Talk:Expounding of the Law

Untitled

The image depicting the sermon on the mount has a caption calling the event the 'sermon from a hill'. Why?? 213.217.216.126 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have a question:

Who coined the phrase "Antithesis of the Law" for this part of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount?

The phrase was originally used by Marcion, but in reference to how, he claimed, his Gospel of Marcion constrasted with the Old Testament.

Who applied the phrase to this part of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount?

I don't know. I'll look it up. Its commonly used by New Testament scholars apparantly. Clinkophonist 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Marcion never used the phrase "Antithesis of the Law," he used the title "Antithesis" for his treaty arguing that the OT Deity and NT Deity were two different beings, which he attempted to show by opposing the OT teachings about God to the NT teachings about Jesus (see Daniel Mahar's reconstruction of the Antithesis). Marcion's concern was mainly theological (in the strict sense of the term), not legal. Regarding the phrase "Antithesis of the Law" it has long been used by Christian scholars, "anti-" being taken from the Greek sense ("in place of"), or the old Latin ("surpassing"). The understanding being, "statements which supercede the Law," as in, going beyond the "letter" of the Law, to the "spirit" of the Law. --MonkeeSage 03:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like Supersessionism. Antithesis by the way is well defined, no need to invent new definitions.

New definitions are stipulated for words all the time. You really shouldn't ask the question if you don't want the answer. Many Christian scholars use the term antithesis (ἀντί [G473] + τίθημι [G5087]) to refer to this section of the sermon for the reason I stated; I'm also aware of some who see Jesus as setting forth the Rabbinic glosses (midrashim) on the Law and then correcting them (in which case antithesis would have the standard, non-technical meaning). And talk about inventing new definitions — recognizing Marcion's own intention amounts to suppressing it?! Marcionites is linked in the same paragraph you want to put Marcion in, so I'm not a very good "suppressor" am I? So long as it is verifiable, I have no problem including anything in the article, however it is not verifiable that Marcion started the discussion on Jesus' view of the Mosaic Law. --MonkeeSage 06:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I just visited your link to Supersessionism, and I'm not sure what anything I wrote has to do with replacement theology. And even if it were replacement theology, what does that have to do with the matter about Marcion? That sounds like a violation of WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views." --MonkeeSage 06:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you write "supercede"? Are you aware Supersessionism is derived from supersede? As for antithesis: [1]

Strong's Antithesis G477

Right, "supercede;" statements which not only embrace the Law, but go beyond it. How that is replacement theology is beyond me. And even if it were, that has nothing to do with this topic and amounts to ad hominem. I'm aware of the lexical definition of antithesis; I said that it was a stipulated technical meaning as many scholars use it regarding Matt. 5. Others use it in its normal meaning but make the antithesis between Jesus and the Law-teachers not the Law itself. Still other use it to mean the form of the diatribe, not the content ("you have heard. . .but I say"). In any case, you asked why Christian scholars refer to that portion of the sermon that way, and I answered — I'm not arguing that antithesis is the best or most accurate word to use. --MonkeeSage 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Marcion

The reference to Marcion does not belong here. Just because one of the passages of the NT which Marcion altered in his program to systematically remove all reference to the OT from the NT because he thought that the OT Deity was incompatible with the NT Deity, happened to be located near the Antitheses and happened to mention "Law," does not mean that Macrion discussed the Antitheses or the Law in Matt. 5:22ff. He didn't. Therefore, I'm removing the stuff about Marcion again. --MonkeeSage 22:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Marcion didn't use the gospel of Matthew at all, so it is unlikely that he would use passages from it unless they were also in his version of the Gospel of Luke. Clinkophonist 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Henry Wace on Marcion[2]: "Indeed, he sometimes has even to alter the text, e.g. "I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil," into "I am not come to fulfil the law, but to destroy.""; From Epiphanius of Salamis' Panarion 42[3] "Luke 23:2 After "...perverting the nation" Marcion added "and destroying the law and the prophets""

Yes, Marcion thought that the religion and God of Jesus destroyed the religion and god of Moses. Aside from tossing out the entire Law with the rest of the OT, because he thought that an evil god revealed it (and not because of any discussion of the specifics of the Law) — what does Marcion have to do with the antitheses of Matt. 5? --MonkeeSage 06:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil"? Ring any bells? Does this help: "Indeed, he sometimes has even to alter the text, e.g. "I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil," into "I am not come to fulfil the law, but to destroy.""? But your claim is that when Marcion wrote "law" he actually meant "the religion and god of Moses"? And Luke 23:2 is about the "God of Jesus", not Jesus? Free clue: Marcion's Luke 23:2 is about JESUS, and Marcion claims that the accusation against Jesus was that he was destroying the law and the prophets. Understand? The claim is that Jesus was destroying the law and prophets, not fulfilling. On the contrary, Matt. 5 says Jesus did not come to destroy the law and prophets, but to fulfil. Marcion reversed it. Get it?

I understand fine — no need for condescension. Once more, "Just because one of the passages of the NT which Marcion altered in his program to systematically remove all reference to the OT from the NT because he thought that the OT Deity was incompatible with the NT Deity, happened to be located near the Antitheses and happened to mention "Law," does not mean that Macrion discussed the Antitheses or the Law in Matt. 5:22ff. He didn't." You are apparently trying to argue that Marcion was interested in discussing the Law qua Law and Jesus' interpretation, when really his only purpose was to do away with the Law on the grounds that it was revealed by an "alien" deity who was not the God of Jesus. Marcion never raised the issues of legalism and antinomianism; he bypassed the whole topic by religating the OT, including the Law, to the category of uninspired literature (or, at most, inspired by an inferior deity). Yes, he changed the text to say that Jesus would destroy the Law, but not because Marcion had discussed the Law and Jesus' views on it — because his idea of Jesus and a different NT God necessitated that view (He couldn't have Jesus affirming the OT Law, or else Jesus would be validating the OT god). --MonkeeSage 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Divorce

A few of points about the Divorce Antithesis:

• The "hates" in Mal. 2:16 is understood as an action on the part of the husband in the main text of several modern translations (ESV, HCSB). Cf. M. A. Shields, Syncretism and Divorce in Malachi 2,10-16, in ZAW, vol. 111 (1999), pp. 68-86. This is consistant with the LXX rendering, as well as Deu. 24:3. In any case, the Deu. passage is unequivocal. [This uncertainty makes it advisable to omit the reference to Mal 2:16.]

• Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 don't actually condemn divorce, only remarriage. Verse 31 is not related to the topic of divorce at all (mabye a typo?).

• 1 Cor 7 is ambiguous — Paul doesn't say he is referring to Jesus, so he could very well be speaking of the Mosaic statutes. Also, it is not clear that he is invoking apostolic privilege, as he may be engaging in midrash, with his meaning being something akin to "the Lord didn't say this directly, but this is the nuanced meaning." I'm not pushing for the latter point, just voicing the possibility. [That Paul, in quoting "the Lord" as forbidding divorce, is referring to the Mosaic statutes, which do envisage divorce and remarriage, seems quite unlikely.]

• "Koine Greek" is more accurate than "Greek language," even though the word may have existed in earlier forms, since the meanings are not always the same in each form, and the Matthew use is Koine. [Since πορνεία seems to have the same meaning (even if with different overtones) in classical Attic, Koine, modern Greek and, presumably, other forms of Greek, specifying "Koine" here seems as otiose as saying "seventeenth-century English", rather than "English", for an unambiguous English word.]

• Isa. 57:3 uses μοιχῶν in the context of idol worship (cf. v. 5). Jer. 3:8 uses ἐμοιχᾶτο (cf. 5:7, 7:9, &c). Eze. 23:37 uses ἐμοιχῶντο (cf. v. 43, 45). And elsewhere through-out the prophets. Granted that in some of the these passages it is used metaphorically, picturing Israel as God's wife, but in others there is no mention of a marital relationship, only a covenant relationship. So πορνεία seems to emphasize the moral lewdness or unlawfulness of the act, while μοιχεία seems to emphasize the unfaithfulness of it to the marriage covenant. [Here πορνεία is in question.]

• While γυνή may be used of "women" in general (just like ἀνήρ is used of "men" in general), it is a distinct word for "wife," as αρσην and θῆλυς are used for "male" and "female" when the meaning is general. [The primary meaning of γυνή is "woman", as is the primary meaning of Spanish "mujer". Μία γυνή means "a woman", as does "una mujer". Only when used in relation to a man (as "his γυνή") can it be taken to have the more specific meaning of "wife" ("su mujer"). Using θῆλυς to refer to a woman is doubtless no more respectful than to refer to a woman as "una hembra" in Spanish.]

• Calling the "ironic" interpretation "abstruse" seems biased and ethnocentric. This type of reasoning was not at all abstruse to 1st century Jews in Palestine, it is a common midrashic technique. While this may not be the correct interpretation, and while it may seem strained to us, this type of "irony" was used very often in that period. [The paragraph should either have its abstruse relevance to the divorce question clarified or be removed.] --MonkeeSage 15:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

With sincere gratitude to MonkeeSage. Lima 05:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lima. I agree with your comments above. --MonkeeSage 08:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Lima: Firstly, I don't understand the argument about concubinage.

Every one who sends away his woman — except in the case of concubinage — makes her commit adultery.

This takes λόγου as "in the case of", which is entirely odd. Logos relates to a "reason" or "cause" or "ground", not an "instance" or a "case". Also, it seems like a simple truism, not any kind of iconoclastic teaching that would make people marvel, to say "if you're not married, just sleeping together, then you can't commit adultery [a sin which presupposes marriage]". And why would Jesus shift his focus to the unmarried concubines in the midst of talking about marriage and divorce? But if we take the usual meaning:

Every one who sends away his woman — except for the reason of concubinage — makes her commit adultery.

Then if a man is married, and their wife is acting as a concubine with another man, that is a form of adultery — and that brings back the "quaint" expression:

Every one who sends away his woman — except for the reason of [a type of adultery] — makes her commit adultery.

So I'm very curious who actually poses this strange argument. Can you please cite a source so I can review their argument and see if it makes any more sense than the presentation in the article?

Secondly, the article is incorrect that there is no "specific word" for wife — there is: γυνή. θῆλυς is the generic word for "female/woman", γυνή is the specific word for "woman/wife". It doesn't have to mean wife, but it can, and it is a subset of θῆλυς, making it specific (all γυνή are θῆλυς, but not all θῆλυς are γυνή). The article currently gives the impression that the Greeks (and Spansih) had/have no way of referring to a wife rather than just a female, which is not accurate. They had no absolutely unique, completely specific word, but they did have a specific word as opposed to a general one. I'm unpacking my books tonight, so I'll check the BDAG entry later. » MonkeeSage « 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is BDAG, 2nd edt., 1979, p. 168:

γυνή, αικός, ἡ [. . .] 2. wife (Hom.+, Jos., Ant, 18, 148, C. Ap. 2, 201) Mt 5: 28, 31f. . .

» MonkeeSage « 10:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

When I was uploading the following, I met an edit conflict: MonkeeSage had, in the meantime, added the above. I don't think it alters materially what I wanted to say. (Excuse my ignorance: I do not know what BDAG means, though I suppose the first two letters stand for Bible Dictionary.) The following was written not many minutes ago. (I had to learn how to retrieve it.)

