Parable of the children making music

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The parable of the children making music or of the children playing is a parable of Jesus , which is passed down in the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke . It is about children playing the flute happily. However, nobody dances to it. If they play lamenting music, no one returns the gesture of lament. It is said that the children complain about it; this in turn describes “this generation” or the Pharisees . Reference is then made to the appearance of John the Baptist , whose ascetic way of life was felt to be repulsive. Jesus appeared, ate and drank with everyone, but was also despised. The wisdom gets right, however, especially from her children.

translation

The text of the pericope follows, comparing the parallel passages.

Mt 11 : 16-19  EU Lk 7.31-35  EU
16  Who should I compare this generation to? 31  So who am I to compare the people of this generation to? Who are they like?
She is like children who sit in the marketplace and call out to other children: 32  They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to one another:
17  We played the flute (wedding songs) for you, and you did not dance; we sang lamentations and you didn't hit your chests. We played the flute (wedding songs) for you and you didn't dance; we sang lamentations and you did not cry.
18  John has come, he does not eat or drink, and they say, He is demon possessed. 33  John the Baptist has come, he does not eat bread or drink wine, and you say, He is possessed by a demon.
19  The Son of Man came, he eats and drinks; then they say: This eater and drunkard, this friend of tax collectors and sinners! 34  The Son of Man has come, he eats and drinks; then you say: This eater and drunkard, this friend of tax collectors and sinners!
Yet wisdom has gotten right by the deeds it has done. 35  And yet wisdom was right through all of her children.

Exclusion, context, genre and structure

The initial question already shows that comparison (or, depending on the definition, a parable or simile) follows. The present text excerpt is formally in three parts: Parable with introductory question and description of the scene - application to John the Baptist and Jesus - final word of wisdom.

Luke describes the pericope in the 7th chapter, which includes signs and words of Jesus. It is preceded by the question of the disciples of John as to whether Jesus is “the one who should come” (v. 20), and which is answered by miracle stories. Immediately before this is Jesus' judgment on the Baptist, who is "more than a prophet " (v. 26); Through his sermon and his call to baptism, the repentant sections of the people, including “even tax collectors ” (cf. v. 29), separate from the “ Pharisees and teachers of the law” with their rejection (cf. v. 30). Following the parable is the meeting of Jesus with the sinner in the house of the Pharisee (vv. 23-50).

The parable is also found with great similarity in the formulation in Matthew (11: 16-19), but otherwise has no parallel passages. The context of the Matthew parallel is partly different. The discussion with the disciples of John and Jesus' judgment on the Baptist are very similar, but the preceding transition is missing (instead of the comparison with the inverted sinners, Jesus speaks of Elijah and violence in the kingdom of heaven, Mt 11: 12-15). Matthew follows on from the passage under consideration with announcements of doom about Chorazin and Betsaida (v. 20-24).

Due to the rather loose connection with the context, it can be assumed that the parable was in circulation alone, probably initially without the connection with John the Baptist and Jesus.

Single verse analysis

Following the two-source theory is the stuff of Q Source assign. Since the Matthew version differs only slightly from that of Luke, the Q text can be reconstructed relatively well.

The introductory question

Luke's introductory question is pleonastic ("So with whom should I compare people of this gender and who are they like?"), Mt 11:16 only has "With whom should I compare this gender?" Matthew uses a different particle (δὲ) than Luke (οὖν; both “also”); both are editorial, ie not included in Q, connections to the preceding. Since very similar double questions can also be found in Lk 13.38  EU , Mk 4.30  EU and Isa 40.18  EU , the majority of people assume that Q contained the double question and Matthew deleted the second part; Luke, on the other hand, added "the people (of this gender)".

The expression “gender” / “generation” (γενεά) initially means the current audience or contemporaries and is a topos in terms of the history of the motif and “means the last 'generation' in the context of Q, has a derogatory tone and is clearly related to Israel. "

The parable of the children

Consequently, the following main verb differs grammatically: Matthew continues with the singular (related to "this generation"), Luke must use the plural ("the people of this generation"). Matthew writes more generally with a slightly different participle and speaks of “the markets” in the plural (in Luke in the singular); see. Agora . The originality of “market” / “markets” can hardly be decided with certainty.

