^{page 87 note 1} ‘Nur unter dieser theologischen Voraussetzung von Mt 28, 16–20 ist das ganze Evangelium geschrieben worden…Ja, der Abschluß kehrt in gewisser Weise zum Anfang zurück und lehrt das ganze Evangelium, die Geschichte Jesus “von hinten her” verstehen. Mt 28, 18–20 ist der Schlūssel zum Verständnis des ganzen Buches’, Michel, O., ‘Der Abschluß des Matthäus-Evangeliums,’ Evangelische Theologie, x (1950/1951), 21Google Scholar, cited by Trilling, W., Das Wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthäus-Evangeliums (Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 10; Munich, 1964 ³), p. 21Google Scholar, who fully agrees with this programmatic statement of Michel's and bases his work upon it. For a critique of Trilling see Hummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (Beiträge zur vangelischen Theologie 33; Munich, 1966 ²), passim, pp. 162–73.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 2} This is the common logical division of the text: Barth, cf. G., ‘Law and ChristologyX’, in Bornkamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. J., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, trans. Scott, P. (Philadelphia, 1963), pp. 131 ff.Google Scholar; Bornkamm, G., ‘Der Auferstandene und der Irdische: Mt 28, 16–20’, in Dinkler, E. (ed.), Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag (Tübingen, 1964), p. 173Google Scholar; Hahn, F., Mission in the New Testament, trans. Clarke, F. (Studies in Biblical Theology 47; London, 1965), p. 64Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., Jesue' Promise to the Nations, trans. Hooke, S. H. (Studies in Biblical Theology 14; London, 1958), p. 39Google Scholar; and Trilling, op. cit. pp. 21–45 along with the commentators he cites there.

^{page 87 note 3} For a list of the commonly held views to date, cf. Trilling, Ibid. pp. 45–9; these include Bultmann: ‘eine Art Kultlegende’, who in this is followed by L. Brun; Dibelius: ‘Offenbarungswort’ (like Matt. xi. 25 ff.), and similarly W. E. Bundy; Michel and Jeremias: ‘Inthronisationshymnus’ Holtzmann: ‘Gemeinderegel’ Trilling: ‘Schema der alttestamentlichen Gottesrede’ to this listing add Hahn, op. cit. p. 65 and passim: ‘enthronement pattern’ Bornkamm, art. cit. pp. 171–2 (Hummel, op. cit., follows Bornkamm in his views on the conclusion of Matt.) offers a critique of previous positions similar to Trilling's. but he offers nothing definite aside from the general description of the type (!) ultimately deriving from Bultmann: that ‘die Schlußperikope im ganzen einem bestimmten Typus von Ostergeschichten zuzuordnen ist, die Erscheinungen und Missionsauftrag des Auferstandenen verbinden’ Bultmann, cf. R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen 1964), pp. 312–13Google Scholar, who speaks descriptively of ‘Typen…oder besser Motive’. If the literary form cannot be adequately discerned, then it would be better to speaks of motifs rather than of types in a given literary passage.

^{page 87 note 4} Art. cit. p. 174; interestingly enough, Bornkamm does not use the work of Trilling, the first edition of which came out in 1959. And while both Bornkamm and Trilling realize the importance of determining the literary form of the passage for exegesis, this consideration does not greatly influence their treatment of the text. On the other hand, the fact that first-century writings are meant to be read aloud, hence as literature belong to the performing arts, would make the determination of the literary form a necessary prerequisite for the general and specific interpretation and determination of the parts of a text; cf. Alonso-Schökel, L., The Inspired Word: Scripture in the Light of Language and Literature, trans. Martin, F. (New York, 1965), pp. 241–77.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 1} Bornkamm, Ibid. p. 172 does observe: ‘Mit ihnen endet gewichting nicht nur diese Szene, sondern das Evangelium des Matthäus im ganzen’ yet this and several other valuable observations he makes do not come to bear upon his consequent treatment of the text.

