Matthew 18:15-17: conflict, confrontation, and conflict resolution in a "Fictive Kin" Association.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to establish a plausible scenario for Matthean conflict resolution and to further clarify the stage of group formation of the Matthean group. It defends the thesis that the Matthean author modifies, and thereby intentionally obscures, a more sharply developed disciplinary process that existed in the Matthean fictive kin association, one that is analogous to processes such as those in the groups mentioned below. Matthew 18:15-17 thus reveals the tip of a developing organizational

iceberg. After opening with a brief hermeneutical statement about writers, texts, and readers, this study explores the three-step process in Matthew 18:15-18 in relation to similar processes of analogous groups, especially voluntary associations, in the ancient Mediterranean. It includes analysis of (a) the tradents of the "reproof" exegetical traditions stemming from Leviticus 19:15-17, (b) the group(s) behind the Dead Sea Scrolls, (c) the Iobakchoi, (d) comments representing Rabbinical debates, and (e) the virtue of "frank speech" in certain philosophical schools.

**********

In his fascinating book HISTORIOGRAPHY IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY. FROM SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY TO THE POSTMODERN CHALLENGE (1997), Georg Iggers includes a chapter called "The Revival of Narrative," in which he discusses literary theorists in France and North America who have called for the surrender of rational inquiry and realistic historical reconstruction (Lawrence Stone), as well as the removal of the distinctions between fact and fiction and history and poetry (Roland Barthes, Paul De Man, Hayden White, Dominick La Capra, Jacques Derrida). In a subsequent chapter, "The `Linguistic Turn': The End of History as a Scholarly Discipline?" Iggers includes Foucault's stress on the text rather than authorial intention, Clifford Geertz's view of culture as a text, and 1950s/1960s New Criticism. Iggers takes the Postmodern challenge to historiography very seriously, especially its unmasking of covert power and its warnings about utopianism and progress. He thinks that going in this direction too far, however, is a return to anti-Enlightenment conservative and Romantic thought, which leads to Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the radical right of the 1920s and 1930s. He is willing to admit the Postmodernist stress on the limitations of rationality, but he observes that practicing historians do not abandon rationality and the reality of concrete history. He acknowledges that "grand narratives" must give way to history on the margins, that is, the history of everyday life ("cultural history"), but he does not think that historians need totally abandon broad historical structures and transformations (104). Similarly, "[m]icrohistoria does not reject the social sciences in toto, but stresses the methodological need of testing their constructs against reality on a small scale" (110). With regard to the "linguistic turn," he agrees with Carroll Smith-Rosenberg that "while linguistic differences structure society, social differences structure language" (133). Thus, the historian cannot obtain "objectivity," but (s)he can obtain plausibility based on rational strategies. In short, the intent of a good deal of the new social and cultural history has not been to repudiate the Enlightenment heritage, for all its weaknesses, but to engage in a criticial reconstruction of it. "The alternative to an albeit chastened Enlightenment is barbarism" (147).

I have begun with Iggers' views about historiography because they are a more sophisticated version of my own and because they direct attention to the "revival of narrative," which has also been important to much biblical study. Terry Eagleton observes that in the history of literary theory there has been a progression from author (Romanticism and the nineteenth century) to text (New Criticism) to reader (Reader-response Criticism) (Eagleton 1983: 74). It is not an accident that studies of narrative often develop an "author-text-reader" model (see Booth 1961; Chatman 1978). While Russian Formalism, French Structuralism, and Anglo-American New Criticism shifted primarily to the text itself, much recent literary theory has shifted to the reader and her/his response to the text.

Many Matthean scholars have joined in some or all of these moves: e.g., Kingsbory 1988; Edwards 1989; Anderson 1994: 25-36; Bauer & Powell 1996; cf. Rhoads & Michie 1982 on Mark. For Feminist approaches see, e.g., Levin 1992, 1996; Anderson 1983, 1987; Wainwright 1991, 1998), Such studies, especially those of Warren Carter (1994, 1996, 1997a, 1997b), have stimulated these initial reflections. Carter participates in the Reader-response shift; but he--similar to Iggers, I think--chooses to hold onto a serious place for history. Carter thinks with Wilhelm Iser that the hypothetical "implied reader" should be seen in relation to an equally hypothetical actual reader external to the text (Carter 1994: 34-39; cf. Iser 1978). More important, Carter develops Peter Rabinowitz's modification of Iser in the direction of the "intended reader," or "authorial audience," that is, the hypothetical persons who the real author hoped would read the text (Rabinowitz 1977, 1987, 1989; see now 1998).

   The intended reader ... is not reducible to textual featues but can be
   determined only by an examination of the interrelation between the text and
   the context in which the work was produced. The intended reader, in other
   words, is a contextualized implied reader, and studies of reading that
   start here have the potential to open up new questions of history, culture,
   and ideology [Rabinowitz 1989: 85].

Carter maintains that "the choices the author makes in presenting this [narrative] world limit and guide the interpretive options of the audience, though without confining it to only one reading" (1994: 33-34). Yet the authorial audience overlaps the first real audience. They share the same general "social-historical environment," "sociohistorical experience," "cultural conventions," or "sociohistorical context" (Carter 1997a: 58-61). Restated, while a text is not limited to the speaker/author's original intentions in writing, neither is it limited to the hearer/reader's understanding or meaning; while the world of the text may not be precisely the "real world," there is nonetheless a measure of correspondence with it; and while the text may not provide a precisely accurate view of its intended readers, it does offer a generalized view of them.

One may go with Carter a step farther. In 1996 Wayne Booth lamented that biblical scholars do not read Rabinowitz. He has obviously missed Carter! In the course of his essay Booth formulated a "general rule" that speaks about the distance between ancient and modern readers, again put in terms of Rabinowitz's "authorial audience":

   ... the more remote the culture in which a story is told, the more likely
   it is that a listener will fail in the effort to exercise the skills as
   authorial audience, skills that the original authors may well have assumed
   [Booth 1996: 237].

While Booth wonders whether modern readers might not in fact share more with ancient anonymous scribes than modernist critics have taught us to think (Booth 1996: 240, 249), his comment suggests the need for some way to bridge the gap between ancient Mediterranean culture and modern "Western" culture, and thus improve the reading skills of the modern audience. As Carter says, readers must "join the authorial audience" (1996: 4-5). This leads Carter into history, genre, religio-tradition, "religious experience," and narrative conventions (1996: 6-8).

Another way to build on this approach is to look at reader-oriented criticism in terms of sociolinguistic reading theory. Bruce Malina takes up Michael A. K. Halliday's three-tiered view that (1) soundings/spellings (2) realize wordings that (3) realize meaning (Halliday 1976; Malina 1991). With Harste, Burke, and Woodward (1982) Malina thinks that "reading is a `socio-psycholinguistic process'" (Malina 1991: 11), one that involves not only individual human development but also macro- and microsocial contexts and social interaction. For Malina,

   [M]eaning resides in the social system of individuals that is held together
   by shared culture, shared values, and shared meanings along with social
   institutions and social roles to realize those values and meanings [Malina
   1991: 6].

To communicate, authors must be "considerate," must form "contracts" with intended readers whom they expect will understand their meaning. Ancient and modern readers, however, do not share the same social system. In terms of social psychology, they have different "mental maps." The contract is unintentionally violated. But by developing "scenarios," that is, models of meaning that correspond to those of the intended readers (see, e.g., Malina & Rohrbaugh 1992; Hanson & Oakman 1998), modern readers can become "considerate" readers, thus allowing ancient writers once again to become "considerate." The contract can be re-negotiated. (For a sociolinguistic analysis of the Lukan author's ability to switch linguistic codes, see Watt 1997).

While modern Western readers may never be able fully to understand people from the ancient Mediterranean, it is productive to think of the authorial audience in terms of appropriate heuristic, cross-culturally based "observer's models" that simplify complex social arrangements (the anthropologist's "etic" approach). They will contribute to illumining previously unnoticed features and asking previously unasked questions. They must not be arbitrarily superimposed; rather, they must be tested and, if necessary, reconstructed with social-historical "native" information about beliefs, norms, and practices, that is, "folk models" (the anthropologist's "emic" approach) (Headland, Pike, & Harris 190; see, e.g., Duling 1992a, 1999). An especially apposite example for Matthean studies is Jerome Neyrey's new book (1998). Neyrey compares honor and shame (etic categories) with praise and blame in ancient rhetoric (emic categories) in which, he argues, the Matthean author was educated. The parallel with Iggers' macrohistory and microhistory is apparent.

Carter's narratological method based on Iser and Rabinowitz is important in Matthean studies because Carter is concerned about "joining the authorial audience" (1996: 4-6). This position allows modern readers to become more "considerate" by means of historical research, social-historical research, and social-scientific modeling (see also Robbins 1996:18-43). Carter himself speculates about the probable historical context of the First Evangelist, uses social-historical data in his interpretation, and posits social-scientific models as heuristic aids in interpretation. He takes up important sociological and anthropological models of the Roman Empire and Palestine: "involuntary marginality," "voluntary marginality," and the surrogate family--that is, "pseudo-kinship" or "fictive kinship" (Pitt-Rivers 1968; these are models that I explored in Duling 1993b, 1995b, 1997, and 1998; for scholarly positions and bibliography, see Duling 1998: 256, n 7).

There is another, more specific area of research into ancient group modeling that is useful for the Gospel of Matthew: namely, "voluntary associations." They also have an ancient counterpart (Kloppenborg & Wilson 1996; Kloppenborg & McLean forthcoming). With a few suggestions by Anthony Saldarini (1988) and Andrew Overman (1990) in mind and some primary material about the associations kindly supplied to me by John Kloppenborg (1996, draft; Kloppenborg & McLean forthcoming; for scholarly positions and bibliography, see Duling 1998: 257, n 8), I take the approach that one way to bridge the gap between Matthew's "authorial audience" and modern readers is with social-scientific models and social-historical data. While I presuppose some previous discussion of these matters, my major attention here will again be on voluntary associations (Duling 1995, 1998), but especially in relation to "reproof" and "frank speech." I extend the discussion to the question of possible judicial process in Matthew 18:15-17.

Matthew 18:15-17: Literary Context and Sources

The immediate literary context of Matthew 18:15-17 is the fourth of the five Matthean discourses (for literature, see Duling 1998: 257, n 9). Davies and Allison split the fourth discourse into approximately two halves, each with three subsections (I: 18:1-5, 6-9, 10-14; II: 18:15-20, 21-22, 23-35). Each subsection contains a key term (or terms) and a corresponding theme (or themes). The key term of subsections 4 and 5 (vv 15-20 and 21-22) is "brother" (e.g., Davies & Allison 1991: 750-51; cf. Harrington 1991: 270). The theme, again, is conflict (for literature on that theme see Duling 1998: 258, n 10) and the means of resolving it among the members of a fictive kin family ("brotherhood"), which in the text is called the ekklesia (see Duling 1995).