An important difference between Matthew and Luke for the interpretation concerns the calling of the children: in Luke the children ἀλλήλοις call “each other”, which implies that “this generation” is like a group within which the calling fails; Matthew compares “this generation” with children who call τοῖς ἑτέροις “to the other”, whereby the “others” do not respond to the call. Müller and the Critical Edition of Q consider the Matthew version to be original for stylistic reasons. There are different variants for the subsequent form of “and they say”.

The children's “lamentation speech” is held as an antithetical parallelism, according to which the opposing actions of the children - joy and funeral music - do not resonate. In the Syrian translations, “you complained” and “you cried” rhyme.

What is said in Matthew and Luke is identical except for the last verb: in Matthew a form of κόπτω “knock off”, here medially “hit your chest (in grief); complain; to grieve violently; weep ”, in Luke a form of κλαίω“ weep; mourn (general) ”. Both are testimonies of mourning, which are also mentioned together in Lk 8:52. The majority of the Matthean version is believed to be original.

John and Jesus

The transition from the question to the answer ("Who is this generation like? It is like ...") is a reduplication in the Greek text of Luke (... εἰσὶν ὅμοιοι; - ὅμοιοί εἰσιν ...). The subsequent interpretation, vv. 33 and 34, characterizes the Baptist or Jesus in an antithetical parallelism , each followed by the condemning opinion of "this generation" or the "Pharisees and scribes".

The twofold “has come” is in Luke in the perfect tense and in Matthew in the aorist - also in Luke 5,32 || Mt 9,13 - only in Luke there is the addition "the Baptist" in the name of John. According to Müller, in both cases Lukas secondary: ". The Perfect underlines the lk tendency to look back at the Gekommensein Jesus and the Baptist and John the addition of the Baptist name is more likely than their deletion" Furthermore, the two-time differs salutation (Luke 7 , 33f .: “and you say”; Mt 11.18f .: “and they say”).

In the characterization of the Baptist, the particles for “neither - nor” differ both between Mt and Lk as well as between different text witnesses; a reconstruction is hardly possible here. The difference is somewhat more important that “bread” and “wine” are only mentioned in Luke (Mt 11:18: “neither eating nor drinking”), which could be originally.

In the accusation against Jesus that he is “a devourer and wine drunkard”, Jeremias', according to Dtn 21.20  EU , echoes that a stubborn and unteachable son who is “a spendthrift and drinker” should be stoned.

The (ascribed) Son of Man title clearly stands for the (past) work of earthly-historical Jesus, but originally had an apocalyptic reference to the history of the motif, which is why Schulz assigns the parable to the younger, ie Hellenistic-Jewish-Christian tradition level within Q.

Nevertheless it is possible that the essence of the picture in the parable goes back to Jesus himself and that the information from the interpretation is historically plausible: John the Baptist lived ascetic and appeared with a judgment sermon; Jesus of Nazareth had table fellowship with social classes devalued by "Israel". The criticism of Jesus that he was “an eater and wine drinker” is also considered historical, because “it would not have been invented”. Jesus and the Baptist appeared in close chronological order and both met with at least partial rejection. Both appeared as preachers and are named in the pericope as equal, that is, without the subordination of the Baptist to Jesus that was otherwise customary in the early church. The contrast between the disciples of Jesus and John is also shown in Lk 15 : 1f. EU and Lk 5.33  EU discussed.

The final word of wisdom

This is followed by an interpretive word, which is connected by κα ““ and ”, but - following Hebrew usage - has an adverse meaning, as the rejection on the part of“ this generation ”is countered with wisdom.

The translations differ mainly in the verb, an aorist passive form of δικαιόω “(ge) right; justify; To be right; prove to be correct ”.

For the " children " in the parable stands in Greek πα stehtδιον (v. 32), which primarily aims at childhood (diminutive of παῖς "child"; the age classically ends with the 7th year of life); on the other hand, in v. 35 there is τέκνον, which also means “child” in a figurative sense, because this term, derived from the verb τίκτω “to beget, to give birth”, refers more to ancestry (“descendant”, “offspring”) than to age or the stage of development.

The parallel passage in Mt 11:19 is the same except for the last expression, which reads “… through their works”, whereby the Codex Sinaiticus also says “works” in Luke. Paul de Lagarde explains this through a common Hebrew basis of עבד, which, depending on the vocalization, can mean “works, actions” or “servants, servants”. Originally τέκνων without πάντων in the Q text is considered; Matthew changed this to ἔργα in order to refer back to Mt 11,2 ("John heard the works of Christ in prison ...").