^{page 88 note 2} We might note with Bornkamm, Ibid. p. 173 n. 12: ‘Das gut bezeugte ούν (v. 19) felt in einigen Hss. Doch ist es mindestens sinngemäß. Auch και ίδού (20b) markiert den Zusammenhang.’

^{page 88 note 3} Following Michel and Jeremias (p. 87 n. 3 above), most exegetes do not believe the pure Iiterary form of enthronization can be found here (i.e. (1) conferral of supreme authority; (2) presentation and proclamation of the one so authorized; (3) acclamation and acknowledgement by the people, his subjects), yet almost all see a Christological echo at least deriving from some such form (e.g. Bornkamm, Barth, Hahn, Trilling); this Christological echo brings several related ideas in its train: Jesus' exaltation, the Hellenist Jewish-Christian community to whom this exaltation of Jesus as Lord was important. These ideas are neatly clustered by Hahn, op. cit. p. 65: ‘The concept of Jesus’ exaltation, which becomes settled in Hellenist Jewish Christianity, is expressed here (Matt. xxviii. 18–20) with the help of the enthronement pattern.’

^{page 89 note 1} Bornkamm, art. cit. p. 173.

^{page 89 note 2} Ibid. p. 174.

^{page 89 note 3} op. cit. p. 48; Trilling admits he cannot further define the literary form of the entire passage here; his tentative description is as follows: Matt. xxviii. 18b-20 manifests the ‘Schema der alttestamentlichen Gottesrede’, and its elements here would consist of v. 18b: Offenbarungswort; vv. 19–20a: Weisung; v. 20b: Verheißung.

^{page 89 note 4} See Jeremias, J., The Prayers of Jesus, trans. Bowden, J. (Studies in Biblical Theology (2nd series), 6; London, 1967), p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 5} The validity of a comparison of our passage with Dan. vii. 14 has been more or less rejected by Trilling, op. cit. pp. 22–3, following the study of A. Vögtle; Hahn, op. cit. p. 66 does admit the enthronement pattern here, but ‘in this case the primary reference is not to Dan. 7. 14’.

^{page 89 note 6} Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Matthäus (Stuttgart, 1948), p. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 1} Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1967 ³), p. 126.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 2} Trilling, op. cit. p. 26.

^{page 90 note 3} Bornkamm, art. cit. p. 173.

^{page 90 note 4} Daube, D., ‘Appended Note: Participle and Imperative in I Peter’, in Selwyn, E. G., The First Epistle of St Peter (London, 1947 ²), pp. 467–88.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 5} Ibid. p. 476.

^{page 90 note 6} Ibid. p. 484.

^{page 91 note 1} Cf. the opinion of Holtzmann, H. J., Die Synoptiker (Hand-Commentar zum N.T.; Tübingen/Leipzig, 1901 ²), p. 299Google Scholar, who held the whole passage to be ‘ein Stück judenchristlicher Gemeindeordnung’ (cited from Trilling, op. cit. p. 47). While the whole passage is not a community code regulation, we believe this entence certainly is.

^{page 91 note 2} op. cit. p. 41.

^{page 91 note 3} See Léon-Dufour, X., ‘Les Évangiles synoptiques’, in Robert, A. and Feuillet, A., Introduction à la Bible (Tournai, 1959), II, 164–8.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 1} See Rudolph, W., Esra und Nehemia samt 3. Esra (Handbuch zum A.T. 20;. Tübingen, 1949), p. 2Google Scholar; similarly Eissfeldt, O., The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. Ackroyd, P. (Oxford, 1965), pp. 530–1.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 2} Westermann, C., Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, trans. White, H. C. (London, 1967), pp. 106–7.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 1} The Swete text has: ∏$$$σαиς Тαīσ βασиλЭíαиσ, perhaps mirroring the polemic referred to in note I on p. 97 below.