The sources for Matthew 18 have been much debated and 18:15-22 is no exception (Catchpole 1983; Kloppenborg 1998: 184). A few analysts have argued that neither Matthew nor Luke derives anything from Q (Option 1), and a few others think that Matthew took his version from "Special M" (Option 2). However, since Matthew 18:6, 15 and 21-22 have the exact same sequence as Luke 17:1 + 2, 3, and 4, most critics think that both Matthew and Luke drew on Q. Catchpole's carefully developed view (1983) is that except for the scriptural quotation in 18:16b Matthew took over verses 15-17 and 21 from Q, and thus that Luke omitted what is in Matthew 18:16-17 (Option 3). Most recent intepreters have chosen one of two other options. The first is that Matthew took over 18:15-17 from a secondary version of Q while Luke retained an earlier version (Option 4--e.g., Trilling; Pesch; Liihrmann; Bornkamm; Buttrick; Zeller; Davies & Allison). In its favor are three unMatthean words in verse 15: "between" (metaxu, only in 23:35, from Q); "alone" (monos, apparently from sources a,:4 = Lk 4:4; 4:10 = Lk 4:8; 14:232 = Mk 4:46-47; 17:8 = Mk 9:8; and the verb for "reprove" (elenxon, a Matthean hapax--Davies & Allison 1991: 783). The second alternative (Option 5) is that the Matthean writer inserted verses 16-20 into Q, or more precisely, that he inserted verses 16-17, 18 (cf. Matt 16:19) and 19-20 between 18:15 (= Q 17:3) and 18:21-22 (= Q 17:4) (e.g., Schmid; Kilpatrick; Thompson; Gundry; Harrington). I take this last, fifth option to be most likely. The reasons will become clear.

Why did the Matthean author make these changes? One way toward a solution is to view them in relation to fictive kin associations in general and voluntary associations in particular. To pursue this direction, I first note a current debate.

Texts, "Sects," and "Voluntary Associations": a Current Methodological Debate

Specialists in current study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and voluntary associations ask (a) whether it is possible to analyze the scrolls as a collection, (b) whether it is possible to derive from them social organization data about a group (or groups), and if so, (c) whether such data can be favorably compared to Mediterranean voluntary associations. The debate is important both for method in general and for the texts in particular. The key issue is "level of abstraction."

Sandra Walker-Ramisch argues that scholars who have taken the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence for a single group and its practices have usually accepted the normative view that the "Qumran Community" is a "monastic" group identified with "the Essenes" (Walker-Ramisch 1996). She objects on several grounds. First, any attempt to correlate literature with archaeology is questionable. Second, citing Green (1983: 195), she points out that the presence of a document in a group says nothing about who produced it or how the group thought about it. Third, any putative synthesis about the group's social life is in the final analysis a Weberian "ideal type" that has no actual historical reality; all ancient texts are selective and unable to yield a Geertzian "thick description" (Geertz 1973). Fourth, Walker-Ramisch contends that Moshe Weinfeld's comparison of the "Qumran Community" with ancient voluntary associations (1986) follows the dubious procedure of accepting both the "Qumran Community" and "Christianity" as harmonizing constructs.

Walker-Ramisch's alternative is to compare only one Qumran text, the Damascus Document, with the voluntary associations. This comparison yields a negative conclusion. Pivotal is her argument that the Damascus Document is a "sectarian" text. It demands exclusivity and is opposed to the accepted socio-political order. It does not fit the pattern of voluntary associations that in her view are both inclusive and generally acceptable to the socio-political order.

Walker-Ramisch holds a clasic historiographic position, and many scholars would second a number of her points. (See, e.g., the discussions in Collins et al. 1994 and VanderKam 1994. Milikowsky 1985-1986 makes a similar critique of the harmonizing tendencies of Schiffman 1983). Yet her view is not without some problems. First, her attempt to compare one document to voluntary associations also harmonizes the disparate associations. Second, from a social-scientific perspective it is permissible to analyze at any chosen level of abstraction. The editor of the volume in which her contribution appears warns that

   the emphasis on differences rather than similarities and the decision to
   exclude one local example from the general category [of voluntary
   associations] is arbitrary.... What belongs or does not belong in a
   category depends to some degree on how broadly it [the category] is defined
   [S. G. Wilson 1996: 8].

Third, the view that the scrolls represent a single group is still supported by many scholars (e.g., Newsom 1990:171, 185; VanderKam 1994: 71-98). On the other hand, and fourth, as Klinghardt (1994) argues, it is not absolutely necessary to think the scrolls as a whole (or even any document among them) represent only a single group at a single point in time, or even the Essenes, to argue that its organizational patterns have common elements with the Mediterranean associations.

The approach in this article is similar to that of Walker-Ramisch and Klinghardt in their focus on one document in relation to the voluntary associations. It agrees with Klinghardt against Walker-Ramisch, however, that Weinfeld has made his point. At a certain level of abstraction it is possible to draw positive comparisons as well as contrasts, between the various Graeco-Roman asociations, including the group (s) represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the various Christian groups represented by the various early Christian texts. Indeed, it is possible with Klinghardt to see what is usually called a "sect" (in the language of Weinfeld) as a type of "association," not only organizationally, but with respect to the group itself (see below Klinghardt's defense of Weinfeld). Thus, the rest of this article attempts to draw positive comparisons between various kinds of groups in the Circum-Mediterranean and the Gospel of Matthew. I shall not oppose the voluntary association to the "sect," as does Walker-Ramisch, but shall attempt to understand the Dead Sea Scrolls in relation to the voluntary associations, as do Weinfeld and Klinghardt. In. deed, I shall take the position that the kind of group (or groups) represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as that (those? see Stanton 1992a, 1992b, 1994) represented by the Matthean writer, can be seen as associations. At a certain level of abstraction, the associations, including those represented in the scrolls, provide comparative data to understand the organization of the Matthean group in terms of fictive kinship.

Voluntary Associations as "Fictive Kin Groups" in Mediterranean Antiquity

The expression voluntary association was absorbed into anthropology as a way of describing groups based, not on natural kinship, but on criteria such as age, sex, work, ethnic origin, or ideology. The anthropologist Caulkins writes:

   Voluntary associations or sodalities tend to have all or most of the
   following characteristics: explicit purposes or goals; members who are
   socialized into a proper mode of behavior; identity is conferred on members
   and they are distinguished from nonmembers; members are given social
   support; an aim to secure benefits for members or some client group;
   sponsorship or the carrying out of ritual or ceremonial activities;
   collective recognition by others in the society; and some influence on
   people and activities outside the association [Caulkins 1996: 1352].

Anthropologists of the contemporary Middle East and Africa have shown that such sodalities help rural peoples who migrate to urban areas to preserve their ethnic heritage and cultural traditions while adapting to a new, rapidly changing cultural context (Eisenstadt 1956; Little 1957; Geertz 1962; Kerri 1976; Kerr 1978).

The modern Middle Eastern and African parallels with antiquity are apparent. In the urban contexts of the ancient Mediterranean world the weakening of natural kinship and other group ties led displaced urban migrants to join voluntary associations for support and networking (for literature, see Duling 1998: 261, n 20). Indeed, the decline of the polis and the growth of cities in the Hellenistic and Roman periods was paralleled by the proliferation of voluntary associations (Klinghardt 1994:257 n 25). Such associations were usually small, some a little as twenty to thirty members, a few as many as 300-400, and one as many as 1200 (Kloppenborg 1996:30 n 4; Ascough 1998: n 18). Ascough argues that the common generalization that the associations were local is in some respects an oversimplification, for translocal connections or networks, however casual, were common (1997:223; cf. Wilson 1996: 3; Kloppenborg 1996: 3). While it is difficult to arrive at a clear taxonomy (Kloppenborg 1996: 18), several types can nevertheless be observed: older boys' and young men's "athletic clubs" (ephebeia; neoi') connected to the gymnasium; ethnic groups modeled on the polis (koina; politeiai); trade guilds and associations (Danker 1992; Broughton: 841-44); professional associations; theater guilds of actors, dancers, and artists; philosophical schools; and "cult associations." Kloppenborg doubts whether "burial societies" were a distinctive type, though most associations who had members from the lower social strata would have helped bury their members. These associations offered resources related to education, ethnicity, work, burial, and the arts, and all of them appear to have had some religious function.

Yet the primary aim of these associations was generally "social." As such, they offered people

   a sense of identity and comradeship, a social unit larger than the family
   and smaller than the state where they could meet together with friends, eat
   and drink, worship, play, and share common experiences [Wilken 1971: 281;
   ssee Dill 1905: 267; Kloppenborg 1996: 18].

Most, though not all, people in voluntary associations were urban poor, slaves, and freedmen. Lower status members of these fictive kin groups could sometimes achieve some semblance of social status and honor otherwise denied them (Jean Waltzing [1895] in Wilken 1971: 281; Kloppenborg 1996: 23). At the same time, voluntary associations tended to become hierarchical and thus mirror social stratification in the macrosociety.

Most ancient associations were legally tolerated and even sanctioned. They were also, however, sometimes suspected of being political, and

they occasionally disturbed public order. When that occurred, they were labeled hataeriae by the Roman authorities. Indeed, from time to time the Romans tried to dissolve them, to forbid the formation of new groups, to require members to register officially, and to put limits on how many times they could meet (Johnson 1961: 82; Cotter 1996; see, e.g., Suetonius Julius Caesar 42:3; Augustus 32:1). It is thus not quite accurate to contrast voluntary associations and "sects" on the basis that the latter, in contrast to the former, had reforming political interests, as does Walker-Ramisch (1996: 136, 142). From the other side, not all "sects" were political. This judgment is reinforced by Bryan Wilson's familiar typology (1959, 1973).

Though all associations had a religious dimension, some were specifically "cult associations" (thiasoi) established to venerate some deity. Malina argues that religion (as well as economics and education) in Mediterranean antiquity did not exist as a separate, differentiated, and distinctive social institution, but that it could have existed in surrogate or fictive polities or fictive kinship arrangements (1986: 86). Voluntary associations are just such fictive kin associations.

Native cult associations had long been prevalent in the Roman East (Semitic mazzah and gev). These groups were progenitors of the Greek thiasoi known from inscriptions at Palmyra and Dura. Professional guilds were also prevalent in Palestine (Applebaum 1974: 464-66; Cohen 1987: 119-20). In this part of the Mediterranean world Greeks often joined native professional and religious associations in the cities, and thus the associations became Hellenized and contained persons from different ethnic backgrounds, though they were usually of similar social strata in their respective collectivities (Rostovtzeff 1957: 2. 1064-65). In the Diaspora, Torah observers tended to form ethnic associations (Leon 1960; Applebaum 1974; Gutman 1981; Kraabel 1981, 1987; Cohen 1987), and some of these were also cult associations--for example, the synagoge or proseuche, "house of prayer" (Danker 1982: 81; Kraabel 1987; Richardson 1996; Ascough 1998: n 27). Though hotly debated, there is scholarly opinion that synagogues in Palestine were also voluntary associations (Richardson 1996). Similarly, Palestinian groups can also be seen as associations: e.g., the Pharisees (Saldarini 1988: 281) and, as the following discussion shows, the Qumranites.