Interpretations

Reception in the Old Church - Allegorese

Different church fathers , especially Hilary of Poitiers († 367), separate in the parable the shouting heralds and the unbelieving obstinate who do not respond. For Hilarius, the children who get in touch are also the prophets , "as it is in the song of Moses , as it is kept in those of Isaiah , David and the other prophets," then John the Baptist and Jesus, who were called to praise and repentance to have. Since "this generation", i.e. ultimately the Jews - equated with the children who are understood as unwilling and stubborn - have rejected both, they would continue to be subject to the old law, whereby they "must necessarily sin against the law because of the difficulty of observation", and at the same time gambled away the grace of the gospel and freedom.

There is a typical allegorical interpretation of the pericope, which is based on a division of the children's group into those who agree and those who do not play along, as is close to the Matthew version, and "this generation" wants to be compared with the latter group; John is the one who started the complaint while Jesus started joy - both “herald children” of God. Also Hubert Frankemölle represents (at least in terms of Mt version) equating of playing instruments with John and Jesus, and their music-making (ie their message) "not as expected" is and therefore experienced rejection.

Adolf Jülicher

Adolf Jülicher (1857–1938) brought about a paradigm shift compared to the allegorical interpretation that dominated in antiquity and the Middle Ages, which inferred from the group of children who were unable to play to the “generation” that was ultimately to be rejected . His theory of parables, similar to that of Aristotle, should be briefly touched upon here. Pictorial language is to be interpreted strictly according to the tertium comparationis . Based on a division into factual half (conceptual language) and image half (visual language), parables are used to "make a thought that has already been formed shine [...] through a ὅμοιον, through a similar or analogous image." The image thus has a didactic , but not an epistemological value because the statement exists independently of the image and the latter therefore has no specific intrinsic value.

Jülicher interprets Luke's account, according to which “this generation” is compared with the one group of children within which there is no play. For him, the tertium comparationis is “the capricious obstinacy that always doesn't want what is offered to him.” And that's exactly what Jesus wanted to criticize about “this generation”. "Such a crowd of children, dominated by capricious obstinacy, cannot be helped, they cannot play a game together [...], since they allow themselves to be governed by whims and idiosyncrasy instead of principles."

This pattern of interpretation has often been followed since then with minor deviations: the point of comparison is the moodiness or obstinacy of the children, in Jeremias “these domineering and incompatible children who accuse their comrades of spoiling games because they don't want to dance to their tune”, or not recognizing the kairos, ie the “signs of the decisive hour of decision”, or missing the offer of salvation - ultimately all offers.

Even Franz Mußner goes in that direction when he describes the half of the picture: "The planned games do not come to run, because the children are [...] as just children often playing are: moody, defiant and stubborn" because they "do not know right what they actually want [...] This is how arguments arise ”. The statement is therefore: "His opponents [...] are able [...] the Kairos not to see the rule of God. They remain blind to what is happening in front of their eyes, they make critical judgments that only reveal that they are like moody children who do not want to join in when the game is about to begin. "

Objections to Adolf Jülicher

As much as Jülicher's new interpretation model is valued, there are two starting points that want to call for his core definition to improve. On the one hand, it seems to be based on a narrow understanding of playing, which is defined by "principles" and whose ideal must therefore be the smooth, almost mechanical implementation of a set of rules. On the other hand, a negative image of children - "capricious, defiant and stubborn" - is assumed, which in an ancient text does not have to be surprising, but also does not fit in with how Jesus' dealings with children are otherwise described (cf. Lk 9.47f.  EU and the EU blessing of children ).

Therefore, in the period after Jülicher, the socio-historical background of children's games was examined. The failing games involve two imitation processes, on the one hand from the joyful dance , especially at a wedding , on the other hand from the lament for the dead at a funeral ceremony . This was ritualized at that time: The mourners cry and fast ( 2 Sam 1.12  EU ), beat their hips and chest, ( Isa 32.12  EU ), go barefoot , shear their hair, trim or cover their beards ( Ez 24, 17  EU ; On 8.10  EU ) or sprinkle ashes on the head ( 2 Sam 3.31  EU ). Corresponding customs also existed in contemporary Roman culture , but the making of music by children cannot be described in more detail in parables. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the parable wants to say much more than just articulating Jesus' turning away from "this generation".