^{page 93 note 2} Compare the parallel versions:

Ezra i. 2–3: Ούπως είπεν Κūρος βασιλεùς περσ⋯ν πάσας τάς βασιλεíασ εδωκÉν μοι ó θεòς ΤοŨ ούρανοŨ, καί έпεσκέψατó με έп έμÈ οίκοδομ⋯σαι αύτῷ οΙκον έν Ὶερουσαλήμ τῇ έν Ὶοῇδᾳ. τíς έν ύμīν άпò пαντòς τοŨ λαοũ αύτοũ; καì ἔσται ό θεòσ αύτοŨ μετ αύτοŨ, καì άναβήσεται είς Ὶερουσαλήμ.

III Esdras ii. 3–6: Τάδε λέγει ό βασιλεύς Пερς⋯ν ΚŨρος Εμέ ν έδειξεν βασιλέα τ⋯ς οικυμένης ό κύρι ος τοŨ Ὶσραήλ, κύριος ό ύψισος, καί έσήμηνέν μοι οίκοδομ⋯σαλ αύτ⋯ ο$$$κον έν Ὶερουσαλήμ τῇ έν τῇ Ὶουδαί$$$. εἵ τíς έστιν ο$$$ν ύμ⋯ν έκ τοŨ ἔθνοΥς αύτοŨ, ἔστω ό κύριος αύτοŨ με$$$ αύτοŨ, καì άναβάς…οικοδμεíτω κτλ.

Josephus, Ant. X, I, par. 3–4: ότι Κūρος ό βασιλεùς λέγει $$$пεí μΕ ό θεός ό μέγιστος τ⋯ς ο$$$κοουμένης άпέδειξε βασ;ιλέα пεìθομαι τοŨτον ε$$$ναι ον τό τ⋯ν Ὶσραηλιτ⋯ν $$$θνος пροσκυνεī. και γάρ τούμóν пροεīпεν $$$νομα διά τ⋯ν пροϕητ⋯ν και ότι τόν ναόν αύτοŨ οίκοδομήσω έν Ὶεροσολύμοις έν τῇ Ὶουδαί$$$ χώρ$$$.

^{page 93 note 3} op. cit. P. 110.

^{page 94 note 1} Bauer, Cf. W., Arndt, W. F., Gingrich, F. W., A Greek-English Lexcon of the New Testament and Other Early Literature (Chicago, 1957), p. 371Google Scholar; for a listing of καí ίδσύ occurrences in Matt., see Allen, W. C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (Edinburgh, 1912 ³), p. lxxxviGoogle Scholar; from this listing, we might note that καì ίδού+finite verb occurs only here on the lips of Jesus (two other occurrences: vii. 4 in an a fortiori argument, but no finite verb; xxviii. 7 in the message of the angel of the Lord).

^{page 94 note 2} Cf. the recent study of Ellis, I. P., ‘“But Some Doubted”,’ N.T.S. XIV (1967/1968), 574–80Google Scholar, which does not consider the literary form or structure of the passage. The problem is better stated by Barth, art. cit. p. 132: ‘Hencen the naming of doubt in Matthew must also serve the purpose of overcoming this doubt through what is reported in the following verses. But these verses do not provide any clearer seeing or observing, but the word of Jesus. The meaning therefore can only be that this doubt is overcome by the word of Jesus’ similarly Bornkamm, art cit. p. 172. As we shall point out below, the literary form of the passage would seem to indicate that the doubt is to be overcome by fulfilling the command of Jesus.

^{page 95 note 1} Zimmerli, W., ‘Das Wort des göttlichen Selbsterweises (Erweiswort), eine prophetische Gattung’, in Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l'honneur de A. Robert (n.p. 1957), pp. 154–64.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 2} See Koch, K., Was ist Formgeschichte? Neue Wege der Bibelexegese (Neukirchen, 1964), pp. 238–9Google Scholar for a brief sketch of the relationship of the proof pattern to the announcement of salvation form; on the sign element and its function in prophetic speech forms, note the observations of Westermann, op. cit. p. 159: ‘In this collection of texts one can see that there is a primary and essential union of word and sign in the prophetic speech. The later symbolic actions of the writing prophets are grounded in this primary union. Always, these signs are related to the announcement and never to its reason, the accusation (But the accusation can also be associated with the parabolic speech: II Sam. ch. 12 and I Kings 20: 38–40). The reason that a sign is attached to the announcement in so many cases is that the thing announced will only appear later, perhaps after several years. Its intention, therefore, is to attest to the speech in the hour in which it was delivered. It is possible, and even probable, that the sign also belonged originally to the announcement of Salvation (just as in Isa. 7: 1–9; 37: 30 f.) and passed from there into the announcement of judgment (as Isa. 7: 10–17 shows). Later the sign was disconnected from the word and is very seldom joined to it in the writing prophets.’