In thinking about the voluntary associations as fictive kin groups, one must, of course, keep in mind the ancient household and family. I cannot develop real family relations here (see Cohen [ed.] 1992; Malina 1993; Pilch 1993; Carter 1994: 95-113; Hanson 1996; Osiek & Balch 1997; Hanson & Oakman 1998: 19-62. For Matthew, Crosby (1988) and Carter (1994) have developed many of the essential themes). It should not be forgotten, however, that kinship and politics were the dominant social institutions of antiquity, and that the family was hierarchical and patriarchal. The same is true for the associations, especially as represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which offer a direct parallel to Matthew 18: 15-17.

Moshe Weinfeld's Common Traits of Guilds and Associations

The first to offer a comprehensive study comparing and contrasting organizational features of the Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient voluntary associations was Moshe Weinfeld (1986), who notes earlier scholars such as H. Bardtke (1961) and C. Schneider (1963). His "sole concern" was "the formal structure of the religious sect" (1986: 7). Taking the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., 1QS and CD) as representative of the Essenes, Weinfeld analyzed their vocabulary to show that specialized terms--those not found in any other Second Temple period literature--were intended to correspond to those found in the Hellenistic voluntary associations. Then he compared and contrasted the Qumran Community (yachad) and voluntary associations on procedures of admission, norms for discipline at meetings, general ethical teachings, and other community rules and penalties. Weinfeld concluded that the organizational structure and penal code of the yachad and the Graeco-Roman guilds and associations were nearly identical.

For all the striking terminological and structural similarities between the yachad and the voluntary associations, Weinfeld stressed what he believed to be three crucial differences: (1) the yachad had no association-type regulations about sacrifices, oblations, or assembling in temples because, he argued, it was separated from the Jerusalem temple; (2) the yachad had no association-like burial and funeral rites because its members lived together communally in the same place; and (3) the yachad had no membership fees or pecuniary fines, so typical of the associations. Weinfeld concluded that the reason for these differences was that the yachad was a Judean "sect" with its own sectar. ian ideology and nature, and a religious "sect" is not really an "association." On this point, he was like his critic Walker-Ramisch.

Matthias Klinghardt thinks that Weinfeld proved his case but did not draw the necessary conclusion: not only the external form and organizational structure but the groups themselves are alike (Klinghardt 1994: 253). For Klinghardt, a broader study of all the associations, not just Weinfeld's selection from Ptolemaic Egypt, Greece, and Rome, will result in removing Weinfeld's three serious reservations, and thus also in removing his distinction between "sect" and "association." With a broader base it can be shown, first, that many associations--probably the majority--did not practice sacrifice; second, that though many associations had burial regulations, some (especially those of the higher social strata) did not stress them; and, third, some associations did not charge regular fees, while the view that 1QS requires all members to hold property in common, rather than charging fees and fines, is doubtful, especially in light of financial liability for damages (1QS 7:6-8). In contrast to Walker-Ramisch, Klinghardt thinks that Weinfeld understated his case.

   [I]f one takes into account the abundant epigraphical evidence for
   Hellenistic associations in general (of which the statutes form only a very
   small part) it is evident that the description of the communal life in 1QS
   perfectly fits into the general structure of those associations. Clearly,
   the group to which the serekh of 1QS applied was organized exactly like an
   association. That means that the so-called "sect" was a private association
   in a legal sense. The accuracy with which the statutes, the serekh, are
   formulated does not allow any doubt that its members understood themselves
   to be anything other than members of an association, not of a cenobitic
   sect (if this social form can be determined at all). The often claimed
   religious uniqueness of the so-called Qumran sect, that would distinguish
   its compatibility with associations, must therefore be understood
   differently: the particularly Israelite theological (and social!) concepts,
   such as covenant purity, holiness, etc., were under the altered
   circumstances of the Hellenistic culture, realized in the categories of
   religious associations and thus achieved innovative social concretion in a
   new political and social setting [Klinghardt 1994: 256-57].

In short, Walker-Ramisch uses a single document (CD) to draw her contrast between the sect and the association, but Klinghardt uses a single document (1QS) to demonstrate many common features between them; for Klinghardt, the document may have represented several similar groups. In the discussion of Klinghardt's paper, Klinghardt responded to a question as follows:

   I have no problems with the idea that 1QS applies to several groups which,
   of course, would have assembled in different places.... The variety of
   meetings and meeting places mentioned in 1QS can, therefore, be explained
   in two ways: The statutes of 1QS could either belong to different groups
   (which means different meeting places), or they could apply to only one
   group that assembled in different places and at different occasions [268].

Furthermore, the claim of the group to represent all of Israel is not unparalleled; indeed, it is typical of Dionysiac "cult associations." In what follows I shall take this broader perspective with respect to Matthew. Ascough apparently holds a similar view. He writes:

   ... Duling is not only interesting but also compelling. However, his thesis
   that the Matthean community can be understood as a voluntary association
   can be strengthened when one takes account of a broader database of
   material from the associations" [2-3].

He also notes that Saldarini (1994) and Crosby (1988) have a similar view.

Four of the common features isolated by Weinfeld (and implied by Klinghardt) are precisely those of greatest interest for the study of Matthew 18:15-17: reproof of members (Weinfeld number VI), exclusion from the Purity, temporary expulsion, and final expulsion (Weinfeld number VIII). In Weinfeld's judgment reproof and exclusion from the Purity are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Second Testament, and the Pharisaic/Rabbinic literature. Temporary expulsion is found only in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Final expulsion is attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Graeco-Roman associations, and the Egyptian Demotic texts. Missing from the Second Testament are temporary expulsion and explusion. Given Klinghardt's perspective, Weinfeld's judgment needs to be tested. This article tests it only in a limited way; further examination of the associations and other ancient groups would be required for a complete test.

Matthew 18:15: Conflict, Personal Confrontation, Honor, and Conflict Resolution

It remains to be shown whether or not Matthew 18:15-17 contains a judicial process, or at least a quasi-judicial process analogous to those characteristic of ancient fictive kin voluntary associations. I take up first Matthew 18:15 (in this chart, bold = common underlying Greek; underlined = different Greek form; brackets = "little or no probability of an origin in Q" [Kloppenborg 1988: xvi]; italics = special to Matthew).

Matthew 18-15

   But if your brother sins against you
   go and reprove him,
   between you and him alone.
   If he listens to you
   you have gained your brother.

   Luke 17:3

   [Take heed to yourselves;]
   if your brother sins,
   rebuke him,

   and if he repents,
   forgive him;

Luke 17:3 contains a general statement about any sin. Galatians 6:1 may be a parallel, but it seems to suggest an immediate group response: "Brothers, if a person is overtaken in any trespass, you (pl.) who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness, looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted." Presuming that Luke 17:3 represents Q, the First Evangelist adds "against you," "between you and him alone," and "your ... to you ... your" in the singular. (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not have "against you." Earlier editions of the Nestle text omitted these words; the most recent Nestle-Aland text places them in brackets. But internal evidence--the personal nature of the Matthean context as a whole--suggests that Matthew wrote it.

Gundry holds this view and thinks that Matthew also added "between you and him alone," "alone" being a Mattheanism [9, 0] [Gundry 1994: 367]. It should be noted, however, that Luke 17:4 is also more personal.) The change stresses personal confrontation. "Listens" has the connotation of "obey" and might be translated "heeds" (Davies & Allison 1991: 783). Thus "listen" in v 17 "means, as it does uniformly in the LXX, `hear without heeding'" (Davies & Allison 1991: 785).

To sin" in this context refers to an offense or insult against one's "brother" (8:21). No particular personal offense is mentioned. We know, of course, about some kinds of public offenses in the Graeco-Roman voluntary associations. Examples include singing, applauding, creating a disturbance, acting in a disorderly fashion, fist-fighting, and brawling at meetings. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, primarily the Community Rule, there are many offenses also at communal meetings: not asking permission to speak, interrupting someone else's speech, not speaking according to hierarchical rank, defending a position against the group norm, falling asleep, spitting, answering with stubbornness or anger, and scoffing at another member (Weinfeld 1986: 55-57). There are private offenses, however, such as lying, insulting, deceiving, not caring, slandering, going naked, gesticulating with the left hand, and the like (Vermes 1988: 70-71). Most of the references to offenses against one's "brother" in Matthew outside Matthew 18 seem to be similar, though less graphic--for example, insults (5:22), having something against one's brother 5:23), and judging others unjustly (7:3,4,5).

In Matthew, the offended brother attempts to work out the offense with the offending brother privately. The offended brother first confronts the offending brother. Why? By implication the motive--only in Matthew--is "to gain" or "win over" the brother who is the supposed perpetrator. Not only is kerdaino, "I win over," a Mattheanism (5, 1, 1), but the change of Q is suggested by the context as a whole: the offending brother needs to be forgiven and joyfully retrieved like the "lost sheep" in 18:12-13 (W. G. Thompson 1970: 187; Davies & Allison 1991: 784). Perhaps even more important is the change of terms for confrontation: from rebuke (Q 17:3) to reprove. This change is especially striking when one looks at "reproof" in Torah-minded groups and at "frank speech" in the Graeco-Roman philosophical schools, both of which are in the Matthean author's cultural environment.

There is an extensive "reproof" tradition in the Torah and its later interpreters, which reveals a long legacy of this sort of conflict resolution. Some sense of this tradition will reinforce the point about the First Evangelist's changes. Here I am especially indebted to James Kugel (1987).

Leviticus 19:15-18, the source text, stresses private re. proof as the honorable way of conflict resolution in a group:

15 You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great; with justice you shall judge your neighbor.

16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not profit by [stand by, ignore] the blood of your brother: I am the LORD.

17 You shall not hate in your heart your brother, but you shall surely reprove your neighbor, lest you bear a grudge [LXX: "sin"] against him.

18 You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. [NRSV, slightly modified].

(Reproving can be part of God's final judgment of outsiders, especially in millennial Messianic passages [Buechler 1964: 474-75]; see, e.g., 1 Enoch 1:9; 4 Ez 12:33-38; however, this is not the main tradition. Also, the Septuagint Greek term elencho can translate Hebrew terms that mean "to rebuke," "to shame," even "to punish," "to condemn," "to convict," "to test," "to examine" [Buechler 1964: 473]. The dominant view, "reproof," is sketched in the following passages. The term usually translated "rebuke" (epitimao) is sharper and negative, as illustrated by the miracle stories [Kee 1968].)

he statements in Leviticus 19:15-18, which are part of the regulations about ritual and moral holiness (Lev 19) in the "Holiness Code" (Lev 17-26), forbid (a) judging one's neighbor on the basis of social status, (b) slander, (c) profiting by the death of one's brother, (d) continuing to hate one's brother, and (e) grudge bearing. If there is any unity in them, it lies in the view that relationships cannot be enforced simply by legal fiat but depend on one's internal disposition, or "purity of heart" (Kugel 1987: 44-45). "You shall surely reprove" in verse 17 has an emphatic doubling in Hebrew (hokheach tokhiach), which the Septuagint Greek translators try to imitate (elegmo elenxeis). Kugel says,

   [A]ll modern commentators ... see the verse as expressing a single, basic
   injunction: do not let hatred simmer inside you--if your fellow has done
   something to incite your hatred, reproach him openly and avoid, thereby,
   being led into sin [1987: 45].

