^{page 254 note 1} Matthew, 18. 19Google Scholar; 21. 22; Mark, 11. 24Google Scholar; John, 11. 22; 14. 13–14.15. 7, 16; 16. 23–24. 26Google Scholar; James, 1. 5–6; 4. 2–3.1Google ScholarJohn, 3. 22; 5. 14–16.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 2} II Clement 15. 4; Shepherd of Hermas: Visions 3:10:6; Mandates 9:1–8. Similitudes 5:3:9.

^{page 254 note 3} Tertullian, , ad haer i:viiiGoogle Scholar; ad Marc iv:xxviGoogle Scholar; On Baptism XX; On Prayer X; Clement of Alexandria, , Stromata ii.xx, 116, 2Google Scholar; III.vii.57, 3; V.iii.16, 7; VI.ix.78, 1; Cyprian, Epistle 7:2, 3 (Epistle xi in Oxford edition); Didymus Alexandrinus (in MG, Vol. 39, p. 165bGoogle Scholar).

^{page 254 note 4} Gospel of Philip, , 34Google Scholar; Epistola Apostolorum, 20, 23, 39.

^{page 254 note 5} Allen, W. E., Gospel According to St. Matthew (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, ICC, Third edition, 1912) 67Google Scholar; Argyle, A. W., The Gospel According to Matthew (Cambridge: University Press, 1963) 61Google Scholar; McNeile, Alan Hugh, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (NY: St. Martin's, 1965) 91Google Scholar; Leaney, A. R. C., The Gospel According to St. Luke (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1966) 188Google Scholar; Plummer, Alfred, Gospel According to St. Luke (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, ICC, Second edition, 1922) 299.Google ScholarKingsbury, Jack Dean, ‘The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount Within Matthew’, Interpretation 41 (04, 1987) 131–43, p. 142.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 6} Bauer, B., Kritik der Evangelische Geschichte der Synoptiker (Leipzig, 1841) Vol. 1, 377Google Scholar; Weiss, Bernhard, Das Matthäus-Evangelium (Göttingen: V & R, 1898) 154Google Scholar; Schmid, Josef, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1959) 147Google Scholar; Grundmann, Walter, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968) 223Google Scholar; Bomkamm, Gunther, ‘Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt’, New Testament Studies 24 (1978) 419–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 255 note 1} Edwards, Richard A., Theology of Q: Eschatology, Prophecy and Wisdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 59, 60Google Scholar, 61, 109: Edwards also calls this a ‘sentence’ and a ‘motive clause’. We are assuming the three criteria for proverbs presented by Thompson, John Mark, Form and Function of Proverbs in Ancient Israel (The Hague: Mouton, 1974) 18Google Scholar: a proverb must (i) have an arresting and inspired form, (ii) have wide appeal and acceptance, and (iii) be considered true.

^{page 256 note 1} With Linnemann, Eta, The Parables of Jesus: Introduction and Exposition (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 3Google Scholar: A ‘similitude tells of “a typical situation or typical regular event”’ as opposed to a parable which describes ‘“some interesting particular case”’ (Linnemann here is quoting Bultmann).

^{page 256 note 2} Geldenhuys, Norval, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1957) 326.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 1} Paul, DespiteMinear, S., Commands of Christ (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972)Google Scholar, Chapter 7: ‘Ask, Seek, Knock’, esp. pp. 118–25Google Scholar where he refers to occurrences of seek- and knock-inspired images in the NT.

^{page 257 note 2} For instance, Irenaeus' practice is to cite only the seek-loon; Against Heresies 2:13:9, 2:18:3; and 2:30:2.

^{page 257 note 3} Clement of Alexandria, : Stromata 5:3 and 8:1.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 4} The knock-logion virtually disappeared. It had no OT or Qumran antecedents, and only occasional use among the rabbis, once referring to the study of the Law (Pesikta 176^a) and once to a request for God's mercy (Meg. 12^b). The seek-loon did have antecedents. Some 14 passages in the OT speak of seeking the Lord, for instance. In only two (Jer 29. 13 and Dan 9. 3) instances is it absolutely clear that prayer is the means by which the Lord is sought. More often it is in terms of faithfulness (to the covenant) by means of which the Israelites hoped to find themselves in a good relationship with God. At Qumran, ‘seek’ was used primarily in a religious sense: to study the law; to evaluate the conduct of people (Manual of Discipline 5:20; 8:24; Zadokite Document 15:11) or to seek God (Manual of Discipline 1:1); Hymns 4:6; Zadokite Document 1:10; 6:6–7.. The seek-logion became popular in gnostic circles and takes on the idea of seeking to know (cf. Pap. Oxy. 654; Thomas, 2, 92, 94Google Scholar; Epistola Apostolorum 37; Gospel of Mary). In the NT itself, there is successful seeking (Luke, 15. 5–6Google Scholar); 8–9. and unsuccessful seeking (John, 7. 34, 36Google Scholar); successful knocking (Luke, 11. 5–8Google Scholar) and unsuccessful knocking (Luke, 13. 24–28Google Scholar).

^{page 257 note 5} This passage has remarkable affinities with Matthew, 7. 6–8:Google Scholar

(92) Jesus said: Seek, and ye shall find;

but those things concerning which ye

asked me in those days, I did not tell

you then. Now I wish to tell them,

and ye seek not after them.

