¹ Duling, D., “The Promises to David and Their Entrance into Christianity — Nailing Down a Likely Hypothesis,” NTS 20 (1973) 55–77.Google Scholar

² Burger, C., Jesus als Davidssohn. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (FRLANT 98; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), chaps, on Mark, Matthew, and Luke.Google Scholar

³ Characteristic is Hahn, Ferd., The Titles of Jesus in Christology (London: Lutterworth, 1969) 253–54: “To what extent a specifically Christian interpretation is here imposed on the ‘Son of David’ theory is seen when it is realized that the messianic king of Judaism was not expected to be a doer of miraculous deeds.” Burger, Davidssohn, 44, 169, suggests that the healing Son of David results from the correlation of the royal Son of David with the hellenistic “divine man” in early Christianity.Google Scholar

⁴ Fisher, Loren, “Can This be the Son of David?” in Jesus and the Historian. Written in Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell (ed. Trotter, F. T.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) 82–97.Google Scholar

⁵ Lövestam, E., “Davids-son-kristologin hos synoptikerna,” SEÅ 15 (1972) 198–210Google Scholar (trans, by my colleague, Prof. Per Hassing). See the French translation, “Jésus Fils de David chez les Synoptiques,” Stud Theol 28 (1974) 97–109.Google Scholar

⁶ Berger, K., “Die königlichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testaments,” NTS 20 (1973) 1–44. See below, n. 30.Google Scholar

⁷ Several general studies are important for what follows: Schürer, E., A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ (5 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, N.D. [1886–1890]) 3. 151–55Google Scholar; Conybeare, F. C., “The Testament of Solomon,” JQR 11 (1898–1899) 1–45Google Scholar; Perdrizet, P., “Σϕραγς Σολομνος (Solomon's Seal),” Revue des Etudes Grecques 16 (1903) 42–61Google Scholar; Salzberger, G., Die Salomosage in der semitischen Literatur (Berlin, 1907) 1–17Google Scholar, 70–71, 92–99, 115–16; M. Seligsohn, “Solomon,” Jewish Encyclopedia, 435–47; McCown, C. C., “The Christian Tradition as to the Magical Wisdom of Solomon,” The Journal of the Palestinian Oriental Society 2/1 (1922) 1–24Google Scholar; The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1922Google Scholar [editio princeps]); Strack, H. and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (4 vols.; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922–1928) 4Google Scholar. Excursus 21, “Zur altjüdischen Dämonologie”; Herrmann, Léon, “Les premiers exorcismes juifs et judéo-chrétiens,” Revue de L'Université de Bruxelles, n.s. 7 (1954–1955) 305–08Google Scholar; Preisendanz, K., “Salomo,” PW, Suppl. 8 (1956) 660–704Google Scholar; Gordon, C. H., “A World of Demons and Liliths,” Adventures in the Nearest East (London: Phoenix House Ltd., 1957Google Scholar [reprint of ch. 10 of The Living Past (New York: John Day, 1941)])Google Scholar; Teixidor, J., “The Syriac Incantation Bowls in the Iraq Museum,” Sumer 18/1, 2 (1962) 51–62Google Scholar; Yamauchi, E. M., “Aramaic Magic Bowls,” JAOS 85 (1965) 511–23Google Scholar; Denis, A. M., Introduction aux Pseudépigraphs Grecs d'Ancien Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970) 67–69Google Scholar. A general collection of Solomonic magical texts which needs to be critically studied is found in Delatte, A., Anecdota Atheniensia 36 (Paris: E. Champion, 1927)Google Scholar; for a general study of magic, Solomon, and the Faust legend through history, see Butler, E. M., Ritual Magic (Cambridge: University Press, 1949).Google Scholar

⁸ McCown, Testament, 90; “Christian Tradition,” 1–2.