I am sorry that I seem to disagree with MonkeeSage, whom I admire. Let us start with θῆλυς, which - excuse the quibble - never means "woman". It is an adjective, not a noun, and so, if applied to a woman, would have to be put in the feminine form, θήλεια. Among the several English translations that Liddel and Scott gives, "woman" does not appear. (My own Liddell and Scott is in another country, but the Perseus site is available to me here.) To underline the distinction between θήλεια and γυνή, I notice that Liddel and Scott gives a quotation of the phrase "θήλειαι γυναῖκες" (literally, "female women") along with phrases like "θήλειαι ἵπποι" (literally female horses, i.e. mares). Yes, I know that several English translations of the Bible use "woman" as a translation of θήλεια in Rom 1:26-27, apparently thinking that, in that context of sexual intercourse, "female" would be somehow indecent. But even there the word, in itself, means "female" and is only applied to women. So too, the word "γυνή", in itself, means "woman". While ἡ γυνή μου will in nearly every context be translated as "my wife", for a Greek γυνή is exactly the same word and does not need analysis into different shades of meaning. The same happens in English: "brother-in-law" would be translated into modern Greek by no less than three different words: γαμπρός (husband of one's sister), κουνιάδος (brother of one's spouse), and μπατζανάκης (husband of the sister of one's wife). But an English speaker does not normally think of distinctions in the meaning of "brother-in-law" that would show up in translation into another language. In the same way, an ancient Greek would not be conscious of possible distinctions of meaning in the word γυνή that would show up only in a translation into another language. For a Spanish speaker, mujer has exactly the same meaning in the phrase "una mujer" and "mi mujer", though an English translation would distinguish between "a woman" and "my wife"; if asked to translate "my wife", a Spanish speaker would almost certainly say "mi esposa", rather than "mi mujer", in order to keep the English wife/woman distinction that does not exist for mujer. I can think of no word in ancient Greek that corresponds specifically to the English word "wife" (which, as you probably know, originally just meant "woman", as German "Weib" still normally does). If an ancient Greek wished to express the specific idea of the English word "wife", he would doubtless, for lack of a specific single word, have to say something like "my lawful γυνή". Modern Greek has the word "σύζυγος" (spouse), but, as you know, that word once had a much broader meaning (cf. Phil 4:3).

The wording of the article is totally misunderstood if it is thought to give the impression that ancient Greeks and Spanish speakers had/have no way of referring to a wife rather than just a female (i.e. a θήλεια or an hembra, words that do not appear in the article).

I have left "except for the reason of concubinage" for last, because I see no difficulty in it. It refers not to what MonkeeSage interprets as the to my mind somewhat curious concept of "concubinage by the wife" ("abandonment"?), but to the situation of the man and the woman themselves living in concubinage rather than marriage ("a relationship between the couple that is not that of a valid marriage", as I tried to express the meaning). It was because he had been living in concubinage, not in marriage that Augustine of Hippo, "for the reason of concubinage", decided to put away the woman he had been living with for years before his conversion. You would certainly call her, in Greek, τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, without implying anything precise about the character of their relationship; and you could then translate this phrase as "his mistress", or "his concubine", or, most literally, "his woman", but you could not translate is as "his wife" - I should have thought of this example when speaking, above, of the meaning of the word "γυνή".

This interpretation of πορνεία is perhaps that of all Catholic Scripture scholars, and of some others too. One Biblical commentary that I have to hand, in CD-ROM form, is the Jerome Bible Commentary. It gives exactly this interpretation (Jerome Bibl. Comm. N.T. 167). Indeed, the article itself indicates that this is a common interpretation, since the article enlarges on various reasons why a man-and-woman relationship would be classified as concubinage rather than a true marriage.

In view of MonkeeSage's comments, I have tried to express more clearly what is meant by concubinage in this context. Perhaps MonkeeSage himself can improve on it.

Lima 10:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lima: Don't take me too seriously, I'm just trying to work out the article, as I know you are. I respect you as well, which is why I'm not afraid to bring up these issues and sort of push the bar with you, because I know you will provide a well thought-out and insightful response. :)

BDAG is Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (University of Chicago Press)[4].

Regarding θῆλυς, I was using the lexical form for easy reference. I thought that the word could refer to "woman", and BDAG lists several such apparent uses, p. 360:

θῆλυς, εια, υ [. . .] ἡ θ. the woman (Hdt. 3, 109; X., Mem. 2, 1, 1 al.; Lev. 27:4-7; En. 15, 5; 7) Ro 1: 26f; 1 Cl 55: 5; 2 Cl 12: 2, 5 (both the latter pass. are quot. fr. an apocryphal gospel, presumably GEg); GEg 3.

But I do understand your point, I just didn't want to confuse those who don't understand the nuances of Greek language and culture (not that I'm an expert by any means!). I just wanted to make it clear that there is a word for wife — even though the semantic range of the word includes more than just that sense and the specific nuance must be gleaned from the context (which may often be ambiguous). I'm not sure the best way to do that, or if we necessarily have to. What do you think?

Regarding the concubinage issue, I think I understand the argument up to a point. What I don't get is how it fits with the passage: Jesus cites a teaching specifically about marriage and divorce, but then shifts to concubinage between unmarried men and women ("in the case of" &mdash the odd rendering of λόγου) and states a truism that really doesn't even need stating? On the other hand, if the concubinage refers to married persons ("for/on the reason/matter/ground of" the usual rendering of λόγου) we're back to adultery again it seems? Does it mean concubinage prior to marriage (see below)?

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary seems to opt for a "rabbinic" solution: "the key term porneia is understood as translating the Hebr zěnût, "prostitution," understood in the sense of an incestuous union due to marriage within forbidden degrees of kinship (Lev 18:6-18)." I couldn't find a discussion on concubinage (at least not at Matt. 5: [42.31-32]).

However, the IVP New Bible Commentary holds: "that marital unfaithfulness (which would include not only adultery but also premarital promiscuity) automatically anulled a marriage by creating another 'one-flesh' union." Is "premarital promiscuity" the sense of concubinage being referred to in the article? If so, that does make sense and I understand the argument in that case. » MonkeeSage « 13:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have long realized that, in comparison to mine, MonkeeSage's knowledge of Biblical and theological scholarship is immensely superior. But he is patient with someone who puts before him considerations for reflection.

BDAG only indicates that, in some contexts, "wife" is a good translation of γυνή. In other contexts, as we have seen in the case of Augustine, "mistress" or "concubine" would be good translations, indeed better in those contexts. But in itself, the word just means "woman", not directly "wife" or "concubine" or "mistress" or "lady" or "fiancee" or whatever other word the context will suggest as the most suitable choice of an English word for that precise context.

Jesus quotes "what was said" using that word: "[ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναιῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)." I see no difficulty in Jesus then saying (I paraphrase the exception clause): "ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ (dismisses/divorces) τὴν γυναιῖκα (woman/...) αὐτοῦ - and, of course, I am not speaking of a couple just living together out of wedlock, which would indeed be reason (λόγος) for separating - makes her commit adultery." The exception clause could also have been added to Jesus' actual words later, for instance as a clarifying response to members of the Christian community trying to justify their unlawful unions on the basis of Jesus' prohibition of dismissing one's γυνή.