It is important that the invitations are contradictory (joy vs. sadness), all of which remain unfulfilled. Furthermore, reference was made to the prophecy in Zech 8.5  EU (“The streets of the city will be full of boys and girls who play in the streets of Jerusalem.”), Where, among other things, successful playing in the restored Jerusalem describes end-time salvation. But in contrast to Klgl 2,11f. 21  EU , this salvation for the children in this parable is not unrealized because of destruction, foreign rule or the wrath of God, but because nobody plays along.

Successful and passionate play, however, cannot be reduced to following the rules of the game, which would be opposed to the unconventionality of uneducated children. Because: “Isn't the game rather a phenomenon that takes those involved beyond what they can do of their own accord? Isn't the game one of those life phenomena that frees subjects from being thrown back on their own will and thus passes things on to them that are more than what they can and must want? ”In addition, the children's game is not just any kind of leisure activity, but a basic execution of life, which should succeed, but can also fail.

The "calling" and the "playing"

Jülicher writes: "In fact, Mt and Lc think the same thing: the children have divided into two groups, but they do not agree to play together, but rather quarrel", whereby these groups do not form direct opposing parties, one after the other Say the call and assign one of the lines "We have you ..., you have not ...". Eric Bishop's depiction, in which the “sitting” (Lk 11:32) of the children is supposed to betray their lazy spectator existence, appears just as exaggerated as the assumption that one active group takes the initiative and the other is passive.

The passage criticizes the "Pharisees and teachers of the law who disregard God's plan" (cf. Lk 7.30  EU ). Compared to this, the children in the parable are confused, arbitrary, and chaotic: various suggestions, rejection and reproaches occur in the whole group of children. The crux of the matter is that the encounter does not come about. Neither sees the joy or sadness of the other and would sympathize with loving care, and therefore neither can respond to the other. Two things follow from this “lack of encounter”: on the one hand, the dispute among one another, on the other hand, the failure to recognize the call of God at the moment. Both are based on the fact that the children do not live in close contact with reality, they are far from what lies directly in front of them - the personal neighbor and the messengers of God who appear. This also means that the “quarrel” of the children is not about the fact that some are right, but the other annoyingly do not see this, but the conflicting arguing is only the symptom of the missing encounter, the separation from the music, an image for the unsuccessful pursuit of life. The solution therefore lies in the encounter with what is there, that is, is passed on to the person or is in him. This in turn includes every human counterpart in the neighbor and at the same time finds its culmination in the call through John and Jesus. These are children who are “alluding” in a special way, but cannot be equated with them. There is also no sharp separation between the alluding and the rest of the children in the picture, as in the end every person's appearance calls for an encounter. At the same time, the music does not call for puppet-like imitation, but rather to be a player.

Paul's instruction , "Rejoice with the happy and weep with the weeping!" ( Rom. 12.15  EU ) - meet what is there with an open, compassionate heart - describes the solution to the problem of children in the parable. The character of the music makes the same thing clear: the melody to which you sometimes dance and sometimes suffer is given from the moment, each given “at its own time”. The music is played, even if (in the pre-electronic age always) so gently that it cannot be forced upon itself and “perish” or be missed; this does not make the individual passive, but rather alive, if he is ready to participate in a creative way.

Encountering what is now enables openness to the other, even opposites, which can also be encountered when it is reality. The children in the parable lack this, but John and Jesus both had this breadth: “John recognized Jesus as the Messiah, although he did not (like himself) plaintively call for repentance. Jesus was baptized by John, although John did not (like himself) ask to dance by playing the flute. In recognizing the otherness of the other as a necessary condition for salvation and in exceeding one's own limits, they prove to be children of wisdom. "

The opposing views of the parable - does one group of children call to the other or do they all call to one another? - do not have to stand next to each other as irreconcilable alternatives, but can be connected by focusing on the core point that the encounter fails in the sense of loving compassion. This implies the destructive mess in the crowd, which shows up as the refusal of the "Pharisees" towards the messengers of God. Everything that is there calls for an encounter and is ultimately part of God's universal call to man. John the Baptist and Jesus are therefore in a special way "alluding" children who call to play along, ie to meet, but they have "mixed with the other children", they do not form another (active) half in strict separation from the unwilling Children, because making music is only possible in a community.

