^{page 107 note 1} E.g. Allen, W. C., The Gospel according to St Matthew (Edinburgh, ³ 1951), p. 90:Google Scholar ‘It is probable that the words represented a traditional detached utterance of Christ inserted twice by the editor in what seemed to be suitable connections.’ Also McNeile, A. H., The Gospel according to St Matthew (London, 1915), p. 119 (on ix. 3):Google Scholar ‘The Lord doubtless quoted the passage on some occasion, but perhaps not here’, and page 169 (on xii. 7): ‘It was probably a genuine utterance spoken on another occasion.’ Cf. Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Matthäus (Stuttgart, ⁴ 1957), p. 308.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 2} Hummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (München, 1963), p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 1} E.g. Barth, G., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London, 1963), p. 82Google Scholar, and, less certainly, Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (London, 1968), p. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 2} Cf. Schlatter, A., loc. cit., ‘Der Spruch (Hos. vi. 6) hat sicher in der Wirksamkeit Jesu und weiter im Verkehr der ersten Christenheit mit der Judenschaft eine große Bedeutung gehabt, da er den Gegensatz zwischen Jesus und dem Pharisäismus bis in die letzten Gründe hinein beleuchtete.’Google Scholar; The remark by Stendahl, K. (Peake's Commentary, ed. Black, and Rowley, (Edinburgh, 1962), p. 782)Google Scholar, ‘The quotation from Hos. 6: 6…was apparently a handy and useful slogan in discussion with Jews’, would require further evidence to make it convincing.

^{page 108 note 3} Strack-Billerbeck, , 11, 500.Google Scholar Cf. Löhse, E., Märter und Gottesknecht (FRLANT, 46; Göttingen, 1955), p. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 4} The translation is from Goldin, J., The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (New Haven, 1955), pp. 34 f.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 5} Neusner, J., The Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai (Leiden, 1970), pp. 114, 130Google Scholar, regards the story as an innovation in the developing tradition concerning R. Yohanan (to whom the use of Hos. vi. 6 is not elsewhere attributed); he guesses that the story may have emerged at a time when there was opposition to the idea of rebuilding the cult, even at the cost of waging a new war, i.e. just before A.D. 130. But Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1964), p. 307Google Scholar, defends the historical probability that the story belongs to the period soon after A.D. 70.

^{page 109 note 1} Gundry, R. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St Matthew's Gospel (Leiden, 1967), p. 111:Google Scholar cf. also Manson, T. W., B.J.R.L., 34 (1951–1952), 321.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 2} Cf. Benoit, P., St Matthieu (La Sainte Bible: Paris, 1961), p. 73 (on ix. 13):Google Scholar ‘A la pratique rigoriste et extérieure de la Loi Dieu préfère les sentiments intérieurs d'un coeur sinc`re et compatissant’; and Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Matthäus (Göttingen, ² 1958), p. 173 (on ix. 13): ‘Hier liegt der Gegensatz zwischen Erbarmen und Opfer, zwischen christliche Caritas und jüdischen Gottesdienst.’Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 3} All six occurrences of in Hosea appear, either explicitly or implicitly, in a covenant context and in close association with other covenant terms, and and . On five of its six occurrences is rendered in the LXX by ἔλεος (ii. 21; iv. 1; vi. 4, 6; xii. 7): in xii. 12 it is rendered by ωή.

^{page 109 note 4} Wolff, H. W., Hosea (Hermeneia Series: Philadelphia, 1974), p. 120.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 5} Cf. Bultmann, R., T.D.N.T. 11, p. 481 (sub ἔλεος).Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 6} Cf. Bultmann, , op. cit. p. 479.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 7} T.D.N.T. ix, p. 382 (sub χάρις).Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 1} Zimmerli, W., op. cit. p. 386.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 2} Bornkamm, G., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 26 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Davies, W. D., op. cit. p. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 3} It should be noted that in Matthew's narrative it is the Pharisees alone who make the reproach, whereas Mark has ‘the scribes of the Pharisees’ and Luke ‘the Pharisees and their scribes’.

^{page 111 note 1} Even if the ότι is not construed as having interrogative value, the statement made would surely be exclamatory (see the New English Bible, ad loc.).

^{page 111 note 2} Its suitability to the context could be justified by the suggestion that Matthew wished the emphasis to fall on και ού θυσίαν, since association with sinners made a man unclean and consequently unfit for participation in sacrifice. The rejection of sacrifice removed anxiety about uncleanness and made possible free association with outcasts. Much more probable, however, is the view that the evangelist wished the stress to fall on ἔλεος as being what God desires and demands.

^{page 111 note 3} On the contrary, Lohmeyer, (op. cit. p. 174) thinks that Matthew consciously uses the quotation as a prophetic word that speaks of the abolition of sacrifice by an act of mercy on the part of the eschatological messenger from God. But the way Matthew employs the quotation, especially his introduction to it, does not support this view.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 4} Cf. Matt, . xi. 29 and xxiv.Google Scholar 2 for similar Matthean usage of μάθετε On the Rabbinic formula, see Strack-Billerbeck, , 1, p. 499Google Scholar; Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), p. 433Google Scholar; and Stendahl, K., The School of St Matthew (Uppsala, 1954), pp. 128 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 5} To suggest, as Hummel, R. does (op. cit. p. 39)Google Scholar, that the mission of Jesus is the confirmation of the citation is to stress too much the significance of γάρ: the word is not stressed and the use of the quotation is intended primarily, if not exclusively, to justify the character of Jesus' mission.