The command to gently confront a "brother" or "neighbor" is meant to foster an internal disposition designed to honorably avoid destructive interpersonal conflict in a group. What group is in view? Some Hebrew terms ('am: "people," "kinsperson"; ach: "brother," "relative," "kinsman") suggest the clan. Other Hebrew terms, however ('amith: "associate," "fellow," "relation," "comrade") might point to the village or town. Possibly there is a shift from a nomadic clan context to a pastoral/agricultural village context, and, further, to leadership by priestly families and the High Priest, that is, a hierocracy centered in the Jerusalem Temple (Levine 1992:319-20). The later Levitical writer might have deliberately alternated the terms (Berger 1972: 81-97; Kugel 1987: 45). The Septuagint translators then translated the Hebrew 'am ("people," "kinsperson") by the Greek ethnos ("people," "tribe," "nation") or laos ("people") and the Hebrew ach ("brother") by the Greek adelphos ("brother"). However, to make matters somewhat confusing (for us) they also translated both Hebrew terms by the same term, plesion ("neighbor"). Stated simply, "brother" is translated sometimes as "brother," sometimes as "neighbor." I suggest that this cross-over makes it easier at a still later time to apply the terms and commands to fictive kin groups.

Ben Sira develops this Levitical practice (for Lev 19:18 see Sir 28:7), but it is now related to Hellenistic teaching and training as a part of the Hellenistic cultural value of paideia, or "proper education" (Moreau 1956; Hengel I 1974: 79, 132.):

   He reproves and trains and teaches them, and turns them back, as a shepherd
   his flock. He has compassion on those who accept his discipline and who are
   eager for his judgments [Sir 18:13b-14].

Themes familiar from the Gospel of Matthew are the shepherd/sheep, compassion, and judgment (sheep/shepherd: Matt 7:15; 9:36; 10:6, 16; 12:11, 12; 15:24; 18:12; 25:32, 33; 26:31; compassion: 9:36:14:14; 15:32; judgment, especially 5:21, 22; 7:2--see Duling 1992a). To avoid compassionate confrontation is "sin" in Ben Sira (21:6; 32:17) and even the wise can be seduced into avoiding it by gifts (20:29). Timing is crucial (20:1): one should never reprove at a banquet (31:31)! Again, one hears the key theme: "How much better it is to reprove than to stay angry! And the one who confesses his fault will be kept from loss" (20:2).

The clearest, most complete statement is in Ben Sira 19:

13 Reprove a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything, so that he may do it no more.

14 Reprove a neighbor, perhaps he did not say it; but if he said it, so that he may not say it again.

15 Reprove a friend, for often it is slander; so do not believe everything you hear

16 A person may make a slip without intending it. Who has never sinned with his tongue?

17 Reprove your neighbor before you threaten him; and let the law of the Most High take its course.

There are parallels elsewhere between "friend" and "brother" (Sir 7:12, 18) and between "brothers" and "neighbors," including "friendship" (Sir 25:1; 6:17). Reproving friends is not only a means to correct offenses, but a process for helping to discover slander where no offense was actually committed (cf. Jas 3:1-12). It is important to recall that Ben Sira may have been known to the First Evangelist (Stendahl 1968: 142).

The Dead Sea Scrolls take up the "reproof" tradition and develop it into a judicial process. It can be discussed more profitably in connection with Matthew 18:16-17 (see below). Here I point out that at least one scholar has argued that the First Evangelist knew the ideology of the scrolls, and even perhaps some of its documents (Kampen 1990, 1994: 9).

It is not possible to show that the First Evangelist also knew the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Nonetheless, their testimony is important for illustrating Torah-minded groups in the period of the First Evangelist and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Nickelsburg 1981: 233-34). T.Gad 4:1-3 continues to stress the values of avoiding hatred, slander, and public dishonor in court. Thus, avoiding reproof dishonors God's command to love neithbor (Lev 17:18) and, indeed, God himself. T.Gad also elaborates Levitical themes with a stress on the honor of not allowing hatred to simmer by pursuing private repoof (cf. Prov 26:24; Kugel 1987: 52):

1 Now my children, each of you love his brother [Lev 19:18]. Drive hatred out of your hearts [Lev 19:17]. Love one another in deed and word and inward thoughts.

2 For when I stood before my father I would speak peaceably about Joseph, but when I went out, the spirit of hatred darkened my mind and aroused my soul to kill him.

3 Love one another from the heart [Lev 19:17, 18], therefore, and if anyone sins against you, speak to him in peace [Lev 19:17]. Expel the venom of hatred, and do not harbor deceit in your heart. If anyone confesses and repents, forgive him.

4 If anyone denies his guilt, do not be contentious with him, otherwise he may start cursing, and you would be sinning doubly [Lev 19:18].

5 In a dispute do not let an oursider hear your secrets, since out of hatred for you he may become your enemy, and commit a great sin against you. He may talk to you frequently but treacherously, or be much concerned with you, but for an evil end, having absorbed from you the venom.

6 Even if he denies it and acts disgracefully out of a sense of guilt, be quiet and do not become upset. For he who denies will repent, and avoid offending you again; indeed he will honor you, will respect you and be at peace.

7 Even if he is devoid of shame and persists in his wickedness, forgive him from the heart [19:17] and leave vengeance to God [T. Gad 6:-6].

In 4 Ezra, also datable to the period of the First Evangelist (Nickelsburg 1981: 287; Esler 1995), Ezra is to reprove his people like a father/master of the household, which includes to "comfort the lowly" and instruct those that are wise. Ezra's response suggests that reproof is also a warning (v 19; cf. 14:13-22).

The theme of endless reproof is also found among the Rabbis (Kugel 1987: 55). Sirra on Leviticus 19:17 says that one should avoid shaming the offender in public. Here the emphatic doubling in Hebrew (hokheach tokhiach) in verse 17 is interpreted as "even four or five times ... [and] further," that is, repeatedly. The same point is made in b.B.Mes 31a: "One of the Rabbis said to Raba: hokheach tokhiach--perhaps hokheach means `one time' and tokhiach means `twice.' He said: hokheach means even a hundred times." The similarity with Matthew 18:21-22 is striking. The opposite position, however, is found in Targum Ps.--Jonathan on Leviticus 19:17. While to let hate simmer and "speak smooth words" (flattery?) is hypocrisy, the one who ultimately reproves should not take responsibility for any public shame (Kugel 198: 56-57; cf. Kampen 1994: 2-3).

Among the philosophers elencho very often means "I reprove," "I shame" (Buechler 1964: 473, n 2; 475). For Plato, the philosopher "reproves" when he refutes a proposition (Soph. 241d; 529a; Gorg. 570c; Theaet. 171d; Phaed. 273c). Aristotle, in a treatise on correcting sophistical reproof uses it for negative demonstration (the other side of epideictic rhetoric). The reprover should be free from the same fault; otherwise the reproved person is not properly shamed (Rhet 1384b). Closer to the Torah-based groups are the Stoics. Zeno is said to have written two treatises called "Reproof" (Diog. L. 7.4), and Epictetus considered it a duty to accept reproof, however difficult (e.g., Diss. 2.14, 20; 1.26, 17). Indeed, with roots in Cynicism, elencha and its cognates become technical terms in the healing of souls (Buechler 1964: 475).

An instructive parallel is the philosophical virtue of "frank speech," parresia (Fitzgerald 1996, 1997). in its more private dimensions. Parresia has a public, political dimension: namely, words spoken boldly and openly by free, male citizens of the polis; thus metics, foreigners, slaves, and women could not practice it (Neyrey 1990: 67; see, e.g., Acts 2:29, 31; 28:31). In the more private dimensions of parresia, "flattery" is condemned as feigned friendship, while "frank speech" or "frank criticism" is praised as true friendship. Plutarch wrote a treatise How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend, which has long sections on flattery (48e-59a) and frank speech (59a-74e). Stobaeus discusses them in reverse order (Ecl 3.13). For the Stoic Epictetus, frank speech is divinely appointed. For Lucian it improves others and promotes friendship. In his essay "On Frank Speech" the Epicurean Philodemus says that the wise man should use frank speech to correct disciples and advance moral development among friends. Some, especially the young or those with little knowledge of themselves, resist it. Nonetheless, frank speech is absolutely necessary for the development of virtue, Philodemus stresses. One must point out to friends and students their "sin" in order to remove it. Fiore (1998) notes a number of parenetic terms for the practice of frank speech in Philodemus' essay, and among them are elenche and its cognates (cf. Konstan 1996). Philo is also aware of the relationship between friendship and frank speech (Sterling 1997: 207).

"Reproof" and "frank speech" are honorable ways to resolve personal disputes within a group. They are ways to resolve conflict by direct personal confrontation. It is important to remember that the Matthean author, a Torah-minded scribe writing in some eastern Graeco-Roman city for a Torah-based group or groups, has a striking number of allusions and references to the book of Leviticus, particularly Leviticus 19. Matthew clearly adds to Mark and Q allusions and references to Leviticus 19: a) 5:21-26 (Lev 19:14, 16-17); 5:23-24 (Lev 19:21-22); 5:33-37 (Lev 19:11-12) [Matt adds]; 5:38-42 (Lev 19:17, 17-18a); 5:43 (Lev 19:18) [Matt adds]; 5:44 (Lev 19:34) IQ]; 5:48 (Lev 19:2) IQ]; and b) 18:15 (Lev 19:17) [Q]; 19:18 (Lev 22:39) [Matt adds]; 19:19 (Lev 19:18) [Matt adds]; 20:8 (Lev 19:13) [M?]; 22:29 (Lev 19:34). J. Duncan Derrett offers a list of 23 items alluding to or quoting Leviticus 18-24 in the Sermon on the Mount (1988: 277)! In Matthew 5, the higher righteousness tends to transcend the Levitical commands; in Matthew 18-20, Levitical love of neighbor (see below) is viewed as a group norm, as is brotherly reproof (Carter 1994). It should be noted that Matthew 7:1-5 also refers to Lev 19:15-18. The Matthean author probably also knows Ben Sira, and his Gospel was written in the same general period as the redaction of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and 4 Ezra. That the Matthean author knows about Graeco-Roman philosophical reproof and frank speech as honorable ways to resolve personal disputes in a group cannot with equal certainty be shown, but it is very likely. Q, the author's source, already offers the general norm of "rebuke" and its personalized practice (17:3, 4). Paul and the Pauline School seem to know about it, as well (Gal. 6; 1; see further below). The First Evangelist went further. His modification of Q 17:3 in Matthew 18:15 alludes to Leviticus 19:17. That he shared the practice of reproof with his authorial audience can hardly be doubted. It is also suggested by likely social contexts for Q and the Gospel of Matthew: Q fits village life where natural kinship would be a more viable context; the Gospel of Matthew fits an urban environment, the context for fictive kin voluntary associations.

In short, Matthew 18:15 revises Q 17:3 in relation to private, personal "reproof" as known from the Torah (Lev 18:17) and his own authorial audience. Most probably it reflects widespread practices in Torah-minded groups, philosophical groups, and voluntary associations. What then of the next two verses? Does Matthew 18:16-17 imply a formal judicial process?

Matthew 18:16-17 and Conflict Resolution: Development of a Formal Judicial Process?

Matthew 18:16-17a reads:

16 But if he does not listen take one or two others along with you, that "every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses" [Deut 19:15].

