world. It is hardly surprising that something so basic to human description and behaviour should have figured extensively in the ancient Near East and the Classical world as well. But, while there are advantages in an idea which crosses geographical and temporal frontiers so readily, there are disadvantages too, if it is necessary to reach any precision in meaning. So when we read in Didache 12. 1 of ‘right and left understanding’, the expression may not seem to require a second thought, or a commentator's attention. And yet, unless there is some clue in the context, any further deliberations merely serve to increase the puzzlement about what is meant.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 1985 , pp. 223 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Notes

[1] Cf. Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1972), 14, 177 ff.Google Scholar

[2] Cf. Wharton, J. A. in Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, 1962), 4, 79 f.Google Scholar

[3] Cf. Barrett, C. K., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Black's New Testament Commentaries) (London, 1973) 188.Google Scholar The quotation is from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar IV.iii.66.

[4] Cf. Lietzmann, H., An die Korinther I, II (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament) (Tübingen, 5 1969), loc. cit.Google Scholar

[5] Cf. Allo, E. B., Saint Paul: Seconde Épitre aux Corinthiens (Études Bibliques) (Paris, 2 1956), loc. cit.Google Scholar

[6] Cf. Kittel, , TWNT 2, 37–40Google Scholar (Frl. trans.) W. Grundmann; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum N.T. aus Talmud und Midraseh. (München, 1926), 1, 980 ff.Google Scholar

[7] Quotations from Midrash Rabbah Numbers Vol. 2, translated by Slotki, Judah J. (London [Soncino Press], 1939) 861 f.Google Scholar

[8] Quotations from Babylonian Talmud Seder Mo'ed Vol. 1, Shabbath, translated by Freedman, H. (London [Soncino Press], 1938) 297, 420.Google Scholar

[9] Quotations from Midrash Rabbah Song of Songs, translated by Simon, M. (London [Soncino Press’, 1939) 66.Google Scholar

[10] Cf. Gray, John, 1 and 2 Kings, A Commentary (London, 1964) 402Google Scholar on 1 Kings 22. 19: ‘The conception probably represents a fusion of the native Israelite idea of Yahwch as marshal of the host of Israel with that of God as king or governor of the forces of nature, which we consider to be adopted by Israel from Canaanite religion’.

[11] Description of the view rejected by Perowne, T. T., Obadiah and Jonah (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges) (Cambridge, 1898) 91.Google Scholar Cf. Allen, L. C., Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (New International Commentary) (London, 1976) 234.Google Scholar

[12] Jonah and Daniel (Christian Students' Library No. 9) (Madras, 1960) 21.Google Scholar

[13] Cf. Bewer, J. A., Jonah in Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (ICC) (Edinburgh, 1912).Google Scholar

[14] Cf. Gray, G. B., Isaiah 1–27 (ICC) (Edinburgh, 1912) 131.Google Scholar Of the older commentators, H. Ewald and A. Dillmann subscribed to the moral perception theory.

[15] Deuteronomy (ICC) (Edinburgh, 1902) 28.Google Scholar

[16] Text and translation in Barthélemy, D. and Milik, J. T., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, Qumran Cave I (Oxford, 1955) 109 ff.Google Scholar

[17] La Didaché (Paris, 1958) 454.Google Scholar Cf. Giet, S., L'énigme de la Didache (Paris, 1970) 225.Google Scholar

[18] On textual variations cf. Vokes, F. E., The Riddle of the Didache (London, 1938).Google Scholar

[19] Cf. 1 Cor 6. 2 f.; Mt 16. 18 f.; 18. 18; 19. 28; Jo 20. 23.

[20] Cf. Mt 7. 1 (//Lk 6. 37 f.); Rom 2. 1 f.; 14. 10.

[21] Cf. Court, J. M., ‘The Didache and St. Matthew's Gospel’, SJT 34 (1981) 109–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[22] E.g. Friedrich, J., Gott im Bruder? (Stuttgart, 1977) 163.Google Scholar

[23] Cf. Hare, D. R. A. and Harrington, D. J., ‘“Make Disciples of all the Gentiles” (Mt. 28. 19)’, CBQ 37 (1975) 359–69.Google Scholar

[24] Cf. Cope, L., ‘Matthew 25. 31–46. “The Sheep and the Goats” Reinterpreted’, NovT 11 (1969) 32–44.Google Scholar

[25] Cf. Bornkamm, G., Barth, G., Held, H. J., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London, 1963) 15–51.Google Scholar

[26] I am most indebted to the clear analysis of interpretations provided by G. N. Stanton in a paper ‘Once More: Matthew 25. 31–46’, read to the New Testament Conference at the University of Hull in September 1981, and referred to with the author's permission.

[27] Cf. Wikenhauser, A., ‘Die Liebeswerke in dem Gerichtsgemälde Mt. 25. 31–46’, Bib.Z. 20 (1932)366–77.Google Scholar

[28] Cf. Mt 10. 9f. = Lk 10. 4; Acts 16. 30 ff.; 1 Cor 4; 2 Cor 6, 11; 3 Jo 5 f.

[29] Cf. Marxsen, W., Mark the Evangelist - Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel (Nashville, 1969) 198–204.Google Scholar

[30] Hare, D. R. A., The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St Matthew (Cambridge, 1967) 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[31] See the detailed discussions with evidence for types of persecutions in D. R. A. Hare's book (n. 30). Cf. Theissen, G., The First Followers of Jesus (London, 1978).Google Scholar

[32] Hare, D. R. A. and Harrington, D. J. art. cit. (n. 23) 365.Google Scholar

[33] Catchpole, David R., ‘The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven. A Reappraisal of Matthew 25. 31–46’, BJRL 61, 2 (Spring, 1979) 394; cf. 358.Google Scholar