⁹ The attempt was to see a link between “East,” “Egypt,” and the magical arts of the Near East. For the contemporary view, see Gray, J., I & II Kings (OT Library; 2d ed.; London: SCM, 1970) 144–49.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Solomon is not specifically named in Wisdom, but is definitely implied. See Eissfeldt, O., The Old Testament. An Introduction (New York: Harper and Row, 1965) 601.Google Scholar

¹¹ In reference to these passages, K. Berger, Messiastraditionen, passim, puts forth the view that pre-Christian wisdom has created a new conceptual synthesis which will explain NT messianology (cp. esp. Wis 7). Within this framework Berger suggests that miracle working is to be seen as part of having wisdom, and that Solomon's designation as “Son of David” in wisdom books is a title. In my view, the attempt to reduce NT messianology to the complex of wisdom is too extreme and the designation of “Son of David” in wisdom books as a specific title is not convincing. Berger's study nevertheless brings forward the wisdom associations and raises the issue of the overlapping of “titular” and “non-titular” uses of “Son of David.”

¹² McCown, Testament, 91; “Christian Tradition,” 2–3. Wis 7:20 is sometimes related to Ant 8, 2, yet to be discussed. See Charles, R. H., Apocrypha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 546 (“… demonology and not meteorology may be meant”).Google Scholar

¹³ Some scholars have conjectured connections between Egypt and Qumran, especially by relating the names Therapeutai and Essenes to healing. Philo says of the Therapeutai, “… they profess a healing art better than that current in towns which cures only bodies, while theirs treats also souls oppressed by grievous and well-nigh intolerable diseases” (De Vita Contemplativa 1,1; cp. Epiphanius, Panarion Haeresium 29.4, 9–10). Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud, Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Jastrow Publishers, 1967 [1903]) 93Google Scholar, translated Therapeutai as “healers.” Vermes, G., “The Etymology of ‘Essenes’,” RQ 2 (1959/1960) 427–43Google Scholar, argues that “Essenes” means “those who heal, physicians,” especially with reference to the laying on of hands in lQapGen 20:38ff., on which see Daube, D., “The Laying on of Hands,” The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (New York: Arno, 1973/1956/) 224–46Google Scholar, who makes connections with Rabbinic and NT healing. Black, M., The Scrolls and Christian Origins (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1961) 16Google Scholar, 25, 45–47, 165, also relates the two groups, and so does Milik, J. T., Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (Naperville: Allenson, 1959) 92Google Scholar. Among those who disagree are Cross, F. M., The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1961) 52Google Scholar. n. 1, and Driver, G. R., The Judaean Scrolls (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965) 121–23.Google Scholar

¹⁴ On Abraham and Daniel as exorcists, see Dupont-Sommer, A., “Exorcismes et guérisons dans les récits de Koumrân,” VT Suppl 7 (1960) 246–61Google Scholar, and the references in Fitzmyer, J., The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971)Google Scholar on l QapGen 20:16–21, 28–29; also Kee, H., “The Terminology of Mark's Exorcism Stories,” NTS 14 (1967–1968) 232–46.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Sanders, J. A., The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave II (II QPs^a) (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965) 91–93Google Scholar; The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, 1967) 134–37.Google Scholar

¹⁶ van der Ploeg, J. P. M., “Un petit rouleau de psaumes apocryphes (II QPsAp^a),” in Tradition und Glaube, Festgabe für K. G. Kuhn (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 128–39Google Scholar; cp. Berger, “Messiastraditionen,” 6, n. 22; Lövestam, “Davids-son-Kristologin,” 200. Van der Ploeg does not date the scroll of apocryphal psalms, but Sanders, Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 6, n. 16 says that he originally dated 1QH between C.E. 30 and 50 and that F. Cross, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan 4. 6–9 has palaeographically confirmed his analysis. Though some autographs may be earlier, they nevertheless illustrate first century thinking. If “David's Compositions” represents “beliefs concerning David around the time of Christ” (Sanders, Ibid., 134), and van der Ploeg is correct when he wonders whether the new fragments are referred to in “David's Compositions” (see below, n. 19), a similar judgment may be made of the new fragments.

¹⁷ Jastrow, Dictionary, 1135; Sanders, Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave II, 93; van der Ploeg, “Un petit rouleau,” 128–29. T. H. Gaster, “Demon,” IDB A-D, 818–21, derives many of the Jewish names of demons from Ps 91:5–6.

¹⁸ For further elucidation of terms discussed by van der Ploeg, see Russell, W. H., A Handbook of Aramaic Magical Texts (New Jersey: Shelton College, 1953) “Glossary.”Google Scholar

¹⁹ Van der Ploeg, “Un petit rouleau,” 129.

²⁰ Lövestam, “Davids-son-kristologin,” 200.