^{page 96 note 1} Since Matt. xxviii. 18–20 closes the work of Matt. and II Chron. xxxvi. 23 closes the Jewish scriptures, this fact alone would seem to suggest some sort of relationship between the two intended by the author of Matt. However, the order of books in the Jewish canon during the time of Matt.'s composition is not at all clear. The earliest text on this matter is the baraita in Baba Bathra 14a which does in fact list Chronicles (then a single book) last; for the text and a discussion of it, see Ginsburg, C., Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (New York, reprint 1966), pp. 1–8Google Scholar; and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum N.T. aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich, 1928), IV, 415–51Google Scholar. As Ginsburg has indicated, a number of manuscripts list Ezra-Nehemiah as the final book of the canon; the medieval treatise Adath Deborum (A.D. 1207) describes this latters listing as Western or Palestinian practice, while the listing with Chronicles last is ermed Eastern or Babylonian practice. Yet it is a well-known fact that in matters of liturgical disposition and use of Scriptures, the Babylonian rabbis normally followed the precedent set by their Palestinian fellows; see Büchler, A., ‘The Reading of the Law and the Prophets in a Triennial Cycle. II,’ Jewish Quarterly Review, VI (1894), 17–18Google Scholar. Hence medieval Palestinian practice need not mirror the usage in vogue in Palestine at the time of the aforementioned Babylonian baraita. Further, all manuscript evidence is medieval. Certainly at a time, before Matt. Chronicles was once the final book of the Jewish canon (see Rudolph and Eissfeldt, cited above, p. 92 n.1). But the evidence for the first century A.D. is too indirect and deductive to allow for any historical certainty in the matter of the order of books. Yet it is possible Matt. did have Chronicles in mind while working upon the beginning (genealogies) and the end (decree) of his gospel; see below.