17a If he refuses to listen to them tell it to the ekklesia....

This segment has no parallel in Luke 17. With respect to language, "take" in 18:16 is typically Matthean (16, 6, 7), and so is ekklesia in 18:17 (3, 0, 0). Again, the verses are Matthew's addition to Q (see above) and imply some sort of process. As with Matthew 18:15, the attempt will be to understand the authorial audience from the broader cultural context.

As noted above, four of the common features isolated by Weinfeld (and implied by Klinghardt) are of great interest for an interpretation of Matthew 18:15-17: reproof of members (Weinfeld No. VI), exclusion from the Purity, temporary expulsion, and final expulsion (Weinfeld No. VIII). In Weinfeld's view reproof and exclusion from the Purity are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Second Testament, and the Pharisaic/Rabbinic literature; temporary expulsion is found only in the Dead Sea Scrolls; final expulsion is attested in the Egyptian Demotic texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Graeco-Roman associations. I shall take a slightly modified stance. Focusing on the Iobakchoi and the Torah-based reproof texts and their groups, especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls, I shall suggest that a more formalized procedure that included expulsion originally existed in the Matthew group but that the Matthean author muted it in light of the earlier reproof traditions and his ideology as a whole (cf. Duling 1997).

Lines 33-165 of an inscription recording the Iobakchoi's minutes of a meeting convened to revise its by-laws (ca. 150 CE) offers a glimpse of its disciplinary procedure (see especially Danker 1982: 156-66, Weinfeld 1987, Douglas 1994, and the works cited there). Beginning in line 74 the document states that the "sin" may be quarreling, uncivil behavior, taking someone's place (of honor at a meeting?), (verbal) insults, or demeaning another in the group. I summarize these processes.

In the case of a "sin" against the offended:

* There is no private, personal reproof.

* The offended party and two witnesses present the case (to whom? the Priest or Vice-Priest? or the assembled Iobakchoi?) .

* The witnesses hear the party testify under oath.

* The pecuniary punishment for the guilty party is 25 light drachmai.

* The guilty party is excluded until the fine is paid.

In the more physical case of one who claims to have been struck first in a fist-fight at the meeting:

* There is no private, personal reproof.

* A written complaint is filed with the Priest or Vice-Priest.

* The Priest or Vice-Priest convenes a meeting of the Iobakchoi.

* A decision is rendered, whether for the plaintiffor the defendant.

* The offender is excluded for a time specified at the meeting.

* The offender is fined a fine not to exceed 25 light drachmai.

(Lines 123-26 rank the officers as follows: "Priest, Vice-Priest, Arch-Bakchos, Treasurer, the Rustic Performer, those who play the roles of Dionysos, Kore, Palaimon, Aphrodite, and Proteurythmos. All members are, however, to be eligible for the roles of the deities." The sergeant-at-arms is either chosen by lot or appointed by the Priest.)

In the latter, more physical, case the sergeant-at-arms must share in the guilt; if he does not act to see that the brawlers are ejected, he is also given a fine not to exceed 25 denarii. Lines. 137-45 state:

   The sergeant-at-arms ... shall place the official wand of our God next to
   anyone who is guilty of in appropriate or disruptive behavior. Anyone who
   has this want deposited near his person shall, upon the decision of the
   priest or the Arch-Bakchos, depart from the banqueting hall. Should he
   refuse to accept the eviction, the Horses appointed by the priests shall
   eject him and he shall be liable for the fine applicable to brawlers.

(The "Horses" are apparently "bouncers"; see Danker 1982: 166; Ascough 1998b). Also, those who refuse to attend a meeting convened to decide such issues are fined 50 light drachmai payable to the association. They are excluded by the Treasurer until the fine is paid (Danker 1982: 159).

As Weinfeld observed, there is no practice of private reproof mentioned. Either there was no such practice, or it was omitted because the inscription deals with discipline at public assemblies, not conflict resolution in the case of private disputes. Nonetheless, in the case of milder incidents there are testimonies made before three witnesses--to whom is not quite clear--or in the case of physical fighting a written complaint is issued to an officer followed by defenses and a judgment of the whole assembly. In this instance the association hierarchy clearly has a role in conflict resolution. It is noteworthy that in the case of brawls the sergeant-at-arms is held responsible and that the fine is stiffer--double--for those who to not show up for the hearing. Exclusion is apparently temporary until the fine is paid, but, of course, it could be permanent if the fine is not paid.

In short, though the context is public assembly--one is reminded of conflicts in 1 Corinthians (Pfitzner 1982)--there is some correlation with Matthew 18:16-17a.

Most important for conflict resolution with witnesses and in the ekklesia in Matthew 18:16-17a is the "reproof" tradition as developed in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which has generated a rather sizable scholarly literature (see Duling 1998: 275, n 50).

Personal reproof with witnesses in the Dead Sea Scrolls is more than an honorable practice for conflict resolution; it is a legal requirement. It must be carried out prior to a judicial decision that involves punishment. Some specialists have claimed that it is part of the association's "penal code." 1QS 5:24-6:1 says:

   [Members ought] to reprove [25] each his neighbor in tru[th] and humility
   and in lovingkindness to a man: Let him not speak to hi[m] in anger or in
   complaint [26] or stub[bornly or in jealousy] caused by an evil
   disposition. Let him not hate him in ... his heart but on that very day let
   him reprove him, lest he [27] bear sin because of him. And also, let no one
   bring a charge against his neighbor before the assembly [lit., "the Many"]
   which is not with reproof before witnesses [Trans. mainly Schiffman
   1983:93, 94; in his heart and bear sin are translated in accordance with
   Kugel].

In a context of ranking group members for promotion, this passage interprets Leviticus 19:17 in relation to the spirit of "lovingkindness" in Micah 6:8 (Schiffman 1983: 94, 105-06 n 57). Its principal, immediate reproof of one's brother "on that day," is repeated in 1QS 7:2-3: "to reprove each man his brother according to the commandment and not to bear a grudge from one day to the next." The time limitation in both passages is most likely before sunset on the same day. (Schiffman compares "from day to day" in CD 9:6 and "that very day" in 1QS 5:26 with tannaitic and Karaite law about time limitations for annulling the wife's vow, which requires it be done before sunset [cf. Num 30:15]. Eph 4:25b-26a says "... let every one speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. Be angry but do not sin [Deut 24:15]; do not let the sun go down on your anger.... "Hebrews might refer to the same principle: "Exhort one another every day, as long as it is called `today,' so that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin" [Heb 3:13].) The stress on a "brother" in 1QS implies insiders (cf. 1QS 9:16-17; Forkman 1972: 48). In 1QS 5:24-25 the first sentence clouds the issue ("before witnesses"). Perhaps the above passage is evidence for a development in the process. Early passages in 1QS imply that the whole group made judgments about discipline; later passages (after 6:12), CD 10:1-10 and 4Q 159 seem to give the collegium of 12 and 3 this authority. Forkman says:

   The simplest way of solving these difficulties is to assume that the latter
   half of the scroll [1QS] reflects later conditions within the sect.... The
   sect which the Manual of Discipline describes has obviously gone through a
   certain development in the field of consolidation and institutionalization,
   through which the power of judgment was concentrated in the priests. The
   text of the Manual seems to have grown alongside this development" [1972:
   51].

In any case, reproof still stresses the element of internal disposition, but it is a required prerequisite to avoid accusation before "the Many."

Linguistically similar to 1QS 5:24-26 is the key reproof text, CD 9:2-8:

2 As to that which He said, "You shall not take revenge and you shall not bear a grudge against your kinsfolk" (Lev 19:18a), every man from among those who have entered the

3 Covenant who shall bring a charge against his neighbor which is not with reproof before witnesses,

4 or brings it (the charge) when he is angry (with him) or relates it to his (the accused's) elders to make them despise him, is taking vengeance and bearing a grudge.

5 Is it not written that only "he (God) takes vengeance on His adversaries and bears a grudge against His enemies" (Nah 1:2)?

6 (but) if he kept silent about him from day to day, and accused him of a capital offense (onlyh) when he was angry with him,

7 his (the accused's) guilt is upon him (the accuser), since he did not fulfill the commandment of God who said to him, "You shall surely

8 reprove your neighbor, lest you bear a grudge because of him" (Lev 19:17) [Translation mainly Schiffman 1983: 89, reformatted and numbered].

Leviticus 19:17-18 is now part of a formal judicial procedure that has several emphases. First, the offended party must reprove the offender--again--to avoid grudge bearing, and thus self incrimination. Second, one must not procrastinate about confrontation-again--"from day to day." Third, the main motive is--again--to avoid accusing one's brother in the heat of anger. Nahum 1:2 is cited to show that only God has the right of anger, revenge, and grudge bearing (cf. Deut 32:35), a point also made in the Fragment and Neofiti Targums on Deuteronomy 32:35 and Paul's paraphrase of Deuteronomy 32:35 in Romans 12:19: "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord" (Schiffman 1983: 90). Fourth--now there is a major difference--the reproving in this first step is clearly in the presence of witnesses, not privately. The precise number of witnesses is not stated, but the "two or three" of Deuteronomy 19:15-21 is very likely (so Forkman 1972: 49; see further the third text, CD 9:16b-22, below, and cf. also JosAnt 4.8.15 (219); 1 Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28; 2 Cor. 13:1-2 and, of course, Matt 18:16). Fifth--this is very new--the accuser must not attempt to dishonor a member before his superiors, the elders, which may be parallel to bringing the case before "the Many" in 1QS (so Kugel 1987: 54).

A third, related reproof text, CD 9:16b-22, which for space reasons I shall omit here, deals with "reproof" by a single witness to a "neighbor's" offense--not personally to the witness himself--three times seriatim, each of which must be recorded by the "Examiner" or "Overseer." The number of required witnesses for punishment in capital offenses is at least three, but the testimony of two witnesses involving a punishment of separation from pure food is less clear, since either one or separate offenses is possible. Deuteronomy 19:15 might suggest either two or three (Schiffman 1983: 74-75; Milikowsky 1985-1986: 243).

Despite a few variations perhaps related to group development, these texts show that reproof is a required preliminary step in a judicial process, that in some cases there must be (two or three) witnesses, and that should reproof fail, appearance before a larger judicial group is involved. That initial reproof must be in the presence of witnesses is a new theme when compared to the earlier stress on direct personal confrontation. The reason for this allowance may be that there is no clear indication that a reputed "victim" must be the reprover, or even that the offense involves an offended person. It could result from violation of some rule. This appears to mean that private, personal reproof is especially important where there is a "victim," that is, where there is one offended who is in more danger of letting the offense simmer "in his heart." In such cases, whoever the reporter of the offense is, he should not bypass the offender and go directly to the group, as is also the case in Matthew 18:15-17. Moreover, one must reprove on the same day, otherwise he will be guilty of "sin." In some cases, the offense is to be recorded by the Overseer. Failure to conform results minimally in demotion in status, and beyond that, total expulsion from the group (Forkman 1972: 63).

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the natural groups of Leviticus and the other earlier groups that passed on the Levitical practice have been replaced by a voluntary group. "Your people" as a natural village or ethnic collectivity has become "the Covenant"; the "sons of your people" have become members who "enter" a group under strict regulations. All this signals a strong group with sharp boundaries and hierarchical organization (Forkman 1972: 50). In short, reproving group members is an honorable way to help maintain group purity and group cohesion.