I don't get why this interpretation should be thought not to fit with the context. The phrase is about apparently or allegedly married persons whose relationship is a πορνεία. As simple as that, with no need to introduce complications about premarital relations.

The situation that the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, as quoted by MonkeeSage, envisages is concubinage, i.e. living together as man and wife but not in a legal marriage.

I notice that the Jerome Biblical Commentary on Mark 10:1-12 considers "at least equally probable" the interpretation that the πορνεία in question is that of a fiancee, whose betrothed may then refuse to accept her, since she is not a virgin. "In such a case the husband was obliged by Jewish customary law to sue for an annulment of the marriage contract. ... Mark's omission of (the exceptive clause) may simply reflect a non-Jewish milieu where the niceties of Jewish custom were unknown or irrelevant" (Jerome Bibl. Comm. N.T. 129).

I am not arguing that the "concubinage" theory is definitely correct; only that it is a position that is in fact held and not without reasons in its support that, even if not overwhelming, cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.

Lima 18:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Lima: Regarding γυνή, I don't mean to focus on English translations. I was meaning to talk about the semantic range of the word in the Greek. It has as its primary, root meaning, "woman", but has a meaning extended by context and-or syntax (which, as clarifying intent, are usually considered as elements of meaning). The extended meaning is akin to the English expression "my old lady", i.e., "wife". As a title in an address it could even mean the respectful "Madam/Miss" (e.g., Mat. 15:28). So even though the contextual/syntactical relationship is not always clear, there is a word that means, in Greek, "wife" — it is just not completely specific as a word in itself and requires other factors to give it that specific nuance. But I don't know if we need to somehow respresent all that in the article or not; perhaps I'm being too sensative about the issue. I just don't want people to get the wrong idea and think that the Greek were going to a party and being introduced to a man's "woman" of 20 years, and walking off thinking "I wonder if they are married?"

On the concubinage issue; I don't mean to dismiss the argument out of hand, or even to dismiss it at all, I just am trying to understand it. I think I understand it alot better now, but it is still nagging me how it makes sense to start out with an allusion to the Halakic teaching on "divorce" (or specifically, the bill of divorce, get, assuming ἀπολύσῃ in Mat. 5:31, 32 [ἀπολῦσαι Mat. 19:8] is referring to the βιβλίον ἀποστασίου of Matt. 19:7 [from Deu. 24:1, LXX]), and then address the issue of concubinage in abstraction from marriage (either before or after). The rendering makes sense, in itself: If you're unlawfully bound (concubinage), then its alright to depart/send away (this is similar Paul's teaching in 1 Cor.), but not if you're lawfully bound (married). But it doesn't make sense to me in this specific context talking about divorce, which seems (to me at least) to assume a legal marriage. » MonkeeSage « 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is "wife" the extended meaning of "γυνή", and not rather an extended meaning? Could Augustine's mistress not be called his γυνή?

If Herod decided to separate from his brother Philip's wife, a relationship John the Baptist declared to be concubinage, wouldn't his action have been that of ἀπολύειν αὐτήν - doubtless with βιβλίον ἀποστασίου?

Lima 04:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Article's title is an incorrect POV

This article is poorly named. As the introduction correctly notes, it a) states clearly in the text itself that it is NOT intended as an antithesis or negation of the Law; and b) none of the specific teachings are strictly speaking 'antitheses' or negations of the comparable laws. "Antithesis of the Law" may allegedly be a phrase used by Marcion, but why should the Marcionist pov be officially endorsed by wikipedia? Please explain. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Expounding of the Law is npov and more accurate. However, "Antithesis of the Law" is a phrase used in certain Christian circles. It would be nice if someone could figure out who was the first to coin this phrase for this section of Matthew, and then add that information to the article.209.78.16.73 17:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly who coined the term, but I think I recall seeing it as early as Jerome or Augustine, but I could be mistaken about that. Some current authors who have used the term: Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (3rd ed.), 91-97; John Murray, Principles of Conduct, 160-178; Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, 196-209. To my knowledge Marcion never used the term "Antithesis" in any connection to the sermon on the mount, or the Law, nor did he ever discuss the issue. I don't really have a problem with the title change, though. I'm adding a redirect for Antithesis of the Law so linked pages don't break. --MonkeeSage 17:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

NM, it already redirects. --MonkeeSage 17:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Tertullian on Marcion

[5]

"Marcion's special and principal work is the separation of the law and the gospel; and his disciples will not deny that in this point they have their very best pretext for initiating and confirming themselves in his heresy. These are Marcion's Antitheses, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a variance with the law, in order that from the diversity of the two documents which contain them, they may contend for a diversity of gods also. Since, therefore, it is this very opposition between the law and the gospel which has suggested that the God of the gospel is different from the God of the law, it is clear that, before the said separation, that god could not have been known who became known from the argument of the separation itself."

"MARCION, JUSTIFYING HIS ANTITHESIS BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL BY THE CONTENTION OF ST. PAUL WITH ST. PETER, SHOWN TO HAVE MISTAKEN ST. PAUL'S POSITION AND ARGUMENT. MARCION'S DOCTRINE CONFUTED OUT OF ST. PAUL'S TEACHING, WHICH AGREES WHOLLY WITH THE CREATOR'S DECREES."

True, Tertullian referred to "law and gospel," but taking his remarks in context, it is clear that his focus is broader than "the Mosaic Law and Jesus' teachings," encompassing the whole corpus of the Old and New Testaments (Cf. Against Marcion, Bk. 4[6]). For example:

Now if it was with the view of preaching a new god that he was eager to abrogate the law of the old God, how is it that he prescribes no rule about the new god, but solely about the old law, if it be not because faith in the Creator was still to continue, and His law alone was to come to an end? . . . And, indeed, if another god were preached by Paul, there could be no doubt about the law, whether it were to be kept or not, because of course it would not belong to the new lord, the enemy of the law. The very newness and difference of the god would take away not only all question about the old and alien law, but even all mention of it. (idem., Bk. 1, §21[7]).