^{page 97 note 1} E.g. most recently Bornkamm, art. cit. p. 173; but once again he does not draw any significant conclusions from this usage. While the main burden of this article is to define the literary form and structure of Matt.'s conclusion and not to interpret that text, we might point out here that the emphatic use of π⋯ς (see the structure in the text, below) most probably has some reference to a contemporary polemic problem. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1928), VI, 289 n. 40 points to the presence of this polemic in the writings of Justin Martyr (Dialogue, 34) and Tertullian (Adversus Judaeos, 7). The problem was this. Jewish tradition (undoubtedly known to Justin in the first half of the second century A.D.) hands down a haggada according to which there were ten (or three) monarchs who ruled over all the world. Justin and Tertullian are at pains to contradict this assertion in their polemic with Jews by maintaining that the scriptural passages telling of these kings' dominion over all creation can only refer to Jesus. Now Matt.'s use of π⋯ς here obviously emphasizes the same thing. And if we should see some form of this haggada as Matt.'s background, we are once again led to confront our passage with the edict of Cyrus in Chron. Cyrus in fact is one of the ten kings who ruled all the world, the last named in the Hebrew canon (in the haggada Alexander is named between Cyrus and the Messiah from Daniel, but in no manuscript or tradition is the book of Daniel listed as the last book of the canon; cf. the list in Ginsburg, op. cit. p. 7). The full-blown form of this haggada is to be found in Pirḳe de Rabbi Eliezer (= PRE) ii (cited here from G. Fried- lander, New York, 1965, reprint of 1916, pp. 80–3); Ginzberg, The Legends etc., V, 199 n. 82 thinks the ten-listing is original in all shapes of this haggada, even the truncated ones; he offers a list of parallels as does Gaster, M., The Exempla of the Rabbis (New York, 1968, reprint of 1924), pp. 1–2Google Scholar (Hebrew text), 185 parallels. The list of the ten kings in the PRE version includes: God, Nimrod, Joseph, Solomon, Ahab, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander, the Messiah, God. This haggada offers a schematization of history based upon those kings whom the Bible mentions as having ruled all, i.e. from one end of the world to the other. Consider the emphasis on all in the first part of the haggada, then the series from Cyrus to God: ‘Ten kings ruled from one end of the world to the other. The first king was the Holy One, bbH, who rules in heaven and on earth, and it was His intention to raise up kings on earth, as it is said, “And he changeth the times and the seasons; he removeth kings and setteth up kings” (Dan. ii. 21).’ Then follow descriptions of Nimrod, Joseph, Solomon, Ahab and Nebuchadnezzar. The text then continues: ‘The seventh king was Cyrus, who ruled from one end of the world to the other, as it is said: “Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord, the God of heaven, given me” (II Chron. xxxvi. 23). Ahasuerus ruled over half the world. Is not half the world but 116 provinces, as it is said, “This is Ahasuerus, who reigned from India unto Ethiopia” (Esth. i. i). The eighth king was Alexander of Macedonia, who ruled from one end of the world to the other, as it is said, “And as I was considering, behold, an he-goat came from the west over the face of the whole earth” (Dan. viii. 5). “Over the earth” is not written here, but “over the face of the whole earth”. And not only that, but he wished to ascend to heaven in order to know what is in heaven and to descend into the depths in order to know what is in the depths, and not only that, but he attempted to go to the ends of the earth in order to know what is at the ends of the earth. The Holy One, bbH, divided his kingdom among the four corners (or winds) of the heavens, as it is said: “And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided towards the four winds of the heaven” (Ibid. xi. 4). The ninth king is King Messiah, who in the future will rule from one end of the world to the other, as it is said, “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea” (Ps. lxxii. 8); and another Scripture says, “And the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth” (Dan. ii. 35). The tenth king will restore the sovereignty to its owners. He who was the first king will be the last king, as it is said, “Thus saith the Lord, the King…I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God” (Isa. xliv. 6); and it is written, “And the Lord shall be king over all the earth” (Zech. xiv. g).’

It seems clear that what is original to the haggada is the listing of ten kings with a relevant Scripture text showing how they ruled over all; the rest of the comments in the passage would be later (perhaps polemic) additions. Further, it seems highly probable that some form of this haggada did exist in first-century A.D. Palestine. There are a number of indications which would converge to allow for this probability.

As for the pattern of succession from Cyrus to the Messiah, this idea antedates the first century. The evidence comes from I Enoch lxxxix–xc and the theory of seventy shepherds there; Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the O. T. (Oxford, 1913), ii, 255Google Scholar, note ad v. 59 observes: ‘The theory of the seventy shepherds is an extension of the conception of the seventy years of Jeremiah and the seventy periods of Daniel. The events between the fall of Jerusalem and the Messianic kingdom are divided into four periods: (i) to the Return under Cyrus; (2) to the conquests of Alexander; (3) to the Seleucid conquests of Palestine; (4) to the Messiah's reign.’ This passage dates from the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 B.C., cf. Eissfeldt, op. cit. p. 619); for an equally ancient pattern of ten periods or ages, cf. the Ten WeekApocalypse, I Enoch xciii. 1–14; xci. 12–17. Further, the idea of the Messiah's reign eventually ceding to that of God is known to us from Paul (I Cor. xv. 24–8—for this passage, Billerbeck, op. cit. III, 472 cites the aforementioned haggada, and quite correctly since Paul's text too emphasizes all). Then he text of Dan. ii. 35 applied above to the Messiah was likewise considered messianic by Josephus (Ant. X, 10, 4 cited by Friedlander, op. cit. p. 83 n. 5).