It may be added that similar processes are carried on among the Rabbis, as well. With respect to Deuteronomy 19:15, "Samuel said: Whoever sins against his brother, he must say to him, I have sinned against you. If he hears, it is well; if not let him bring others, and let him appease him before them" (y. Yoma 45c) (Davies & Allison 1991: 784). There is also a parallel function between formal judicial reproof and the Rabbinic "warning," which says that there can be no conviction unless the defendant has been previously warned about the illegality of the offense. Only one offense is required, however, and no record keeping is necessary (Schiffman 1975: 73-74; 1983: 97-98).

In Matthew 18:16 the First Evangelist uses the text for witnesses that was commonly used in Torah-minded groups, Deuteronomy 19:15. This Deuteronomy passage was also known and cited in Pauline and Johannine groups (2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19; John 8:17--Van Vliet 1958). But the closest parallels to Matthew 18:16-17a are practices in the Dead Sea Scrolls developed above. That the author shared this "witness" with others in his culture is highly likely. His emphasis may be further indicated by other uses of two and three in the Gospel. The author explicitly highlights two sets of brother/disciples (4:18, 21; 10:2; 17:1; 20:24). He makes the healing of a blind man into two blind men (20:30), and does so twice (9:27). He specifically mentions that there were two false witnesses at Jesus' trial (26:60; see Mark 14:57). There are also two instead of three female witnesses to the empty tomb (28:1; see Mark 16:1) and again to the resurrection (28:9). The First Evangelist transforms Mark's accusations against Peter by a maid and bystanders into a series of three: a maid, a second maid, and bystanders, and in each case there is a denial and a cock crow (26:69-75; cf. Mark 14:66-72). Thus, the First Evangelist was especially aware of the evidence of two or three witnesses.

What is the ekklesia in Matthew 18:17a? First, the term ekklesia in 18:17 (and 16:19) always poses a special problem (Duling 1987). In classical, Hellenistic, and Roman settings the ekklesia denoted the public assembly of free citizens--"the dishonored" were excluded--to conduct the affairs of the polis (Douglas 1994: 3, n 8). However, in Roman Syria villages and towns were often governed by a local council with the same name. In the Septuagint ekklesia sometimes translated the "Assembly (Qahal) of Yahweh," but also rendered its decision making bodies (e.g., Ezra 10; Neh 13). The language of the polis was also transferred to voluntary associations and their ruling bodies, for example, the council of ruling elders in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In Matthew 16:19 "my [Jesus'] ekklesia" could have referred to the whole association. What of Matthew 18:17a? It could have meant a council of elders (Davies & Allison 1991: 786-87). Probably the brother who insults another brother is liable to the association council (5:22). Given the Dead Sea Scrolls' development of priestly authority in relation to the rules of evidence and similar roles of officers among the Iobakchoi, and given that that there is no evidence that a serious offense is in view, let alone a capital case, a council is not out of the question.

Lastly, the First Evangelist's conclusion in 18:17b, "And if he refuses to listen to the ekklesia let him be to you as an ethnikos and a toll collector," is not easy to interpret. It is well known that the Gospel of Matthew contains positive passages about ethnoi/ethnikoi. Matthew places Jesus' message and activity mainly in "Galilee of the Gentiles," and he attracts people from everywhere (4:23-25). John says that "God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones" (3:9). Jesus is offered the kingdoms of the world (4:1-11). He is positive toward certain ethnikoi, for example, the women of Jesus' genealogy (1:3, 5, 6) or those who respond favorably to Jesus--magi (2:1-12), a centurion (8:5-13), a Canaanite woman (15:21-28). The Servant should proclaim justice to the ethnoi who have hope in him (12:18, 21), disciples are to witness to them (10:18), the gospel will be preached to them (24:14), and Jesus' final commission includes making disciples of them. (28:19). The kingdom will be given to an ethnos producing the fruits of it (21:43). Similarly, Jesus is clearly portrayed as associating with outcast toll collectors (9:10-13; 11:19), including one named "Matthew" (9:9; 10:3; see Duling 1992b)!

Yet, the author also says that disciples should not go into the way of the ethnoi (10:5). As Saldarini says (1994: 77), "... rulers of the nations lord it over their subjects (20:25), their kings burn cities (22:7), and nations war with one another (24:6-7)."

What is the Matthean author's view in 18:17b? How can one decide? One strategy is to observe the closest parallel to the combination of "an ethnikos and a toll collector," which refers first to the toll collectors, then the ethnikoi, namely, Matthew 5:43-48. Is the passage negative? In a relative sense, yes. Elsewhere the author says that "loving your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18) is also a commandment that must be kept (19:19); indeed, it is the second Great Commandment (22:39). In Matthew 5:43, however, loving neighbors as yourself is interpreted as "loving those who love you," the sort of reciprocity that is considered normative behavior in the culture (for parallels, Betz 1995: 318). So comes the comment: even the toll collectors do that! Similarly, saluting only "your brothers" is normative; even the Gentiles do that! Loving your neighbor as yourself and greeting your brother are positive and necessary, but nothing beyond the cultural norm. Something greater is required of Jesus' true kin: "perfection"! One may perhaps gain a little further insight by comparing this treatment with Matthew 11:19. John the Baptizer does not follow conventional norms ("eating and drinking") and "they" say, "he has a demon" (11:18). Jesus does follow such conventional norms and "they" say, "Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners" (11:19)! Here, the expression "a glutton and a drunkard" appears to be a slogan describing the stubborn and rebellious son who, according to the ancients, should be stoned (Deut 21:20; cf. Gundry 1994:213; Neyrey 1995:150). "A friend of tax collectors and sinners" may be a similar slogan (cf. 21:32). Such expressions suggest the impurity of outsiders. Could the present instance be a similar expression?

If so, the statement in isolation, in contrast to Weinfeld, could mean permanent expulsion. The following Tosefta uses the term tax collector, and its context suggests that among the Pharisees there was a development from permanent expulsion in the first century to temporary expulsion (Forkman 1972: 90):

   At first they used to say: if an associate becomes a tax-collector, he is
   deprived of his status as associate. Later they altered this and said: As
   long as he is a tax-collector, he is not considered reliable; once he has
   withdrawn from being a tax-collector, he is reliable. (Tos Dent III.4 [49];
   cp. b. Bekb. 31a; p. Dent II.3, 23a).

Clearly the failure to heed discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Bakchic By-Laws results in various penalties, the ultimate penalty being expulsion from the association (Forkman 1972; Danker 1982). It is equally clear that while Paul and the Paulinist preserved the tradition of reproof (Gal 6:1; Eph 4:25b-26), and perhaps Hebrews did so as well (Heb 3:13), Paul himself lamented that there was no "wise man" to handle internal affairs and seemed to expect expulsion of unrepentant sinners (1 Cor 5-6). Yet, the practice can, over time, be muted, as the Tosefta says.

Conclusion

The process as now recorded in Matthew 18:15-17 is not as explicitly developed as it is in the voluntary associations such as the Iabakchoi and especially the Dead Sea Scrolls. In Schiffman's opinion, "... this process of reproof was not part of the legal system in the rest of Palestine. Rather, reproof as a forensic procedure was developed uniquely by the sect" (1983: 96). Yet I have argued by implication that just such a process may lie buried in this text. Matthew 18:15-20 contains eight conditional sentences (see, e.g., Thompson 1970: 176); such constructions are typical of casuistic law (Duling 1993a: 174), and thus a set of legal norms and/or practices. Moreover, the three-step legal process in Matthew 18:15-17 receives divine ratification by the Matthean "binding and loosing" (18:18-20; cf. 16:17-19; Duling 1987; cf. 1 Cor 5:1-5). Given other hints of organization in the Matthean association, there is a possibility that the First Evangelist's process masks a group juridical process, that it is only the tip of the iceberg.

Is this the end of the matter? Hardly. The process is set within a literary context of unbounded merciful love and forgiveness as the basis for reconciliation between "brothers." The process suggests that there are limits to offenses within the group; there are strong group boundaries, insiders and outsiders. Yet, the context seems determined by the traditions of unbounded reproof as a means of "gaining" one's "brother," as though there are no limits--at least within the group. As Davies and Allison state:

   Reproving one's brother is always a most delicate matter, and one must
   undertake the sad task in a spirit of love and humility. One can make the
   case that the three paragraphs before vv. 15-20 and the two that follow
   serve as buffers of a sort; that is, they emphasize the qualities which are
   required if one is going to be so bold as to carry out the directions of
   18.15-20.... [The writer] surrounds the material on fraternal correction
   with material promoting a spirit of generosity, humility, and forgiveness.
   In short, the way in which Matthew encircles vv. 15-20 is proof of his deep
   pastoral concern [1991: 751].

If the above discussion holds, this context is an expression of the author's attempt to check the assimilation of a tradition toward cultural norms and practices that are more judicial--traditions he shares with certain members of his authorial audience--by attention to the original motivation of the Torah tradition in the light of what he understands to be the meaning and message of Jesus. This conclusion suggests a tension between ideology and social reality in the Matthean group (see Duling 1997).

Works Cited

Anderson, Janice Capel. 1994. Matthew's Narrative Web. Over, and Over, and Over Again. JSNT Suppl. 91. Sheffield, UK: Academic Press.

1987. Mary's Difference: Gender and Patriarchy in the Birth Narratives. JR 67: 183-202.

1983. Matthew: Gender and Reading. Pp. 3-28 in THE BIBLE AND FEMINIST HERMENEUTICS, ed. Mary Ann Tolbert. SEMEIA 28. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

Applebaum, S. 1974. The Organization of the Jewish Communities in the Diaspora. Pp. 464-503 in THE JEWISH PEOPLE IN THE FIRST CENTURY, ed. S. Safrai &. M. Stern. 2 vols. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

Ascough, Richard S. 1998. Matthew and Community Formation. Lecture Draft for the William G. Thompson Memorial, "The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study." Delivered June 13, 1998, at Loyola University of Chicago.

Balch, David L., ed. 1991. SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE MATTHEAN COMMUNITY. CROSS DISCIPLINARY APPROACHES. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Bardtke, Hans. 1961. Der gegenwatige Stand der Erforschung der in Palastina neu gefundenen hebraischen Handschriften, 44: Die Rechtsstellung der Qumran-Gemeinde. TLZ 86: 93-104.

Bauer, David R., & Mark Allan Powell, eds. 1996. TREASURES NEW AND OLD. RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO MATTHEAN STUDIES. Symposium Series, Society of Biblical Literature. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Betz, Hans Dieter. 1995. THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Booth, Wayne C. 1996. Where is the Authorial Audience in Biblical Narrative in other Authoritative Texts? NARRATIVE 4/3: 235-53.

1961. THE RHETORIC OF FICTION. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Broughton, T. R. S. 1938. Part IV: Roman Asia. Pp. 499-916 in Vol. 4 of AN ECONOMIC SURVEY OF ANCIENT ROME, ed. Tenney Frank. 4 vols. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.

Buchler, A. 1963. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], etc. TDNT 2: 473-76.