This is confirmed by Irenaeus in his Against Heresies, Bk. 1, §27.1-2[8]:

Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards. He taught that the God proclaimed by the law and the prophets was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself.

Harnack says in his History of Dogma, vol. 1, ch. 5, p. 269[9]:

Completely carried away with the novelty, uniqueness and grandeur of the Pauline Gospel of the grace of God in Christ, Marcion felt that all other conceptions of the Gospel, and especially its union with the Old Testament religion, was opposed to, and a backsliding from, the truth. He accordingly supposed that it was necessary to make the sharp antitheses of Paul, law and gospel, wrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, death and life, that is the Pauline criticism of the Old Testament religion, the foundation of his religious views, and to refer them to two principles, the righteous and wrathful god of the Old Testament, who is at the same time identical with the creator of the world, and the God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is only love and mercy. This Paulinism in its religious strength, but without dialectic, without the Jewish Christian view of history, and detached from the soil of the Old Testament, was to him the true Christianity. Marcion, like Paul, felt that the religious value of a statutory law with commandments and ceremonies, was very different from that of a uniform law of love. Accordingly, he had a capacity for appreciating the Pauline idea of faith; it is to him reliance on the unmerited grace of God which is revealed in Christ. But Marcion shewed himself to be a Greek influenced by the religious spirit of the time, by changing the ethical contrast of the good and legal into the contrast between the infinitely exalted spiritual and the sensible which is subject to the law of nature, by despairing of the triumph of good in the world and, consequently, correcting the traditional faith that the world and history belong to God, by an empirical view of the world and the course of events in it, a view to which he was no doubt also led by the severity of the early Christian estimate of the world.

Also, the Marcionite intention is specified, not as being to discern the specific relationship between the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus, but to establish a contradiction in theology between the two testaments:

These are Marcion's Antitheses, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a variance with the law, in order that from the diversity of the two documents which contain them, they may contend for a diversity of gods also. (Tertullian, idem., Bk. 1, §19[10]).

Harnack again, idem., p. 271[11]:

[Marcion] recognised [the Old Testament] as the revelation of the creator of the world and the god of the Jews, but placed it, just on that account, in sharpest contrast to the Gospel. He demonstrated the contradictions between the Old Testament and the Gospel in a voluminous work (the ἀνσιθἑσεις). In the god of the former book he saw a being whose character was stern justice, and therefore anger, contentiousness and unmercifulness.

So I am still opposed to any statement implying that Marcion was concerned with the specific interaction between the Law and Jesus' teaching. Marcion was concerned with the general concepts, but not their specifics, and only insofar as they served to show two different gods. --MonkeeSage 08:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

This statement currently in the article needs to be referenced or deleted as original research:

"While Marcion never explicitly discussed ... the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus"

As it now stands, the sentence is internally antithetical. "Marcion never explicitly discussed ... the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus" yet "we can be fairly certain that he would have extended the "antithesis" (contradiction) he posited between the Old and New Testaments to encompass these issues as well." The obvious conclusion is that therefore Marcion did discuss the relationship, whether or not it was an "extension" is irrelevent.209.78.17.144 18:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm...no, it's not internally antithetical. It's an inference from greater to lesser: Marcion believed that the whole OT was opposed to the whole NT (the parts he accepted as authentic), therefore Marcion probably believed that specific parts of the OT were opposed to specific parts of the NT. But the inference is only probable, not necessary, as Marcion may not have seen conflict at every particular point. But as there is no evidence that Marcion explicitly discussed the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus, that was my attempt at a concession to the Marcion POV-pushers who keep trying to revise history and have Marcion discussing subjects he never did. --MonkeeSage 23:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ps. It is also a misuse of Tertullian to include a translator's heading as if it were part of Tertullians text! --MonkeeSage 23:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Marcion believed that *some* parts of the Gospel (as presented by Paul and Marcion's Gospel) were opposed (antithetical) to *some* parts of the Jewish Bible. For example, Marcion didn't object to "thou shalt not murder", etc. Marcion didn't object to all law, he was not an anarchist, but he proposed that some of the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus were antithetical to some of the teachings of the Jewish Bible. As for your claim that some of the text is a translator's heading, that may or may not be correct, even if it is the translator's commentary, it is still a Wikipedia:Reliable sources rather than original research.63.201.26.122 01:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This statement is false: "But as there is no evidence that Marcion explicitly discussed the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus". Here is one of many such evidence: "These are Marcion's Antitheses, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a variance with the law". Gospel is the teachings of Jesus, that's how Paul used the word. Law is obviously the Mosaic Law. Variance is a relationship. 63.201.26.122 02:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, we don't know what parts of the Law Marcion would have accepted or rejected, except the parts he used in his Antithesis to try to show that a different god was responsible for the OT than the God responsible for the NT.

Secondly, it is utterly misleading to quote a translator's chapter summary as if it were the text, or might be the text. The published Latin version has no such headings[12], nor does a scholarly modern English translation[13]. The ANF series gives summary headings to chapters in all of the works it translates, and in most cases a summary of the whole work at the outset of the translation — that doesn't make these pedagogical summaries part of the actual text!

Thirdly, as shown above in Tertullian himself and in Irenaeus (cf. Harnack), Tertullian is not speaking strictly of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus, but using "law and gospel" as metonyms for the OT and NT in toto. The ANF translator, Peter Holmes, agrees on this point as well: "If Marcionism is in the letter obsolete, there is its spirit still left in the church, which in more ways than one develops its ancient characteristics. What these were, the reader will soon discover in this volume; but reference may be made even here, in passing, to that prominent aim of the heresy which gave Tertullian his opportunity of proving the essential coherence of the Old and the New Testaments, and of exhibiting both his great knowledge of the details of Holy Scripture, and his fine intelligence of the progressive nature of God's revelation as a whole. This constitutes the charm of the present volume [Against Marcion], which might almost be designated a Treatise on the Connection between the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures."[14]

Wrong. "OT" and "NT" as designations did not exist in Marcion's time. "Law and Prophets" was the common name of the Jewish Bible, "Gospel" was the common name for the teachings of Jesus. "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are terms invented by Tertullian.