The word of wisdom

The following wisdom word “And yet wisdom is given right by all its children” goes beyond the parable in terms of form and content. This excess consists in the fact that the personified wisdom (ἡ σοφία) is called. This is a motif that builds on the Old Testament tradition of wisdom (cf., among others, Sir 4.11  EU ; Weish 7.27  EU ; EU ; Prov. 9.1.3  EU ) and is given an eschatological character in the Hellenistic-Jewish Sophia theology , in particular in that John and Jesus are the last messengers of wisdom.

The “children of wisdom” are not identical with the playing children, as the different Greek words suggest, but they have something to do with them: Since they come from wisdom, they succeed in what the children fail in the parable. This is suggested by the adversative connection. But what succeeds is not just a “game”, but something very important: The verb δικαιόω classically means “to arrange as law” and is used in the Septuagint in a forensic context, but mostly with the positive meaning “to give law; judge acquittal ”. The judicial sense of the verb is intended to underline that the corresponding statements are, so to speak, "legally authenticated", with complete certainty, final. This positive meaning occurs when God is the judge . If someone judges otherwise, it is self-righteousness to be rejected . This becomes clear from the other references to the verb in the Gospel of Luke:

  • Shortly before the observed pericope, the listening people and the tax collectors said: they “have given God right” (ἐδικαίωσαν, Lk 7.29  EU ) and were baptized by John. The verb is active here, has a positive meaning; grammatical subject are the reverse sinners, object is God.
  • In the story of the Good Samaritan , the lawyer who asked the question said that he wanted to “justify himself [to Jesus]” (δικαιῶσαι ἑαυτὸν, Lk 10.28  EU ) when he asked, “Who is my neighbor?”. The verb, related to the teacher of the law, is used here reflexively and is to be understood pejoratively, since the motive of the teacher of the law is to put Jesus to the test (cf. Lk 10.25  EU ).
  • In Lk 16.15  EU it says that the Pharisees wanted to “justify themselves” (δικαιοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς) to the people, “but God knows the heart.” The use is similar to that mentioned above.
  • In the story of the Pharisee and the publican who prayed in the temple , it is said of the latter that he was going "justified" (δεδικαιωμένος, Lk 18,14  EU ) home, "he who increases itself will be humbled ...". The verb is expressed here as a passive divinum by the self-accusing sinner.

The examples make it clear that the verb describes a basic attitude of people with regard to their view of God and themselves, which should consist in the fact that God is "right", but I not - and not the other way around - in recognition of the fact that only God is one to make a determination in this regard. In this sense God must be “exalted”, and this is what the “children of wisdom” do as opposed to the “Pharisees”. The translation "to be right / to give" gives the impression that it is about mere opinions, but it is about the deeper state of man: he should "agree" to God . This builds a bridge to the understanding of the verse under consideration: Actively rewritten it would mean: The children (followers / followers) of wisdom agree with God, they recognize his "music", they play along by not just aligning themselves with themselves in the sense of the attempted “self-righteousness” of the Pharisees. "The children of wisdom are those who live from this [God's] wisdom and allow themselves to be determined by it in such a way that they do not live from themselves." This - beyond the parable - states that God's music (offer) nevertheless persists even if ignored or unknown; his children hear it and the corresponding "works" testify to it.

Despite its relatively low level of awareness, the parable has kerygmatic value. The passage reveals that the knowledge of the messengers of God and the fellowship with them were at least partially absent in their earthly time. Against this background, the message of the pericope is to be understood as a warning , because God has just not turned away from his people, even if he is misunderstood.

Liturgical reception

In the Catholic reading order , Luke 7.31-35 is read on the Wednesday of the 24th week of the year. The Mt parallel is read on the Friday of the 2nd week in Advent .