Matt. xxviii. 18–20 can well be explained in part as taking a stand toward some such haggada, in Matt.'s case (unlike Justin and Tertullian) in line with the tradition. In the context of Matt. xxviii Jesus is given absolutely no title; in the context of Matt.'s gospel Jesus is Messiah. In this final passage, Jesus has all authority ‘in heaven and on earth’ as in the PRE text. The all is emphasized as in the haggada. Finally Jesus claims this fullness of authority till the end of the aeon (v. 20b), when presumably, as in the haggada and Paul, he cedes it to God. If all this be true, then this decree of Jesus need not at all be the invention and formulation of Hellenistic Christianity (or even Hellenistic Jewish Christianity) as Bultmann, op. cit. pp. 313 if., and so many after him have maintained (most recently again, Bornkamm, art. cit. pp. 175 if.). It may very well be the product of Palestinian tradition.

^{page 98 note 1} Again noted by Bornkamm, art. cit. p. 172: ‘Die überaus kurz gehaltenen erzählenden Verse 28, 16 f haben überhaupt nur den Sinn, zu diesen Worten überzuleiten und sie vorzubereiten.’ But again he fails to draw any conclusions concerning the link-up of these lines with the general pattern at the outset of the gospel.

^{page 99 note 1} ‘Matthew and Is. 41, 2–3: A Possible Relationship?’, Studii Bibtici Franciscani Liber Annuus, XVII (1967), 291–4.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 2} Several scholars would refer this word in Matt. i. 1 to the book of Genesis, a conscious allusion on Matt.'s part, cf. Vogtle, A., ‘Die Genealogie Mt 1, 2–16 und die matthäische Kindheitsgeschichte (II. Teil),’ Biblische Zeitschrft VIII (1964), 246 and n. 68.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 3} Matt.'s genealogies have been variously interpreted. Vögtle, art. cit. (III. Teil), IX (1965), 32–8 offers an exhaustive summary of these interpretations: the only point we should like to make here is Matthew's dependence upon Chronicles for at least part of his listing; now if this be so, then Matthew did have Chron. in mind and the version of the Hebrew name of Chronicles would be λόγοι ήμερ⋯ν, which would correspond with item B'.

^{page 100 note 1} See Stendahi, K., ‘Quis Ct Unde? An Analysis of Mt. 1–2’, in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 26; Berlin, 1964 ²), pp. 94–105Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 2} Perhaps this is why Matthew does not use any title at all in his description of Jesus after the resurrection; all previous titles, including contemporary Messiah understanding, proved insufficient.

^{page 100 note 3} Cf. Bornkamm, art. cit. p. 189 and the literature cited there.

^{page 100 note 4} See Malina, art. cit. pp. 295–9.

^{page 101 note 1} This would go against the presupposition of Bultmann, op. cit. pp. 313 f.; Bornkamm, art. cit. p. 188; Hahn, op. cit. pp. 65 ff. et at. after Bultmann who believe the conclusion of Matt. derives from the ‘Kyriosglaube’ of Hellenistic (Jewish) Christianity. It can very well derive from the ‘Messias glaube’ of the primitive Palestinian community—which certainly did expect a victory from its Messiah. Stendahl, art. cit. pp. 94–5, laments the fact that all too often Matt. i–ii is interpreted in terms of Luke i–ii. The same lament would apply to the tendency to lump all post-resurrection appearances together and interpret them in terms of one another before adequately discerning what the individual author is up to. Perhaps the motifs are much more nuanced than Bultmann would allow. And Bultmann's assumption that the primitive church knew nothing of a universal mission is by no means proved; Gal. ii. 7 only proves the slowness of early Christians to realize the full practical implications of their faith in the victorious Jesus-a slowness not confined to that period of the church either. There is no reason to deny a theoretical awareness of universal mission even at the earliest periods.

^{page 102 note 1} On ‘brothers’ in Matt. cf. Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus, trans. Hooke, S. H. (London, 1954), pp. 845 n. 96Google Scholar; and Trilling, op. cit. pp. 30–1.

^{page 102 note 2} This idea has also been developed by Trilling, Ibid. p. 42, though by contrasting this verse with Matt. xviii. 20, which is quite different.