You're splitting hairs. --MonkeeSage 10:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Forthly, the Tertullian quote doesn't add anything to the section, and is misleading without context, amounting to an attempt to bolster the POV and original research that Marcion addressed the Mosaic Law and Jesus' teachings specifically, when the sources all say that he was not interested in anything but proving that the OT revealed one god and Jesus revealed another. Harnack (see above) said: "[Marcion] demonstrated the contradictions between the Old Testament and the Gospel in a voluminous work (the ἀνσιθἑσεις). In the god of the former book he saw a being whose character was stern justice, and therefore anger, contentiousness and unmercifulness."

--MonkeeSage 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously that is your own original research.

Well, Harnack says it (see context)...and I'm not Harnack... --MonkeeSage 10:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You're also hoist with your own petard regarding Marcion's antinomianism. "I am not come to fulfil the law, but to destroy" doesn't make any qualification about "destroy some of the law, but not all" — you need to show that he accepted some parts of the law if you want to claim that in the article. I agree however that there were Jewish antinomians before Marcion, so I qualified the statement with "Christian." --MonkeeSage 06:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever. Your games bore me. Obviously there were Christian antinomians before Marcion also. Have fun distorting wikipedia. You'll no doubt fool some people. 63.201.24.97 07:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that Marcion was a precursor, not the only one. Cerdo, whom Marcion allegedly drew from, is another that I'm aware of. You have been assuming bad faith through-out our discussions on this page, though I'm not sure know why. You claim that I'm distoring Wikipedia, trying to fool people — what do you think I have to gain? You claim I'm presenting original research, but I'm only saying what the commentators on Marcion have said — is your interpretation of Tertullian attributable? Mine is (e.g., Harnack, Holmes). To hold the article to the standard of verifiability, as I have been doing, is not to push a POV. --MonkeeSage 10:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Your claim: "While Marcion never explicitly discussed this section of Matthew, or the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus, it is probable that he would have extended the "antithesis" (contradiction) he posited between the entire Old and New Testaments to encompass these issues as well."

Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1.19[15]: "The separation of Law and Gospel is the primary and principal exploit of Marcion. His disciples cannot deny this, which stands at the head of their document, that document by which they are inducted, into and confirmed in this heresy. For such are Marcion's Antitheses, or Contrary Oppositions, which are designed to show the conflict and disagreement of the Gospel and the Law, so that from the diversity of principles between those two documents they may argue further for a diversity of gods."

I have not deleted your claim from the article, though I requested it be referenced, which you have failed to do. You have been deleting the quote of Tertullian.64.169.3.213 18:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You're asking me to prove the negative. The onus probandi is on you to demonstrate that "Marcion did explicitly discuss this section of Matthew, or the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the teaching of Jesus." You tried to do this by citing Tertullian, but from the context of Tertullian, Irenaeus' comments about Marcion, Harnack's evaluation, and the Holmes' preface to Tertullian, your proof has been demonstrated to be false. Your interpretation of Tetrullian is not verified; so just by including the citation without any context except the context of the article as a whole, you're pushing your POV and OR. I'll be happy to remove the bit about Marcion if you wish, I only included it because you seemed to want Marcion included in the article regardless of relevance. --MonkeeSage 19:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cloak

". Due to the often cold nights in the region, a cloak was hence necessary for survival to the extent that Jewish law regarded it as distrainable." Should it be "non-distainable"? Rich Farmbrough 10:15 6 June 2006 (UTC).

I think "distrainable" is a technical term, meaning "cannot be sold under any circumstances whatsoever". Clinkophonist 21:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Antithesis of the Law changed to Antitheses of the Law and marked as POV

Antithesis of the Law is the phrase I'm familiar with, Law is singular, thus antithesis is singular. I imagine Antitheses of the Law is a neologism unless some references can be found for it. As for marking this section POV, can you be more specific? The quoted references are certainly Wikipedia: Reliable sources. Do you have other references for Antithesis of the Law? 209.78.19.65 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22antithesis+of+the+law%22 (236 hits)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22antitheses+of+the+law%22 (7 hits)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22antitheses+of+the+laws%22 (0 hits)

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Hebrews/hebrews_044.htm

"Thus verses 27, 28 present the antithesis of the Law and the Gospel, as it relates to "men" indefinitely, and to the "many" specifically."

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/aspects/web/asp-093.html

"Though a young Christian might expect Him to be, Jesus did not come as the antithesis of the Law given by God to Moses and Israel. He came, instead, as its logical continuation."

http://www.umsl.edu/~phillips/dp/kreutzerclem.html

"Although possibly appropriate in cases wherein mental disease or defect is perhaps one of many defenses, including “I didn’t do this crime,” these instructions are the antithesis of the law in a diminished capacity defense, where only the mental element of the crime is in issue."

http://www.helpingmormons.org/TLC_Manti/PamphletsFolder/BookOfMormonWarning.htm

"This open economy is, in reality, the antithesis of the law of consecration of Zion. One may reasonably ask how today's Latter-day Saints have any promise of Zion when they build up the opposite kingdom?"

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:zjaWv1Wn2_AJ:www.clclutheran.org/library/jtheo_arch/jtsep2003.pdf+%22antithesis+of+the+law%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=42

"Associated with the biblical concept of justification are the following: faith, righteousness, Spirit, promise, life, Christ. In each instance the law is set by Paul as the antithesis"

"The law stands exposed as the antithesis to both justification and faith."

"In chapter four of Romans Paul uses the revered figure of Abraham to demonstrate that the law is the antithesis of the promise and faith."

"The law stands as the antithesis of the promise, also of life, for “if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law”(Gal. 3:21). Christ Himself stands over against the law, for “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whoso- ever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). From one angle and then from another angle and then from another Paul establishes the antithesis of the law to all and everything that creates new life." ...

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pressense/early.htm

"Had not the great antithesis of the law and grace been realized in his life before it was expressed in his writings?"

XXX

At least the passage in the Gospel is called antitheses as it contains more than one antithesis. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anger

In the Anger section, 3rd paragraph. In the Book of Mormon the same teaching about 'anger without cause' does not have the 'without cause' phrase in it. There should be some reference to this as corroborating evidence.