^{page 112 note 1} Op. cit. pp. 39 f., and for fuller argumentation see pages 22–6.

^{page 112 note 2} Cf. also Kilpatrick, G. D., The Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew (Oxford, 1950), pp. 117, 119.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 3} Lohmeyer, (op. cit. pp. 173 f.) sees in the insertion of Hos. vi. 6 into the narrative of the meal with sinners an allusion to the eschatologically oriented sacramental meal of the Christian community which stands in opposition to the Jewish sacrificial cult. But the interpretation in terms of table-fellowship has more support in the text.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 4} Hummel, , op. cit. p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 5} Hummel, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 6} Cf. Hummel, , op. cit. p. 25:Google Scholar ‘Für Matthäus die Annahme der “Zöllner und Dirnen” und die Öffnung der Basileia für die Heiden auf einer Linie liegen…Die Zöllner und Dirnen sind nicht nur kraft ihres Glaubens ein Vorbild und Zeichen für das offizielle Judentum, sondern kraft der ihnen von Jesus widerfahrenen Barmherzigkeit auch ein Hinweis auf die Annahme der Heiden.’

^{page 113 note 1} Cf. Gaston, L., ‘The Messiah of Israel as Teacher of the Gentiles’, Interpretation, 29 (1975), 34Google Scholar, and Cazlston, C. E., ‘The Things that Defile (Mark vii. 14) and the Law in Matthew and Mark’, N.T.S. 15 (1968–1969), 75–96, esp. 76.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 2} The omission by Matthew of the incorrect ‘in the days of the high priest Abiathar’ is inconsequential.

^{page 114 note 1} Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus, ad loc.

^{page 114 note 2} Kilpatrick, G. D., op. cit. p. 116Google Scholar, and Barth, G., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 81 f.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 3} Lohmeyer, E., op. cit. p. 184.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 4} McNeile, A. H., op. cit. p. 168 (‘in view of v. 3’).Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 5} That David did so on a Sabbath is the view of some Rabbinic passages (see Strack-Billerbeck, 1, 618 f.): this is not referred to in the Gospel narrative, although it could be implied (if known).

^{page 114 note 6} Cf. Daube, D., op. cit. p. 68.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 7} Strack-Billerbeck, , 1, 618 f.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 1} Daube, D., op. cit. p. 68:Google Scholar cf. Lohse, E., T.D.N.T. vii, p. 23, note 180 (sub σάββατον).Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 2} Note the words ⋯ν τῷ νόμῳ in v. 5.

^{page 115 note 3} Gerhardsson, B., ‘Sacrificial Service and Atonement in the Gospel of Matthew’, Reconciliation and Hope (Festschrift for L. Morris: Exeter, 1974), p. 28:Google Scholar ‘It seems to me indubitable that the comparison here is between two kinds of worship: the latreia which the priests perform in the temple, and the latreia in which Jesus and his disciples are engaged. The two kinds of service are more closely defined in the Hosea quotation which follows: “I desire mercy (ἔλεος) and not sacrifice (θυσία).’ That which is being contrasted here is, on the one hand, the outward sacrificial service, and, on the other, the perfect spiritual sacrifice that Jesus and his disciples are offering and which is characterized by “mercy”.’ It seems that this way of expressing the significance of ἔλεος allows for the possibility that its primary God-ward reference is retained.

^{page 115 note 4} E.g. that the Messiah is not subject to Sabbath-law, or that the priestly privilege has been transferred to the disciples.

^{page 115 note 5} Cf. Hummel, , op. cit. p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 1} Hummel, , op. cit. p. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 2} Barth, G., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 1} Bultman, , The History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 150:Google Scholar for a different view, see Banks, R., ‘Matthew's Understanding of the Law: Authenticity and Interpretation in Matthew 5: 17–20’, J.B.L. 93 (1974), 226–42, esp. 241.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 2} Sand, A., Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Evangeliums nach Matthäus (Regensburg, 1974), p. 203.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 3} Trilling, W., Das wahre Israel (München, 1964), p. 63.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 4} Bornkamm, G., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 1} Cf. Bultmann, R., T.D.N.T. 11, pp. 480 f.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 2} Goldin, J., ‘The Three Pillars of Simeon the Righteous’, P.A.A.J.R. 27 (1958), 43–56, and in particular pp. 50 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 3} Davies, , op. cit. p. 306 and note 2.Google Scholar Cf. also Neusner, J., A Life of Johanan ben Zakkai (Leiden, 1962), p. 142.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 1} Davies, , op. cit. p. 307.Google Scholar For a quite different assessment, see note 5, p. 108 above.

^{page 119 note 2} Cf. Bacon, B. W., Studies in Matthew (London, 1931), pp. 71 f.Google Scholar who is prepared to posit (following von Dobschütz) the dependence of the ‘converted rabbi’, Matthew, on ben Zakkai.