^{page 308 note 1} Cf. Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1948), pp. 119–22.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 2} Cf. Col. ii. 11–12.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 3} Cf. Rom. iv. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 4} Cf. Rom. ii. 28–9. Philo, Spec. Leg. i.§ 6.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 5} Col.ii. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 6} Rom.vi. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 7} Col.ii. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 8} Op.cit. p.122.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 9} Ibid.

^{page 309 note 1} Eissfeldt, O. attributes it to the L source. Cf. Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 2nd ed. (Tübingen, 1956), p.228.Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 2} Cf. Driver, S. R., The Book of Exodus (Cambridge, 1929), p. 32.Google Scholar—Couroyer, B., La Sainte Bible traduite en français sous la direction de l'Ecole Biblique de Jérusalem (Paris, 1956), p. 65, n.6.Google Scholar—Meyer, R., Art., περιτέμνω in G. Kittel, Theologisches Wörterbush um Neuen Testament, VI, 75.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 1} Meyer, R. (art. cit. p. 74) only notes that this passage in the LXX does not correspond with any known Hebrew original.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 2} The whole verse is omitted in LXX^B.Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 1} This manuscript of 450 folios, MS. Neofiti I of the Vatican Library, was identified in the summer of 1956 by the indefatigable student of the Targums, Father Alejandro Díez Macho. The discovery was first announced by him in Estudios Bíblicos, XV (1956), 446–7.Google Scholar See also Black, M., ‘The Recovery of the Language of Jesus’, in N.T.S. III (1957), 305–13Google Scholar (on pp. 306 f. see the English translation of Díez Macho's note). Cf. also Black, M., ‘Die Erforschung der Muttersprache Jesu’, in T.L.Z. no. 9 (1957), col. 653–68;Google ScholarWinter, P., ‘Eine vollständige Handschrift des Palästinensischen Targum aufgefunden’, in Z.N. W. XLVIII (1957), 192.Google Scholar The manuscript probably dates from the end of the fifteenth century. Many variant readings were added in the margins ad between the lines by a second scribe. These are enclosed in brackets in the translation. I am greatly indebted to Professor Kahle, P. for the loan of a photocopy of Exod. iv.Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 2} A detailed explanation of this agreement is to be found in Mekhilta on Exod. xviii. 3 (ed. Lauterbach, J. Z., Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, II (Philadelphia, 1949), 168),Google Scholar which quotes an early second century Rabbi, A.D., Eleazar of Modi'im, as saying: ‘At the time when Moses said to Jethro: Give me your daughter Zipporah to wife, Jethro said to him: Accept one condition which I will state to you, and I will give her to you for a wife. What is it, asked Moses. He then said to him: The first son that you have shall belong to the idol, and those that follow may belong to God. Moses accepted. Jethro then said: Swear unto me. And he swore…It was for this that the angel first wished to kill him’ (transl. Lauterbach).Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 1} This is also emphasized in the Peshitta, which in v. 24 replaces the indeterminate ‘him’ with the name of Moses.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 2} The ancient but unimportant discrepancies which are contained in the versions, concern: (I) Zippo's gesture after the circumcision. She either approaches the Angel to entreat him (LXX, Onk., Neofiti), or presents him with the proof of circumcision before addressing her prayer to him (1TJ, 2TJ). (2) The reference toJethro, which is properly Palestinian (no mention in LXX and Onk.). (3) The meaning of Zipporah's words in v. 26. They are either a simple statement of fact (Onk.) or a prayer of thanksgiving (Palestinian sources). The identification of Gershom as the circumcised boy, and the mention of an agreement between Jethro and Moses, are peculiar to 1TJ. Early Rabbinic literature shows that both are ancient Palestinian traditions.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 1} Excepting the following passages: Gen. xxxv. 22 (Reuben's incest); Exod. xxxii. 21–5 (Aaron's responsibility in the affair of the golden calf); Num. vi. 24–7 (the priestly blessing). Cf. Megillah iv. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 2} Avigad, N. and Yadin, Y., A Genesis Apocryphon—A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (Jerusalem, 1956).Google Scholar See also Vermes, G., ‘Le plus ancien midrash sur la Genèse,’ in Cahisrs Sioniens, vol. x, no. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 3} Concerning Josephus and Pseudo-Phio see the present writer's ‘La figure de Moise au tournant des deux Testaments,’ in Moïse, , l'Homme de l'Allthnce (Paris, 1955), pp. 86–90.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 4} The Chronicler set the example by suppressing, for instance, the David-Bathsheba episode.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 5} Cf. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, IX, xxix, 10.Google ScholarEd. Mras, K., Eusebius Werke, vol. VIII (Berlin, 1954).Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 6} For an annotated French translation of the text see the above cited study in Moïse, l'Homme de l'Alliance, pp. 68–72.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 7} Lib. Ant. Bibl. ix. 13.Google ScholarEd. Kisch, G., Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Noire Dame, Indiana, 1949).Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 8} Cf. Vermes, G., La figure de Moïse …, p. 89.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 1} It may be noted that Moses was not the only man thought to have been born circumcised. All the saints of the Bible whose circumcision is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, are supposed to have been born similarly marked (Noah, Shem, Melchizedek, Jacob, etc.). In the same way, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (vii. 3) because of the absence of any genealogy in Gen. xiv, concludes that Melchizedek was without father or mother; and because of his sudden appearance and disappearance, he assumes that his life had neither beginning nor end.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 2} Translated by Charles, R. H. in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II (Oxford, 1912), 78–9.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 3} In Jub. xvii. 16–18 the shocking command given by God to Abraham to sacrifice his son is explained as follows. Mastema pretended that if Abraham had to choose between God and Isaac, he would choose Isaac. The Lord knew the patriarch's faithfulness and love and wished to shame Mastema. For the biblical foundation of such aprocess compare II Sam. xxiv. 1, with I Chron. xxi. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 1} Cf. Kahle, P., Die arabischen Bibelübersetzungen. Texte mit Glossar und Literaturübersicht (Leipzig, 1904), p. XII.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 2} Cf. p. 312, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 3} Cf. Exod. R. iv. 1–4.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 4} Mekh. loc. cit. (transl. Lauterbach). Cf. Nedarim loc. cit.; Exod. R. v. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 5} Cf. in this sense Exod. R. v. 8: ‘He neglected to circumcise his son Eliezer.’Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 1} ibid.Mekh.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 2} J. Nedarim, iii, 38b.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 3} Gen. XVII. 14 threatens the uncircumcised with extinction, but not their parents.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 4} Cf. the discussion in Abodah Zarah 27a as to whether a woman may circumcise. The answer is negative. Zipporah either merely advised Moses to circumcise the child, or else only began the rite leaving him to complete it.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 1} Eleazar's saying quoted in n. 312, p. 2 probably dates from before the Hadrianic persecution.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 2} Cf. Shabbath 137b; Yebanioth 71a.Google Scholar