III Nephi 12:22

But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Adultery

The second paragraph in this section expounds on Mt 5:28 without actually mentioning the reference. Thus, several readings are required.
Then the argument becomes so incredibly convoluted that several readings are again required.
After all this, the writer's Mobius logic seems to resolve to a rejection of an argument from silence.
BUT, arguments from silence can't be refuted! There's nothing there!! There's no "there" there. :-)) I.e, this wording desperately needs help.
--StudiousReader (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Condemning

The article writes

Despite condemning the use of the term fool

which is a misunderstanding of the term 'shall be in danger of'; for that is not a condemnation but a warning against the improper use of the term. As Christ himself demonstrated, if the term fool is used correctly, there is no sin (proof as Christ is without sin and he used the term, as already cited in the article). Therefore; only incorrect use is condemned. 60.49.100.253 (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche

In the section on love for enemies, the article writes:

"This does not however mean that those later thinkers approved of the sentiment of the verse, and Nietzsche rejected the command entirely, arguing that love of one's enemies is weakness and dishonesty"

This is a clichéd and inaccurate rendering of Nietzsche's thought. In fact, this is a rare place where Nietzsche comes quite close to Christian doctrine, though according to a quite different reasoning. It is true that in the Genealogy of Morals, one of the defining characteristics of the slave morality he condemns is an existential attachment to some external, hostile force; his point is that to define one's life or project strictly in reaction against is the worst kind of nihilism, because it fails to affirm life on its own basis (this is integrated into the Genealogy's sustained critique of nineteenth-century German anti-Semitism). But it is quite incorrect to say that Nietzsche felt that the strong should have no regard for their enemies, and just mindlessly destroy them in accordance with an essentially destructive "will to power"; quite the opposite. In The Gay Science, Nietzsche says that the strong will choose worthy enemies (section 13); in later sections, he claims that some "need open enemes if they are to rise to the level of their own virtue, virility, and cheerfulness" (169), citing how Napoleon (who Nietzsche foolishly respected) regarded his enemy Murat as "the most courageous person." And again in 211, he writes, "To be able to afford a secret enemy—that is a luxury for which the morality of even elevated spirits is usually not rich enough."

Nietzsche clearly does not argue for the love of enemies in the sense of a democratic setting aside of differences, or in the sense of "brotherly love" the article cites in the Jewish Encyclopedia. But I would argue that these are not Christ's meanings, either. Christ's first defense of the love for enemies is that one's persecution at the hands of enemies will lead to Heavenly rewards; on its own, this passage is exactly the kind of ressentiment that the Genealogy of Morals resists. But the following passages of Matthew complicate things; here, Jesus argues that one should not only love those who are capable of loving you back, since this is not really love at all; this is the love of "tax collectors." What defines Jesus' version of "perfection" (or "strength" as Nietzsche would have it) is a kind of disinterestedness in the love or hate of others, disinterested in the sense that it is absolutely unconditional; this disinterestedness is what defines Christian love.

(all citations are from Kaufmann's translations) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.162.169 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources?

I added a primary sources tag, but this article is an amazing mess. Mostly edited by IPs and mostly primaries, if any sources. And it gives the word rambling a new meaning. Unless there are good reasons otherwise, I will trim by 50% at least and try to add sources. No source, no go. History2007 (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Skomorokh: Take a look here. That is how it started and there are a few more junk articles to clean up along that path. What justification do you have to keep "unsourced garbage" in Wikipedia? I will start deleting one by one, every few hours. Unless you have a WP:RS source, do not revert it. As for your "this time with feeling" comment, as I said on the other page, the feeling I have is amazement that all this garbage is floating around in Wikipedia and no one cleans it up. That is a simple feeling. History2007 (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

One source for English section titles is the UBS Greek New Testament by Aland et al:

5:17-20 Teaching about the Law

5:21-26 Teaching about Anger

5:27-30 Teaching about Adultery

5:31-32 Teaching about Divorce

5:33-37 Teaching about Oaths

5:38-42 Teaching about Retaliation

5:43-48 Love for Enemies

75.15.197.96 (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

IP 75.15.197.96, read WP:Primary sources and WP:V first.

Of course Aland's "Bible" says that Matthew 5:21-26 is about Anger. And of course 1,000 other bibles also say that 5:21-26 is about anger. So do we have 1,001 sources for this article? No, we do not. That section of Matthew does NOT say: "Luke gives the text a much more eschatalogical context, implying it refers to the Last Judgement" because in Aland's Bible and in all 1,000 others Matthew does no refer to Luke.

It is therefore impossible to base the comparison of Matthew and Luke on New Testament as a reference. Just impossible, because the gospels do not refer to each other. Read WP:OR. So statements such as "Luke gives the text a much more eschatalogical context, implying it refers to the Last Judgement" do not have a source at all, primary or secondary. And that type of statement about Luke vs Matthew is very subjective and error prone to make. In general, Matthew's own rich eschatalogical context has been the subject of a long discussion since the 1950s and 1960s. That, however, is totally beside the point here.

Per WP:V we must be sure Wikipedia content is verifiable. Please read the policies. This is a rambling, unfocused article. I am amazed I have to spend so much time talking about this garbage here. If you want to do good, go do research to find sources and add them, and clean up. And do not waste my time which would otherwise go into improving articles instead of teaching basic policies. The best and only way to fix this is to reduce it to a manageable size so suitable sources can be added per WP:V. There is far too much free-wheeling text here that can not be easily verified, and the article is 3 times longer than needs to be anyway. No serious reader will read this rambling rummage sale of sentences here. If you want to fix it spend the effort and do it right. Else read WP:V and WP:OR again. History2007 (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I have no interest in creating any significant content because people like you are going to come along and block delete. I'm not saying that the current article isn't in need of work, but I fail to see how massive block deleting is the solution. Other wikipedia editors put in a lot of work (not me personally), why step on their toes and insult their effort even if the overall result needs work? Also, Aland gives the parallels to Luke right under his section titles. 75.15.197.96 (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Parallel is one thing, eschatalogical context is another. Parallels are the subject of one of my favorite topics, namely Gospel harmony, in which Aland is an expert, as I said in that article. You should probably read that article too - it is free to read. But harmony and eschatalogical context are separate issues. There is no source for that. Period. History2007 (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect there are sources, but I could be wrong. Probably one of the sources listed in the References section. So, there are two ways to go: try to figure out what the sources are, or just block delete. Frankly, the choice is yours, I just think there is way too much block deleting on wikipedia. 75.15.197.96 (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already made my views clear. I think WP:V must be followed and in general I see far too much junk floating in Wikipedia. Just because it is sitting there, does not mean it is "correct". Allowing that will in the end lead to Junk-pedia and should be avoided. Anyway, enough of this. History2007 (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD?