(93) (Jesus said): Give not that which is

holy to the dogs, lest they cast them on

the dung heap; cast not the pearls to the

swine, lest they make it (…)

(94) Jesus (said): He who seeks shall find,

and he who knocks, to him it shall be opened.

^{page 258 note 1} Taylor, V., ‘The Order of Q’, JTS 4 New Series (04, 1953) 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 258 note 2} There are differences in terms of the specific requests made to the father. Matthew reports bread and fish; Luke fish and egg. Similarly, there are differences in the (rejected) responses. Matthew considers a stone and a serpent; Luke a serpent and a scorpion. Some critics have attempted to see much in these differences ranging from literary to ecclesiastical matters. For our purposes, the differences are insignificant. The similitude is one in which items could be substituted interminably without changing the nature of the story.

^{page 259 note 1} Allison, Dale, ‘The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount’, Journal of Biblical Literature 106/3 (1987) 423–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 259 note 2} Kingsbury, , op. cit., 140–1.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 3} Jones, Alexander, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965) 95Google Scholar; Friedlander, Gerald, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (New York: KTAV, 1969).Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 4} V. 6 has posed difficulties for critics. at is it doing here? Of the many suggestions, the following seem most attractive – though still not overly compelling: (a) It is here by word association (cf. Black, Matthew, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts [Oxford: Clarendon, 1967] 200–1Google Scholar); or (b) it may be seen as Matthew's own effort to impose some controls on the following ask-loon, implying something like: Ask – but remember: good things do not come to ‘swine or dogs’.

^{page 259 note 5} Although elsewhere Matthew has versions of this same saying tradition that are decidedly ecclesiastical: 18. 19; 21. 22; (?17. 20).

^{page 259 note 6} Davies, w. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966) 366 f.Google Scholar, esp.: ‘The distinctiveness of Q resides not in any hortatory or catechetical character which it may possess but in its ‘crisis’ significance (381) … and it is as a part of this crisis that it understands the ethical teaching of Jesus (385) … this teaching itself helped to constitute that crisis (386).’

^{page 260 note 1} Cf. Mealand, D. L., Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels (London: SPCK, 1980) 86.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 2} Anderson, Hugh, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 267–8.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 3} It is occasionally argued that ‘ask’ (αίτεīν) carries the meaning of prayer, or intense prayer. This has been shown not to be the case by Harris, Oscar, Prayer in Luke-Acts: A Study in the Theology of Luke (Ph.D. Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1966).Google Scholar Pressing back toward an ‘original’ form, Black, op. cit., says that ‘the Aramaic equivalent of , sh^e,al, means “to ask for a loan”, “to borrow”, as well as simply “to ask’” (p. 180).

^{page 261 note 1} Dalman, Gustaf, Die Worte Jesu (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965) 183.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 2} There is a hesitancy to make requests too specific and a suggestion that it be left up to God to give what is best. Abrahams, I., Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (New York: KTAV, 1924, Vol. 1) 76.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 3} A third line of ‘interpretation’ may be suggested for a time soon after the division of the tradition between the eschatological-ethical and the ecclesiastical. It is an effort to disallow ‘asking’ or to discredit it; it attempts to eliminate the problem of all the possible abuses fostered by the ask-loon at one blow. Examples of the saying in this stream of interpretation are Matthew, 20. 20–23//Mark 10. 35–4.Google Scholar; 1 Cor 1. 22–23. Perhaps we even have a reaction against this in James 4. 2c and John, 16. 24a.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 1} Minear, Paul, Matthew, the Teacher's Gospel (NY: Pilgrim Press, 1982) 58.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 2} Calvert, D. G. A., ‘An Examination of the Criteria for Distinguishing the Authentic Words of Jesus’, NTS 18 (1971–1972) 209–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, lists five criteria by which a saying would need to be adjudged inauthentic: such a saying would (i) accord with the teaching of the early church, (ii) accord with the teachings of Judaism, (iii) presuppose a situation unthinkable at the time of Jesus, (iv) contradict other, more genuine sayings of Jesus, and/or (v) prove to be a development of what is found elswhere. The ask-logion in its original form does not meet any of these criteria. Calvert goes on to list criteria to be met for positively identifying a saying as authentic. Such a saying would (i) be distinctive from Jewish thought, (ii) be distinctive from the thought of the post-Easter church, (iii) contain elements that could not be from the church, (iv) exhibit Aramaisms and reflect Palestinian conditions, (v) be characteristic of the known teaching of Jesus. In our opinion, the original ask-logion meets all of these criteria.

^{page 264 note 1} So Minear, , ‘Ask, Seek, Knock’, op. cit., who sees the tradition as one of removing ambiguities (p. 117)Google Scholar and having the quality of profound reflection (p. 130).

^{page 264 note 2} Dibelius, Martin, James (Philadelphia, Fortress, 1976) 77Google Scholar attributes the restrictions on prayer in James (and we can to a large extent generalize his notion) to ‘disappointment of the confidence that prayers would receive an answer’.

^{page 264 note 3} Gager, John, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975) 10Google Scholar distinguishes between the world-constructing efforts of new religions to found a new order and the world-maintenance aspect of attempting to manage ‘an established religion under stable conditions’.

^{page 265 note 1} Minear, , ‘Ask, Seek, Knock’, op. cit., 125.Google Scholar