²¹ James, M. R., “Citharismus regis David contra daemonum Saulis,” Apocrypha Anecdota, Texts and Studies 2/3 (Cambridge: University Press, 1893) 83–85Google Scholar; Cohn, L., “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria,” JQR 10 (1898) 277–332Google Scholar; for discussion of Pseudo-Philo with commentary, see Feldman, L. H., “Prologomenon,” in James, M. R., The Biblical Antiquities of Philo (New York: KTAV, 1971 [1917]) ix-clxix.Google Scholar

²² Professor Harrington is currently working on a translation of Pseudo-Philo.

²³ Implied by Klausner, J., The Messianic Idea in Israel (New York: Macmillan, 1955) 367, n. 7: “… at the end of this there is probably a Christian interpolation….”Google Scholar

²⁴ Riessler, P., Altj¨disches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel, übersetzt und erläutert (2d ed., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966) 1318Google Scholar; Philonenko, M., “Remarques sur un hymne essénien de caractère gnostique,” Semitica 11 (1961) 52; Feldman, “Prologomenon,” cxl.Google Scholar

²⁵ James, “Citharismus,” 181; McCown, Testament, 91; Preisendanz, “Salomo,” 663; Dietzfelbinger, C., Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Diss Göttingen, 1964) 152.Google Scholar

²⁶ On “(fruit) of (out of) your loins,” see Ps 132:11 (LXX); 2 Sam 7:11 (LXX); T Jud 22:3; Acts 2:30.

²⁷ T Levi 18 in its present form is a messianic hymn about a new priest, thought it has royal elements in it. Of the “new priest” (vs. 2: ἱερέα καινόν), vs. 12 says: “And Beliar shall be bound by him, and he shall give authority (ξουσίαν) to his children to walk upon the evil spirits (πονηρ πνεύματα).” Charles, R. H., Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 315, points to a number of Jewish and Christian texts which speak of binding Satan. Solomon constantly binds the demons in the incantation bowls, and bowl artwork frequently shows a bound Lîlît or other demon.Google Scholar

²⁸ Harrington in an oral communication expressed the opinion that the reference is to Solomon, but does not totally exclude the Messiah.

²⁹ Philonenko, “Remarques,” 52; see the remarks by Feldman. “Prologomenon,” cxxxix, where the question is whether there is a seance involved.

³⁰ Preisendanz, “Salomo,” 667. Preisendanz thinks specifically of the siege of Jerusalem in C.E. 70. Also, he suggests, 663, that ἐπψδαί is an interpretation of ᾠδαί in 1 Kgs 5:12. The “root” has caused a great deal of speculation here, see Herrmann, “Exorcismes,” (see n. 7 above) who elaborates on the theory of the fascinating baaras root of JW7.6, 3 known for expelling demons when applied to patients. Hermann's short article anticipates the studies of Fisher, Berger, and Lövestam in its focus on Josephus and with this question: “N'est-on pas la sur là trace d'une rivalité entre le Christ considéré comme fils de David et le fils de David qu'était le roi Salomon?” (307). See also Neuburger, M., Die Medizin im Flavius Josephus (Bad Reichenhall: Buchkunst, 1919) 46–49, 70.Google Scholar

³¹ For a general description, see Conybeare, “Testament,” 1–15; McCown, Testament, “Introduction,” 1–111; on Solomon's ring, see below, and n. 40.

³² Conybeare, Ibid., 10, 13–14; McCown, Testament, 68–69, 88–90. Conybeare left the impression that an earlier recension might have been the very collection of Solomon's incantations referred to by Josephus, and that the Testament was “a Christian recension of a Jewish book.” McCown objected that its earliest form was the Jewish haggadic story about building the temple, and that the demonological document which becomes a “testament” is a Christian work. Nevertheless, McCown had said earlier that its demonology was useful for “reconstructing the thoughtworld of the Palestinian Jew in the first century of our era” (3, n. 20), a statement quoted by Lövestam, 201. See also Denis, Introduction, 67. He and de Jonge, M., “The Greek Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,” Nov Test 7 (1965) 322, judge it “too late to be included in our collection.”Google Scholar

³³ Berger, “Messiastraditionen,” 6–8. See above, n. 11.