literature

Essays
  • Peter Müller: From the failing game (From the children playing) - Q 7.31-35. In: Ruben Zimmermann (ed.): Compendium of the parables of Jesus. Gütersloh 2007, pp. 100-110.
  • Thomas Staubli: The music-making children of wisdom (Mt 11: 16-19 || Lk 7: 31-35). The resonance box of a Q-Logion. In: Max Küchler , Peter Reinl (ed.): Randfiguren in the middle. (FS Hermann-Josef Venetz ) Luzern, Freiburg (Switzerland) 2003, pp. 276–288.
  • Hans Weder : Understanding through metaphors. Reflections on epistemology and the methodology of pictorial religious language following Adolf Jülicher. In: Ulrich Mell (ed.): The parable speeches of Jesus 1899–1999. Contributions to the dialogue with Adolf Jülicher (supplements to the Zeitschrift für die Neue Testamentliche Wissenschaft 103) Berlin, New York 1999, pp. 97–112.
  • Dieter Zeller : The pictorial logic of the parable Mt 11,16f. / Lk 7.31f. In: Journal for New Testament Science 68 (1977), pp. 252-257.
  • Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza : Justified by all of her children. In: Concilium, 26 (1990), pp. 10-22.
  • Christl Maier / J. Herzer: The playing children of wisdom (Lk 7.31-35 par Mt 11.16-19). Observations on a parable of Jesus and his reception. In: Christl Maier et al. (Ed.): Exegese vor Ort (FS Peter Welten), Leipzig 2001, pp. 277-300.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Cf. Siegfried Schulz: Q. The source of the words of the Evangelists. Zurich 1972, p. 380f. Paul Hoffmann : Studies on the early history of the Jesus movement. (Stuttgart biblical essays, New Testament 17) Stuttgart 1994, p. 180. For the connection of the parable and the “application” in the source of the Logia cf. Dieter Zeller : The pictorial logic of the parable Mt 11,16f. / Lk 7.31f. In: Zeitschrift für die Neue Testamentliche Wissenschaft 68 (1977), pp. 252-257, here pp. 44f.
  2. ↑ See Harry T. Fleddermann: Q. A Reconstruction and Commentary. (Biblical tools and studies 1) Leuven 2005, p. 303.
  3. ↑ Cf. Adolf Jülicher : The parable speeches of Jesus. First and second part. 2. Unchanged print, Tübingen 1910, vol. 2, p. 24. Harry T. Fleddermann: Q. A Reconstruction and Commentary. (Biblical tools and studies 1) Leuven 2005, S. 304. Peter Müller: From the failing game (From the playing children) - Q 7.31-35. In: Ruben Zimmermann (ed.): Compendium of the parables of Jesus. Gütersloh 2007, pp. 100–110, here p. 107.
  4. ↑ Siegfried Schulz: Q. The source of the evangelists. Zurich 1972. The expression is also used in the Septuagint to translate the “stubborn” Exodus generation. Cf. Büchsel: Art. Γενεά in Gerhard Kittel: Theological Dictionary for the New Testament. Stuttgart, Vol. 1 [1933], Vol. 2 [1935], unaltered reprint 1957. Vol. I, Col. 116.
  5. ↑ Peter Müller: On the failing game (From the playing children) - Q 7.31-35. In: Ruben Zimmermann (ed.): Compendium of the parables of Jesus. Gütersloh 2007, pp. 100–110, here p. 108 considers the singular to be original, the Critical Edition of Q regards it as secondary.
  6. ↑ Cf. Müller: Vom unslingenden Spiel 107. Anders Jülicher: parable speeches of Jesus II, 26 with an explanation of the variant.
  7. ↑ Cf. Joachim Jeremias : The parables of Jesus. 11th edition, Göttingen 1998, p. 160 Note 1. Jülicher: parable speeches of Jesus II, 27.
  8. ↑ For the originality of the "more vivid" formulation of Mt: Müller: Vom unslingenden Spiel 107 (because of the greater vividness according to oriental custom, which Luke may simplify for a Greek audience); Schulz: Spruchquelle 379 (Lk prefers κλαίω in general: 10 times in his Gospel, on the other hand Mt only 2 times, Mk 4 times); Fleddermann: Q 304 (since Luke also uses the verb in 8.52 and 23.27, he could have simply replaced it). - For the originality of the simpler and more general formulation of Luke: the Critical Edition of Q.
  9. ↑ Müller: Vom unslingenden Spiel 107. Likewise Fleddermann: Q 304. The Critical Edition of Q in “der Anabaptist” as well; Tense of "to come" is undecided.