Carmody, Timothy R. 1989. Matt 18:15-17 in relation to three texts from Qumran Literature (CD 9:2-8, 16-22; 1QS 5:25-6:1). Pp. 141-58 in Maurya P. Horgan & Paul J. Kobelski, eds. TO TOUCH THE TEXT: BIBLICAL AND RELATED STUDIES IN HONOR OF JOSEPH A. FITZMYER, SJ. New York, NY: Crossroad.

Carter, Warren. 1997a. Matthew 4:18-22 and Matthean Discipleship: An Audience-Oriented Perspective. CBQ 59/1: 58-75.

1997b. Matthew and the Margins. Paper delivered at the 1997 Catholic Biblical Association.

1996. MATTHEW. STORYTELLER, INTERPRETER, EVANGELIST. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

1994. HOUSEHOLDS AND DISCIPLESHIP. A STUDY OF MATTHEW 19-20. JSNT Suppl. 103. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield University Press.

Catchpole, D. 1983. Reproof and Reconciliation in the Q Community: A Study of the Tradition-history of Mt 18,15-17.21-22/Lk 17, 3-4. STUDIEN ZUM NEUEN TESTAMENT UND SEINER UMWELT 8:83-84.

Caulkins, R. Douglas. 1996. Voluntary Associations. Pp. 1351-56 in David Levinson & Melvin Ember, eds. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 1. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co.

Chatman, Seymore. 1978. STORY AND DISCOURSE. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Cohen, Shaye J. D. 1987. FROM THE MACCABEES TO THE MISH. NAH. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press.

Cohen, Shaye J. D., ed. 1993. THE JEWISH FAMILY IN ANTIQUITY. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Collins, John J., Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, & Dennis Pardee, eds. 1994. METHODS OF INVESTIGATION OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE KHIRBET QUMRAN SITE: PRESENT REALITIES AND FUTURE PROSPECTS. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.

Crosby, Michael H. 1988. HOUSE OF DISCIPLES. CHURCH, ECONOMICS, AND JUSTICE IN MATTHEW. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Danker, Frederick W. 1992. Associations, Clubs, Thiasoi. Pp. 501-03 in Vol. 1 of THE ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY, ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, NY: Doubleday.

1982. BENEFACTOR: EPIGRAPHIC STUDY OF A GRAECO-ROMAN AND NEW TESTAMENT SEMANTIC FIELD. St. Louis, MO: Clayton Publishing House, Inc.

Davies, Philip R. 1996. SECTS AND SCROLLS. ESSAYS ON QUMRAN AND RELATED TOPICS. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Davies, W. D. 1964. THE SETTING OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison. 1991. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL. 3 vols. Vol. 2. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark.

1988. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL. 3 vols. Vol. 1. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. 1988. Christ and Reproof (Matthew 7:1-5 and Luke 6:37-42). NTS 34/2: 271-81.

Dill, Samuel. 1905. ROMAN SOCIETY FROM NERO TO MARCUS AURELIUS. New York, NY: Meridian.

Donceel Robert, & Pauline Donceel-Vofite. 1994. The Archaeology of Khirbet Qumran. Pp. 1-38 in Collins, et al. 1994.

Douglas, R. C. 1994. Matthew 18:15-17 and the Hellenistic-Roman Polls. Unpublished paper.

Duling, Dennis C. 1999. Recruitment to The Jesus Movement In Social Scientific Perspective. Forthcoming in John J. Pilch, ed., MALINA FESTSCHRIFT.

1998. Matthew 18:15-17: Conflict, Confrontation, and Conflict Resolution in a "Fictive Kin" Association. Pp. 253-95 in SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 1998 SEMINAR PAPERS, Part One. No. 37. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

1997. "Egalitarian" Ideology, Leadership, and Factional Conflict Within the Matthean Group. BTB 27: 124-37.

1995. The Matthean Brotherhood and Marginal Scribal Leadership. Pp. 159-82 in Philip F. Esler, ed., 1995.

1994. B TB Readers Guide: Millennialism. BTB 24:132-42; revised as pp. 183-205 in THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION, ed. Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.

1993a. Torah Orientation (Law. Mindedness). Pp. 171-78 in BIBLICAL SOCIAL VALUES AND THEIR MEANING. A HANDBOOK, ed. John J. Pilch & Bruce J. Malina. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

1993b. Matthew and Marginality. Pp. 642-71 in SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 1993 SEMINAR PAPERS 32, ed. Eugene H. Lovering. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Revised and Reprinted in HERVORMDE TEOLOGIESE STUDIES 51/1 (1995): 1-30.

1992a. Matthew's Plurisignificant "Son of David" in Social Science Perspective: Kinship, Kingship, Magic, and Miracle. BTB 22: 99-116.

1992b. Matthew (Disciple). Pp. 618-22 in vol. 4 of THE ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY. 6 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

1987. Binding and Loosing: Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; John 20:23. FORUM 3/4:3-31.

Eagleton, Terry. 1983. LITERARY THEORY: AN INTRODUCTION. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Edwards, Richard A. 1989. Reading Matthew: The Gospel as Narrative. LISTENING 24/3: 251-61.

Eisenstadt, S. N. 1956. Sociological Aspects of the Economic Adaptation of Oriental Migrants in Israel: A Case Study in the Problem of Modernization. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURAL CHANGE 4: 269-78.

Elliott, John H. 1995. The Jewish Messianic Movement. From Faction to Sect. Pp. 75-95 in COMMUNITY AND GOSPEL IN LUKE-ACTS, ed. Philip F. Esler. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Esler, Philip F. 1995. God's Honour and Rome's Triumph. Responses to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE in Three Jewish Apocalypses. Pp. 239-58 in Esler, ed., 1995.

Esler, Philip F., ed. 1995. MODELLING EARLY CHRISTIANITY. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.

Fiore, Benjamin. 1998. The Pastoral Epistles in the Light of Philodemus's "On Frank Speech." Forthcoming.

Fitzgerald, John T, ed. 1997. Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. SBL RESOURCES FOR BIBLICAL STUDY 34 (Gen. ed. David E. Aune). Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

1996. Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World. NOVTESTSUPPL 82. Leiden, Netherlands: E J Brill.

Forbes, Clarence Allen. 1933. NEOI. A CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF GREEK ASSOCIATIONS. Philological Monographs of the American Philological Association 2, ed. Joseph William Hewitt. Middletown, CT: American Philological Association.

Forkman, G. 1972. THE LIMITS OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY: EXPULSION FROM THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY WITHIN THE QUMRAN SECT, WITHIN RABBINIC JUDAISM, AND WITHIN PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY. Lund, Sweden: C W K Oleerup.

Gammie, John G. 1990. The Sage in Sirach. Pp. 355-72 in John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue, eds. THE SAGE IN ISRAEL AND THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. Pp. 3-30 in C. Geertz, THE INTERPRETATION OF CULTURES. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins (Basic Books).

1962. The Rotating Credit Association: A Middle Rung in Development. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURAL CHANGE 10: 241-63.

Giesen, Heinz. 1970. Zum Problem der Exkommunikation nach dem Matthaus-Evangelium [Matt 16:19; 18:15-181. STUDIA MORALIA 8: 185-269.

Gnilka, J. 1963. Die Kirche des Matthaus und die Gemeinde yon Qumran. BZ NF 7: 55-66.

Green, William Scott. 1983. Reading the Writing of Rabbinism: Toward an Interpretation of Rabbinic Literature. JAAR 51: 191-206.

Gundry, Robert H. 1994. MATTHEW. A COMMENTARY ON HIS HANDBOOK FOR A MIXED CHURCH UNDER PERSECUTION. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Gutman, Joseph. 1981. Synagogue Origins: Theories and Facts. Pp. 1-6 in ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES. THE STATE OF RESEARCH, ed. Joseph Gutman. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. LANGUAGE AS SOCIAL SEMIOTIC: THE SOCIAL INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE AND MEANING. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Hanson, K. C. 1996. Kinship. Pp. 62-79 in THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION, ed. Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Hanson, K.C., & Douglas E. Oakman. 1998. PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF JESUS: SOCIAL STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL CONFLICTS. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. See www.stolaf.edu/people/kchanson/ptj.html.

Harrington, Daniel J. 1991. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. SPS 1. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press.

Harste, J., C. Burke, & V. Woodward. 1982. Children's Language and World: Initial Encounters With Print. Pp. 105-31 in J. Langer & M. Smith-Burke, eds. READER MEETS AUTHOR: BRIDGING THE GAP--A PSYCHOLINGUISTIC AND SOCIOLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Headland, Thomas N., Kenneth L. Pike, & Marvin Harris. 1990. EMICS AND ETICS. THE INSIDER/OUTSIDER DEBATE. Frontiers in Anthropology 7. New York, NY: Sage Publications.

Hengel, Martin. 1974. JUDAISM AND HELLENISM. 2 vols. Trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Iggers, Georg G. 1997. HISTORIOGRAPHY IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY. FROM SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVITY TO THE POSTMODERN CHALLENGE. Hanover, NH and London, England: Wesleyan University Press.

Iser, Wolfgang. 1978. THE ACT OF READING. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Jackson, Bernard S. 1978. Damascus Document IX, 16.23 and Parallels. REVQ 9 No 3: 445-50.

Johnson, Allan Chester, Paul Robinson Coleman-Norton, & Frank Card Bourne. 1961. ANCIENT ROMAN STATUTES. Vol. 2. Austin,TX: University of Texas Press.

Kampen, John. 1994. Communal Discipline in the Social World of the Matthean Community. Unpublished draft of paper delivered at Leuven, Belgium.

1990. A Reexamination of the Relationship between Matthew 5:21-48 and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Pp. 34-59 in SBL 1990 SEMINAR PAPERS, ed. D. Lull. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Kee, Howard Clark. 1968. Terminology of Mark's Exorcism Stories. NTS 14: 232-46.

Kerr, Graham B. 1978. Voluntary Associations in West Africa: "Hidden" Agents of Social Change. Pp. 87-100 in THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING, ed. Phillip Stevens, Jr. Waltham, MA: Crossroads Press.

Kerri, J. N. 1976. Studying Voluntary Associations as Adaptive Mechanisms: A Review of Anthropological Perspectives. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 17: 23-47.

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. 1988. MATTHEW AS STORY. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Klinghardt, Matthias. 1994. The Manual of Discipline in the Light of Statutes of Hellenistic Associations. Pp. 251-70 in John J. Collins, Michael O. Wise, Norman Golb, & Dennis Pardee, eds. METHODS OF INVESTIGATION OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE KHIRBET QUMRAN SITE: PRESENT REALITIES AND FUTURE PROSPECTS. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.

Kloppenborg, John S. 1996. Collegia and Thiasoi. Pp. 16-30 in Kloppenborg and Wilson, eds., 1996. 1988. Q PARALLELS. SYNOPSIS, CRITICAL NOTES, & CONCORDANCE. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press.

Kloppenborg, John S., & B. Hudson McLean. 1999. COLLEGIA, THIASOI AND KOINA: ASSOCIATIONS IN GRAECO-ROMAN ANTIQUITY. GREEK AND LATIN TEXTS, WITH TRANSLATIONS, ANNOTATION, AND INTRODUCTIONS. Forthcoming.