³⁴ Ibid., the MSS are H, I, L, V, W, P, Q, which cut across McCown's three major recensions of the “testament” as “testament” (see above n. 32). MS H is for McCown a representative of Recension A, the earliest recension after the haggadic story, i.e. the earliest Christian “testament.” It should be noted that another text (No. 2011, Bibliothèque Nationale) is found in DeLatte, Anecdota, 211–27; see also Preisendanz, K., “Ein Wiener Papyrusfragment zum Testamentum Salomonis,” Eos 48/3 (1956) 161ff.Google Scholar

³⁵ Berger, “Messiastraditionen,” 7.

³⁶ Lövestam, “Davids-son-kristologin,” 201–02.

³⁷ Test Sol, Conybeare's translation, para. 122; Lövestam, Ibid., cites the Son of God reference in a footnote, but quotes the rest of the passage in the body of the text.

³⁸ Paris Magical Papyrus No. 3,009, cp. Preisendanz, K., Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri (Leipzig, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961)Google Scholar. This passage is cited in Barrett, C. K., The New Testament Background: Selected Documents (New York: Harper & Row, 1961) 31–35Google Scholar. The significant verses read: “I adjure thee, every demonic spirit, say whatsoever thou art. For I adjure thee by the seal which Solomon laid upon the tongue of Jeremiah and he spoke.” Gaster, M., “The Logos Ebraikos in the Magical Papyrus of Paris, and the Book of Enoch,” in Studies and Texts III (reprint; New York: KTAV, 1971 [?]) drew on Dieterich's dating (Abraxas, 142ff.) as the 2nd century B.C.E., suggested the text is based on an identical conjuration in 1 En 69:3–25, and posited that an Essene wrote it! McCown, Testament, 64, n. 2, states: “In any case this papyrus, written in the III or IV cent, A.D., but embodying much older material, stands beside Josephus as a witness to the prominence of Solomon and his ring in magic during the earliest centuries of the Christian era.”Google Scholar

³⁹ Montgomery, J. M., “Some Early Amulets from Palestine,” JAOS31 (1911) 272–81Google Scholar, assigns this lead amulet “to the second or third century after Christ” (279). It begins: “And now with the wand of Moses and the shining-plate of Aaron the high priest, and with the seal of Solomon and with [the Shield] of David, and with the mitre of the chief priest, have I pronounced the word….” On other Solomonic amulets, see Perdrizet, ““Σϕραγς Σολομνος”” (n. 7 above); Budge, Wallis, Amulets and Superstitions (Oxford: University Press, 1930)Google Scholarpassim; Bonner, C., Studies in Magical Amulets Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (Ann Arbor: University Press, 1950) 27Google Scholar, 208–09; Goodenough, E. R., Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (13 vols.; Bollingen Series 37; New York; Pantheon Books, 1953–1968) 1Google Scholar. 68; 2. 226–38; 7. 198–200; 9. 1044–67; for a general description, see Trachtenberg, J., Jewish Magic and Superstition (Cleveland/New York: World Publishing Co., 1939; Meridian Book, 1961) 132-52.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ On the pentagram, see Goodenough, Ibid., 1.68; 7.198–200; Winckler, H. A., Siegel und Charaktere in der Muhammedanischen Zauberei. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients (Berlin, Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1930), esp. 133Google Scholar, where he thinks that Solomon achieved his major fame from the 3rd to the 6th centuries C.E., and that the pentagram was originally applied to Jesus and then transferred to Solomon. See also Gollancz, H., The Book of Protection (London: Oxford, 1912)Google Scholar para. 41, for a text which has a series of apparently inexplicable names on the ring; Gollancz comments on pp. xii-xvi of the Introduction. On the Lîlîn and Lîlōt, see Montgomery, J. A., “The Lilith Legend,” The University of Pennsylvania Museum Journal 4 (1913) 62–65Google Scholar; Gordon, “A World of Demons and Liliths,” 162–63 and passim; Gaster, T. H., “A Canaanite Magical Text,” Orientalia 11 (1942) 45–58; Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, 36–37, 51 -54. The Lîlît is frequently a succuba, and a harpy. For an OT reference, see Isa 34:14 (RSV: “night hag”), while Gaster, 50, n. 1, speculates a reference in Isa 2:18. It may be noted that the demon Resheph may occur in 11QPsAp^a, IV, line 5, and that he possibly comes during the night, cp. van der Ploeg, “Un petit rouleau,” 136–37.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Fisher, “Son of David” (n. 4, above); McCown, Testament, 65, discusses J. Montgomery's Aramaic Incantation Bowls from Nippur (1911), see following note.