  10. ↑ "An early omission of ἄρτον and οἶνον is in any case more difficult to explain than yours, even if, what is not noticeable in such a gloss, only the Lc appropriate insertion." Jülicher: parable speeches II, 28. Anders Schulz: Spruchquelle 380: "clarifying Additions and possibly made with regard to Lk 1.15. ”A connection between the naming and the question discussed in early church Christology , whether Jesus actually had to eat and digest, that is, whether he was a true man, is unlikely; see. Müller: From the failing game 108f.
  11. ↑ Cf. Joachim Jeremias : The parables of Jesus. 11th edition, Göttingen 1998, p. 160.
  12. ↑ See Schulz: Spruchquelle 318f.
  13. ↑ Cf. Dieter Lührmann : The editorial staff of the Logienquelle. (Scientific monographs on the Old and New Testament 33) Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969, p. 29. Hans Weder : Understanding through metaphors. Reflections on epistemology and the methodology of pictorial religious language following Adolf Jülicher. In: Ulrich Mell (ed.): The parable speeches of Jesus 1899–1999. Contributions to the dialogue with Adolf Jülicher (supplements to the Zeitschrift für die Neue Testamentliche Wissenschaft 103) Berlin, New York 1999, pp. 97–112, here 103.
  14. ↑ Cf. Paul de Lagarde : Explanations on Agathangelus and the files of Gregory of Armenia. In: Treatises of the Royal Society of Sciences in Göttingen from 1888, Vol. 35, Part 1: Historisch-Philologische Classe, Göttingen 1889, p. 128; see. Jülicher: parable speeches of Jesus II, 33.
  15. ^ So the Critical Edition of Q; Fleddermann: Q 304; Neither: Understanding through metaphors 102f .; Schulz: Spruchquelle 380 with other representatives.
  16. ↑ Hilary of Poitiers : Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Eleventh main part, No. 8. SWKV Vol. 10, p. 154 (online) .
  17. ↑ Hilary of Poitiers : Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Eleventh main part, No. 8. SWKV Vol. 10, p. 154 (online) .
  18. ^ Hubert Frankemölle : Matthäus. Comment. Vol. 2, Düsseldorf 1997, p. 115. He also justifies this with the context (message of and reaction to the Baptist) and the title of Son of Man, which outbids the Baptist; also “[t] he final word of wisdom in [Mt 11,] 19c confirms this Christological escalation” (ibid. 116).
  19. ↑ Hans Weder : Understanding through metaphors. Reflections on epistemology and the methodology of pictorial religious language following Adolf Jülicher. In: Ulrich Mell (ed.): The parable speeches of Jesus 1899–1999. Contributions to the dialogue with Adolf Jülicher (supplements to the Zeitschrift für die Neue Testamentliche Wissenschaft 103) Berlin, New York 1999, pp. 97–112, here 99.
  20. ↑ Jülicher: Parable speeches II, 26.
  21. ↑ Jülicher: Parable speeches II, 32.
  22. ↑ Jeremias: Parables of Jesus 161.
  23. ↑ Franz Mußner : The message of the parables of Jesus. (Writings on Catechetics 1) Munich 1961, p. 82f.
  24. ↑ Neither: Understanding Through Metaphors 108.
  25. ↑ Jülicher: Parable speeches II, 26.
  26. ↑ See Eric F. Bishop: Jesus of Palestine. The Local Background to the Gospel Documents. London 1955, p. 104; taken over from Jeremiah: parables of Jesus 161.
  27. ↑ Thomas Staubli: The music-making children of wisdom (Mt 11: 16-19 || Lk 7: 31-35). The resonance box of a Q-Logion. In: Max Küchler, Peter Reinl (ed.): Randfiguren in der Mitte (FS Hermann-Josef Venetz ) Lucerne, Freiburg (Switzerland) 2003, pp. 276–288, here p. 286.
  28. ↑ so Schulz: Spruchquelle 386. Cf. Weder: Understanding through metaphors 104.
  29. ↑ In the Acts of the Apostles Paul preaches the forgiveness of sins, of which one is not “justified” by the law of Moses, but by faith (Acts 13: 38f. Twice). In the letters of Paul, especially Rom, the verb is frequently used in the positive sense; see. Justification (theology) .
  30. ↑ See Schrenk: Art. Δικαιόω in Gerhard Kittel: Theological dictionary to the New Testament. Stuttgart, Vol. 1 [1933], Vol. 2 [1935], unaltered reprint 1957. Vol. II, Col. 216f.
  31. ↑ Neither: Understanding Through Metaphors 111.
  32. ↑ Cf. Mass Lectionary for the Celebration of Holy Mass. For the dioceses of the German-speaking area; authentic edition for liturgical use. Freiburg et al. Vol. IV, Minted Times; Vol. VI, annual circle 2 [1983].