Kloppenborg, John S., and Stephen G. Wilson, eds. 1996. VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS IN THE GRAECO. ROMAN WORLD. London, England and New York, NY: Routledge.

Konstan, David. 1996. Friendship, Frankness and Flattery [in Classical Literature and the New Testament]. Pp. 7-19 in FRIEND. SHIP, FLATTERY, AND FRANKNESS OF SPEECH: STUDIES ON FRIENDSHIP IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WORLD, ed. John T. Fitzgerald. NOVTESTSUPPL 82. Leiden: E J Brill, 1996.

Kornemann, Ernst. 1900. Koinon; Collegium. PW 4.1: cols. 380-479; Suppl. 4, 915ff.; Suppl. 5,453ff.

Kraabel, A. Thomas. 1987. Unity and Diversity Among Diaspora Synagogues. Pp. 49-60 in THE SYNAGOGUE IN LATE ANTIQUITY, ed. Lee I. Levine. Philadelphia, PA: American Schools of Oriental Research.

1981. Social Systems of Six Diaspora Synagogues. Pp. 79-91 in ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES. THE STATE OF RESEARCH, ed. Joseph Gutman. BUBJS 22. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

Kugel, James L. 1987. On Hidden Hatred and Open Reproach: Early Exegesis of Leviticus 19:17. HTR 80/1:43-61.

Laney, J. Carl. 1986. The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline. BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 143: 353-64.

Leany, A. R. C. 1966. THE RULE OF QUMRAN AND ITS MEANING. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.

Leon, Harry J. 1960. THE JEWS OF ANCIENT ROME. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America.

Levine, Amy-Jill. 1996. Discharging Responsibility: Matthean Jesus, Biblical Law, and the Hemorrhaging Woman. Pp. 379-07 in David R. Bauer & Mark Allan Powell, eds., 1996.

1992. Matthew. Pp. 252-62 in Carol A. Newsom & Sharon H. Ringe, eds. THE WOMEN'S BIBLE COMMENTARY. London: SPCK; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Little, Kenneth. 1957. The Role of Voluntary Associations in West African Urbanization. AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 59/4: 57906.

Malina, Bruce J. 1993. THE NEW TESTAMENT WORLD. INSIGHTS FROM CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY. Rev. ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

1991. Reading Theory Perspective: Reading Luke-Acts. Pp. 3-23 in THE SOCIAL WORLD OF LUKE-ACTS. MODELS FOR INTERPRETATION, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

1986. "Religion" in the World of Paul. BTB 6: 92-101.

Malina, Bruce J., & Richard L. Rohrbaugh. 1992. SOCIAL-SCIENCE COMMENTARY ON THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Mathew, Parackel K. 1985. Authority and Discipline (Matt 16:17-19; 18:15-18) and the Exercise of Authority and Discipline in the Matthean Community. COMMUNIO VIATORUM 28 No 3-4: 119-125.

Milikowsky, C. 1985-1986. Law at Qumran: A Critical Reaction to Lawrence H. Schiffinan, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code. REVQ 12: 243-44.

Moreau, H. I. 1956. A HISTORY OF EDUCATION IN ANTIQUITY. Trans. George Lamb. New York, NY: Sheed & Ward.

Neusner, Jacob. 1978. Damascus Document IX, 17-22 and Irrelevant Parallels. REvQ 9:441-44.

1973. "By the Testimony of Two Witnesses" in the Damascus Document IX, 17-22 and in Pharisaic--Rabbinic Law. REVQ 8/2: 197-217.

Newsom, Carol A. 1990. "Sectually Explicit" Literature from Qumran. Pp. 167-87 in W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, & D. N. Freedman, eds. THE HEBREW BIBLE AND ITS INTERPRETERS. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 1998. HONOR AND SHAME IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

1995. Loss of Wealth, Loss of Family and Loss of Honour. The Cultural Context of the Original Markarisms in Q. Pp. 139-58 in Philip F. Esler, ed. MODELLING EARLY CHRISTIANITY. SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN ITS CONTEXT. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.

1990. PAUL IN OTHER WORDS: A CULTURAL READING OF HIS LETTERS. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox.

Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1981. JEWISH LITERATURE BETWEEN THE BIBLE AND THE MISHNAH. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Osiek, Carolyn, & David L. Balch. 1997. FAMILIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WORLD. HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSE CHURCHES. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Pesch, W. 1966. Matthaus der Seelsorger. SBS 2. Stuttgart, Germany: Katholisches Bibelwerk.

Pfitzner, Victor C. 1982. Purified Community--Purified Sinner: Expulsion from the Community According to Matt 18:15-18 and 1 Cor 5:1-5. AUSTRALIAN BIBLICAL REVIEW 30: 34-55.

Pilch, John J. 1999. Forgiveness. Pp. 59-64 in John J. Pilch, THE CULTURAL DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE. Collegeville MN: The Liturgical Press.

1993. "Beat HIS Ribs While He Is Young" (Sir 30:12): A Window on the Mediterranean World. BTB 23: 101-13.

Pitt-Rivers, Julian. 1968. Pseudo-Kinship. Pp. 408-13 in Vol. 8 of David L. Sills, ed., THE INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Rabinowitz, Peter J. 1998. AUTHORIZING READERS: RESISTANCE AND RESPECT IN THE TEACHING OF LITERATURE. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

1989. Whirl Without End: Audience-Oriented Criticism. Pp. 81-100 in G. D. Atkins & L. Morrow, eds. CONTEMPORARY LITERARY THEORY. AMHERST, MA: UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETT'S PRESS.

1987. BEFORE READING: NARRATIVE CONVENTIONS AND THE POLITICS OF INTERPRETATION. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

1977. Truth in Fiction: A Reexamination of Audiences. CRITICAL INQUIRY 4: 121-41.

Richardson, Peter. 1996. Early Synagogues as Collegia in the Diaspora and Palestine. Pp. 90-109 in Kloppenborg & Wilson, eds., 1996.

Robbins, Vernon K. 1996. THE TAPESTRY OF EARLY CHRISTIAN DISCOURSE. RHETORIC, SOCIETY AND IDEOLOGY. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.

Rostovtzeff, M. 1957. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Saldarini, Anthony J. 1994. MATTHEW'S CHRISTIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

1988. PHARISEES, SCRIBES, AND SADDUCEES IN PALESTINIAN SOCIETY. A SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACH. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier.

Schiffman, Lawrence H. 1986. Reproof as a Requisite for Punishment in the Law of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Pp. 59-74 in JEWISH LAW ASSOCIATION STUDIES II, ed. B. S. Jackson. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

1983. Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony, and the Penal Code. BJS 33; Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

1975. The Qumran Law of Testimony. REVQ 8/4: 603-12.

Schneider, C. 1963. Zur Problematik des Hellenistischen in den Qumrantexten. Pp. 299-344 in H. Bardtke, ed., QUMRAN. PROBLEME. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Senior, Donald P. 1996. WHAT ARE THEY SAYING ABOUT MATTHEW? Rev. ed. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Sievers, Joseph. 1990. Where Two or Three ...: the Rabbinic Concept of Shekhinah and Matthew 18: 20. Pp. 47-61 in THE JEWISH ROOTS OF CHRISTIAN LITURGY, ed. E. Fisher. New York, NY: The Paulist Press.

Skinner, Quentin, ed. 1985. THE RETURN OF GRAND THEORY IN THE HUMAN SCIENCES. ALTHUSSER, THE ANNALES HISTORIANS, DERRIDA, FOUCAULT, GADAMER, HABERMAS, KUHN, LEVI-STRAUSS, RAWLS. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Stanton, Graham N. 1994. Revisiting Matthew's Communities. Pp. 9-23 in SBL 1994 SEMINAR PAPERS, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

1992a. The Communities of Matthew. INTERPRETATION 46: 379-91.

1992b. A GOSPEL FOR A NEW PEOPLE: STUDIES IN MATTHEW. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Sterling, Gregory E. 1997. The Bond of Humanity: Friendship in Philo of Alexandria. Pp. 203-23 in GRECO-ROMAN PERSPECTIVES ON FRIENDSHIP, ed. John T. Fitzgerald. SBL RESOURCES FOR BIBLICAL STUDY 34. (Gen. ed. David E. Aune) Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Thompson, Henry O. 1992. Dura-Europos. Pp. 241-43 in Vol. 6 of THE ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY, ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Thompson, William G. 1970. Matthew's Advice to a Divided Community. Mt. 17,22-18,35. ANALECTA BIBLICA 44. Rome, Italy: Biblical Institute Press.

Turner, Jonathan. 1983. THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY. 3rd ed. Homeword, IL: The Dorsey Press. [4th ed. 1998 unavailable to me]

Turner, Victor. 1969. THE RITUAL PROCESS. STRUCTURE AND ANTI-STRUCTURE. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co.

VanderKam, James C. 1994. THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS TODAY. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Van Vliet, H. 1958. NO SINGLE TESTIMONY: A STUDY ON THE ADOPTION OF THE LAW OF DEUT. 19:15 PAR. INTO THE NEW TESTAMENT. Utrecht, Netherlands: Veen.

Vermes, Geza. 1988. THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS IN ENGLISH. London, England: Penguin Books.

Wainwright, Elaine M. 1998. SHALL WE LOOK FOR ANOTHER? A FEMINIST REREADING OF THE MATTHEAN JESUS. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

1991. TOWARDS A FEMINIST CRITICAL READING OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. BZNW 60. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Walker-Ramisch, Sandra. 1996. Graeco-Roman Voluntary Associations and the Damascus Document. A Sociological Analysis. Pp. 128-45 in Kloppenborg & Wilson, eds. 1996.

Waltzing, J.-P. 1895. ETUDE HISTORIQUE SUR LES CORPORATIONS PROFESSIONELLES CHEZ LES ROMAINS I. 4 vols. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters.

Watt, Jonathan M. 1997. CODE-SWITCHING IN LUKE AND ACTS. BERKELEY INSIGHTS IN LINGUISTICS AND SEMIOTICS 31. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Weinfeld, Moshe. 1986. THE ORGANIZATION PATTERN AND THE PENAL CODE OF THE QUMRAN SECT. NTOA 2. Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Wilken, Robert. 1971. Collegia, Philosophical Schools, and Theology. Pp. 268-91 in Stephen Benko & John J. O'Rourke, eds. THE CATACOMBS AND THE COLOSSEUM. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press.

Wilson, S. G. 1996. Voluntary Associations: An Overview. Pp. 1-15 in Kloppenborg & Wilson 1996.

Ziebarth, Erich. 1896. DAS GRIECHISCHE VEREINSWESEN. Wiesbaden, Germany: Martin Sandig (1969 reprint).

Dennis C. Duling, Ph.D. (University of Chicago), is Professor in the Religious Studies Department of Canisius College, Buffalo NY 12408 (e-mail: [e-mail]). He is author of JESUS CHRIST THROUGH HISTORY (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979), THE TESTAMENT OF SOLOMON (Doubleday, 1983); Social Scientific Small Group Research and Second Testament Study, BTB 24/4 [1994]: 179-93, and numerous articles on Matthew.