⁴² See above, n. 7. As far as I am aware, no complete catalogue of bowl texts has been published. My own survey of bowl publications from 1853 to the present shows that there are at least 385 bowls in Babylonian Jewish Aramaic, at least 57 in Mandaic, and at least 50 in Syriac. There are several with no script, illegible script, unidentified script (Pehlevi?), or unstated script; several in Arabic; two in Minoan Linear A; 1 in Hebrew; and several inscribed skulls. Today the bowls are located in museums from Birmingham, Alabama, to Teheran, Iran. The major studies and collections are Pognon, H., Inscriptions mandäites des coupes de Khouabir (Paris: H. Welter, 1898–1899)Google Scholar; Montgomery, J. A., Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1913)Google Scholar; Gordon, C. H., “Aramaic Magical Bowls in the Istanbul and Baghdad Museums,” Archiv Orientalni 6 (1934) 319–34Google Scholar (A-F); “An Aramaic Exorcism,” 466–74 (G); “Aramaic and Mandaic Magical Bowls,” 9 (1937 84–106Google Scholar (H-O); Aramaic Incantation Bowls,” Orientalia 10 (1941) 116–41 (1–9), 272–89 (10–11, Ash, Birm), 339–60 (Brit Mus, Fitz, Harv, Hilp, Iraq, Jew Theol Sem, Louvre, Lyck, Maggs, Malmö, Met Mus, Prince); and Yamauchi, E. M., Mandaic Incantation Texts (American Oriental Series 49; New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1967).Google Scholar

⁴³ Gordon, C. H., “Incantation Bowls from Knossos and Nippur,” American Journal of Archeology 68 (1964) 194–95Google Scholar; Ugarit and Minoan Crete (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1966) 35–39Google Scholar; “Leviathan: Symbol of Evil,” in Altmann, A., ed., Biblical Motifs (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1966) 5–9Google Scholar; cp. Brice, W. C., Inscriptions in the Minoan Linear Script of Class A (Oxford: The Society of Antiquities, 1961)Google Scholar texts II, 1, and II, 2.

⁴⁴ “There are also analogous non-bowl inscriptions from pre-Christian times, e.g. 15th century Ugarit, 7th century Aramaic from Upper Syria, and the Maccabean period from Mesopotamia, see Yamauchi, “Aramaic Magic Bowls,” 513, for literature. These materials, along with the magical book, Sepher Ha-Razim, which Margalioth, M., Sepher Ha-Razim (Jerusalem: The American Academy for Jewish Research, 1966)Google Scholar dates as early as the 3rd century C.E., are important for Fisher's overall view, see “Son of David,” 87–88 (Thanks to Prof. J. Purvis, Boston University, for his comments on the Sepher). The Ugaritic analogy which Fisher mentions has now been published in Schaeffer, F. A., Ugaritica V(Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1968)Google Scholar as text no. 7 (RS 24.244) 564- 72.

⁴⁵ Fisher, Ibid., 84–85.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 89.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 90; however, Fisher is inaccurate to cite the title for Lk 1:32.

⁴⁸ The bowls are recognized as being homogenous and Jesus ben Perahia is mentioned elsewhere in them, see Montgomery, AIT, 226ff. (Mont 8, 9, 17, 32, 33). In favor of Fisher's suggestion is Gordon C which mentions a list of guardian powers as Atros, p (?), Batros, Petrus, Mithras, Jesus, Abyssos, Byssor, Bythos, and Hermes in order, cf. Gordon, C. H., “Aramaic and Magical Bowls in the Istanbul and Baghdad Museums,” Archiv Orientalni 6 (1934), 326–27, who says the names are transliterated from a Greek original.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See below, Part II.