notable? Is this article really adding to Sermon on the mount article? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the talk on the Sermon on the mount you will see that there were a couple of Wiki inventions I deleted. I had not checked this one, but is also an invention. I suggest we just redirect it to the Sermon and keep one paragraph of it there, so it will be a simple merge. As I said above, most of the material here is unsourced anyway. But a paragraph or two may be salvaged so it is not an Afd as such probably. But I do not have time to select the paragraph that survives. Could you suggest a paragraph please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I was about to redirect this, but then I did another search. It seems that there is structure herein although the text in the article is 90% junk and the title is an invention. I will ask for further opinions. History2007 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have had a first, careful look at this and have one basic doubt about this article and one more technical concern. The basic doubt is to whether the block of material is sufficiently notable to justify it being given an article on its own. There may be a book (or even two) which deal with this material and have titles which sound similar, but in my opinion, this in itself does not make the block of material notable. (I admit there are stub articles on other sections of the Sermon on the Mount but I am not sure any of them are really necessary: why not simply provide a bible-verse link to each passage?) My more technical concern is that very little of the material in this article meets wiki's standards for inclusion, there is a marked lack of adequate sources. I would eliminate the article and let an interested editor include essential material in the art. on The Sermon on the Mount but would also make the point that this also needs a fair bit of editorial attention. The lede and the context section which follows are very repetitious and sourcing is by no means perfect eitherJpacobb (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The question I do not have an answer to is: Does Matthew 5:17-48 have a name at all? It seems to be a "package" in its own with a "that was then, this is now" theme. Someone invented this name for it. Is there a common name for that mini-sermon? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is, at present, unsourced, using that word in the sense we have for articles on Wiki. The bibliography section is full of books that would be acceptable sources, but they're not used in the article (or if they are used, it's not acknowledged). The Notes section, which should show the sources being used, is full of primary sources (a no-no) and outdated material over a century old.

In addition, the article doesn't establish nateability for the subject matter. The second para of the lead seems to set this in terms of a dispute over Mosaic law and Jesus' approach to that law, but this dispute is never referred to in the body of the article. Other editors have questioned whether the subject actually exists (do France and others refer to it?).PiCo (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the current text is junk. but... many people refer to it without a name. It is certain that it is going to disappear. What I do not know is if the term "interpretation of the law" that 2 or 3 sources use is common enough. I can ad a paragraph about it in the Sermon on the Mount, and just leave it without a title, so we can move on.... Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article is not unsourced, it uses the older WP:CITE#General references system, from before the time when inline citations became preferred or mandatory. I've added the appropriate tag to the top of the page. As for notability, we might want to check back to previous versions of the lede/intro to see if the notability got edited out. Also, is the present article name the original? To convert General References to inline citations is a major chore, especially since only one of the references includes page numbers. The article seems to have potential. There is presently an IRS tax deadline coming up, so I need to take a wiki-break as much as possible for now. I have no problem if y'all decide to turn the article into a redirect, since the article would still be in the history, and an editor with time to convert general to inline references could revive it at a later date.
—Telpardec  TALK  23:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will just redirect it now. But as In ictu oculi said at the start, the term "Expounding of the Law" is not notable. And we do not seem to have a new name. Anyway, let us do it and move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This is probably the best way to handle at the moment. If there are going to be a series of break out of the Sermon on the Mount ideally there would be breakouts for every section with the structure and names of breakouts supported by mainstream sources. Honestly not sure that this qualifies. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. And there are currently 1,000 other articles that need more help. So let us move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with History 2007 and In ictu oculi. Esoglou (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The original edit says: "this is merged from Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 5:21, ....., Matthew 5:46, Matthew 5:47, Matthew 5:48" so rather than redirect this article to Sermon on the Mount (which is Matthew 5, 6, and 7), I changed the redirect to Matthew 5#Antitheses. 75.0.11.230 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

My guess is the title came from Gundry's Commentary on Matthew: "So Jesus now appears as the supreme sage, who after expounding the Law now teaches the wisdom of righteousness ..." 75.0.3.143 (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Link for Gundry quote above: page PT61 —Telpardec  TALK  01:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
An interesting tidbit:

re:Matthew 5:21-48
This passage contains six sayings starting with "You have heard that it was said" and, after a quotation of the Law, continuing with Jesus' interpretation, starting with "But I tell you." The sayings are traditionally called "the Antitheses." But this designation seems to imply that after stoutly affirming the Law in 5:17-20, Jesus contradicts it. We'll see on the contrary that he escalates it. He takes the Law up to the goal toward which it was already headed, so that we should stop calling these sayings "the Antitheses" and perhaps start calling them "the Culminations."

— Gundry page PT54

But is there a WP:COMMONNAME title for this package? History2007 (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Gundry, the common name is "The Antitheses". 75.0.8.250 (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I know, but a search on that does not show enough to establish it, and Gundry doe not buy it himself. History2007 (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Gundry doesn't contest that that's the common name, he disputes the meaning of the name. He proposes his own name ("the Culminations"} but that has yet to become established. I think it's clear that that is the common name, now whether or not wikipedia should have a separate article on it or not is another issue, perhaps only Matthew 5#Antitheses is necessary. 75.14.223.157 (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Google search for "Matthew's Antitheses" 75.14.223.157 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, at one time there was an article called Antithesis of the Law and according to the edit history that was merged into Expounding of the Law. 75.14.223.157 (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This probably says more and clearly shows the use of the term in the sermon. But we do not have a clear article title yet I think. And in any case, the article would need body. As is the use of the term antithesis to refer to the package is clearly justified, but all the commentary about it is without solid sources. History2007 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, long form could be: "The Six Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount". 75.14.223.157 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, unless someone has time to do it right, and write a clean new article, what we have is all we can have for now. History2007 (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)