⁵⁰ The texts are Lidz 5:19–20 (Mandaic); Mont 34:8 (Syriac); Aramaic are Hyv (2 refs), Gordon E:4 (2 refs), 5, 8 (2 refs); Gordon F:4 (2 refs), 8; Gordon A: 1b-2a; Gordon B:5; Gordon, Ash 1932.619; Gordon, Ash 1932.620; Gordon, Iraq Mus 11113; Gordon 11:18, a conjecture which reads, “King Solomon, Son of…” The term for “seal-ring” is (Lidz 5:20: ; Gordon, Ash 1932.620: ), and for “seal,” , cp. Jastrow, Dictionary, 1062, 441–42. The publications are: Lidzbarski, M., “Mandäische Zaubertexte,” Ephemeris f¨r semitische Epigraphic I (Giessen: A. Topelmann, 1902) 102–05Google Scholar; E. M. Yamauchi, MIT, 230–33 (in the Louvre); J. A. Montgomery, AIT, 231 (U. Penn); Hyvernat, H., “Sur un vase judéo-babylonien du musée Lycklama de Cannes (Provence),” Zeitschrift für Keilschriftforschung 2 (1885) 115–16Google Scholar, reprinted with Gordon E and Gordon F in parallel columns (Baghdad Museum) in C. H. Gordon, “Aramaic Magical Bowls in the Istanbul and Baghdad Museums,” 331–32, which also contains Gordon A (321–22) and Gordon B (324) (both in Museum of Antiquities, Constantinople); C. H. Gordon, “Aramaic Incantation Bowls,” 273–74, contains Gordon 11 (Jewish Theological Seminary, N.Y.) 279–80 contains Ashmolean (?) 1932.619 and 1932.620, and 350–52 has Gordon Iraq Museum 11113 (Baghdad Museum). The “jinn,” , may be an Arabism, but that is not absolutely certain, see Montgomery, AIT, 80.

⁵¹ For example, there are the seal-rings of the magician Yokabar-Ziwa, the angels Kasdiel, Michael, and Gabriel, the god Sir-Glif, and the seal of El Shaddai and Abraxas the Mighty Lord, cp. esp. Hyv, par. Gordon E, par. Gordon F.

⁵² Solomon appears without the designation “Son of David” in Mont 39:10–11; Ellis 1 as reconstructed by Montgomery, AIT, 169 (its parallel is Lidz 5:19–20 which has “Son of David”); and Schwab Q and H. The references to Son of David in Schwab I (noted in Montgomery's glossary B[AIT, p. 280]) have been shown by Gordon, “Aramaic Incantation Bowls,” 126, to be false transcriptions.

⁵³ See above, n. 11.

⁵⁴ Duling, “Entrance,” 68–69.

⁵⁵ The question has broader implications, e.g. the extent to which Palestine was hellenized.

⁵⁶ Berger suggests that all the titles in Matt 12 were synthesized in pre-Christian wisdom and the purpose of the passage is to show that Jesus’ power, in contrast to the Antichrist's, is from God. Fisher centers on the Beelzebul controversy and argues that the question of the crowds, “Can this be the Son of David?’ (Matt 12:23) comes from the pre-Matthaean source (Matt 12:22–32) which understood the reference to be to Solomon, while Matthew understood it to be to the Messiah. This leads to a certain problem in Fisher's view of Matt 15:22: would Matthew have inserted “Son of David” in an exorcism story if he had understood it only messianically? Lövestam, though he is quite aware of the problems of the Davidic materials, seems most interested in showing that the “something greater than Solomon” section is paralleled in the Test Sol and he draws no redactional conclusions from what he knows to be Matthew's interest.

⁵⁷ D. Duling, “The Therapeutic Son of David in Matthew,” NTS (forthcoming).

⁵⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁹ If not, “to hear the wisdom of Solomon” will have nothing to do with the miraculous, cp. Edwards, R. A., The Sign of Jonah in the Theology of the Evangelists and Q (Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 18; London: SCM, 1971) 88–89, 102. But is it not Matthew who has juxtaposed the Solomon saying with the return of the unclean spirit in contrast to Q (Lk 11:24–32) cp. 88–99?Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Burger, C., Jesus als Davidssohn. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 62Google Scholar; Robbins, “Blind Bartimaeus,” 234ff.; Kelber, W., The Kingdom in Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 92–97.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Burger, Ibid.

⁶² Robbins, “Blind Bartimaeus,” 242.

⁶³ Kelber, Kingdom, 96.

⁶⁴ Weeden, T., Mark. Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) esp. 164–65Google Scholar, n. 5. Weeden correlates his work on Mark with others who have studied the “divine man” in connection with Paul's opponents, notably Georgi, D., Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964).Google Scholar