^{page 1 note 1} Full bibliographies in Stendahl, K., The School of Matthew (Uppsala, 1954), pp. 40 ff.Google Scholar, and a useful synopsis of the history of the subject in Ellis's, E. EarlePaul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1957)Google Scholar; the best bibliographies are those of Venard and Dupont (Stendahl).

^{page 1 note 2} An extensive bibliography in Fitzmyer, Joseph, ‘The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament,’ N.T.S. VII (1960–1961)Google Scholar, 298n. For other and more recent works, consult Eybers, I. H., ‘Eksegese van die Ou Testament by Qumrân en in die Nuwe Testament’, in Hermeneutica, Erebundel aangebied aan prof. dr. E. P. Groenewald (Pretoria, 1970), pp. 47–56.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 3} Though I employed this term in the original form of this lecture, it seems to me now that it introduces a false distinction with midrash halakha (dealing with Law and ethics) and midrash haggada (edifying discourse, tales, parable, etc.). All midrash, including the short comments in the scrolls, is pesher (interpretation), and the scrolls contain both halakhic and haggadic pesher.

^{page 2 note 1} A typical Qumran-type pesher is the Septuagint's interpretation of the Hebrew exclamation Ahah! in Jeremiah, rendered by ό ών when it prefaces the divine name (e.g. xxxix/xxxii. 17). ό ών has established itself as a divine name in its own right, on the basis of the Hebrew interpretation of Exod. iii. 14 (‘I Am that I Am’). Cf. Wisdom xiii. 1; Rev. i. 4; Apostolic Constitutions 7. 33. 2.

^{page 2 note 2} Michel, O., Paulus und seine Bibel (Gutersloh, 1929), pp. 43, 52Google Scholar. Cf. Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘4Q Testimonia and the New Testament,’ in Theological Studies, XVIII, 4 (12 1967), 513 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 3} The Judaean Scrolls (Oxford, 1965), pp. 527 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 4} The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth, 1962), p. 244Google Scholar. For literature on the text, see notes below.

^{page 3 note 1} Psalm ii. 7 is found, but without accompanying pesher, in another collection: 3Q2 (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, III, Baillet, Milik and de Vaux, p. 95).

^{page 3 note 2} A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament (Leiden, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 3} Op. cit.

^{page 3 note 4} ‘Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in II Cor. vi. 14–7, I’ in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, XXIII, 3 (07 1961), 271–80.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 5} See further, below, pp. 11 ff.

^{page 3 note 6} Der Sohn in den synoptischen Jesusworten (Leiden, 1961), p. 80.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 7} ‘The Old Testament Background of [ΠΡΟ]ΟΡΙΖΕΙΝ in the New Testament’, N.T.S. XVII, I (10 1970), 104 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 8} L'Esprit et le Messie (Paris, 1958), p. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 1} In Memoriam Paul Kahle, ed. Matthew Black and Georg Fohrer, Z.A.W. CIII (Beiheft) (Berlin, 1968), 90.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 2} ℵ = ύψωθνῆναι…= gekreuzigt werden, , in Z.N.W. XXXV (1936), 282–85Google Scholar. Cf. Black, further Matthew, ‘From Schweitzer to Bultmann: the Modern Quest of the Historical Jesus,’ McCormick Quarterly, XX, 4, 280 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 3} E.g. by Tödt, H. E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (London, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 4} See Black, Matthew, ‘“Son of Man” Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradition’, Z.N.W. LX (1969), 4 f.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 5} Tödt, op. cit. p. 185.

^{page 6 note 1} See especially Perrin, N., ‘Mark xiv. 62: End Product of a Christian Pesher Tradition’, N.T.S. XII (1965–1966), 150ffGoogle Scholar. Idem, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (S C.M. 1967), pp. 173 ff.

^{page 7 note 1} Professor van Unnik, W. C. (‘Jesus the Christ’, N.T.S., VIII (1961–1962), 113)Google Scholar may be right in arguing that the application of the term χριστός to Jesus of Nazareth must have had some foundation in earlier tradition (he suggests the dominical logion at Luke iv. 16, citing the Servant Passage at Isaiah lxi. I (…the Lord has anointed me); and that Jesus of Nazareth did think of himself as Servant–Messiah has had many distinguished advocates. What is demonstrably certain, however, is that it was from the Davidic strand of Jewish tradition that these terms and titles, χριστός, υίòς (παīς) θεοῦ, were taken over into the earliest ascertainable forms of Kyrios christology.

^{page 7 note 2} Martin, R. P., Carmen Christi: Philippians ii. 5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Cambridge, 1967)Google Scholar; Sanders, Jack T., The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical and Religious Background (Cambridge, 1971).Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 3} Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2. 5–11, ed. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (Darmstadt, 1961)Google Scholar (reprint of 1927/1928 edition).

^{page 7 note 4} Op. cit. p. 41. Cf. Jeremias, J., in Studia Paulina in honorem Johannis de Zwaan (Haarlem, 1953), p. 154Google Scholarn. 3; Dodd, , According to the Scriptures, p. 93.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 5} Op. cit. p. 51.

^{page 7 note 6} Cf. Bruce, F. F., ‘Jesus is Lord’ in Soli Deo Gloria: New Testament Studies in Honor of William Childs Robinson (Richmond, Virginia, 1968), pp. 35 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 1}

^{page 8 note 2} Neubauer and Driver, p. 84.

^{page 8 note 3} Rahlfs has printed the Pauline text.

^{page 8 note 4} Cf. Berger, Klaus, ‘Zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund christologischen Hoheitstitel,’ N.T.S. XVII, 4 (1970–1971), 422.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 1} Comm. Romans, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, III, Book 2 (Tübingen, 1919).Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 2} Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (London, 1965), p. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 3} Kirk, W. E., Romans, Clarendon Bible (Oxford, 1937).Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 4} For a similar pesher (on Ps. lxviii. 18), cf. Eph. iv. 8. Cf. McNamara, M., The New Testament and the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum (Rome, 1966), p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 5} Bultmann, R., Theology, I, 124 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 1} For some contemporary discussion (selected): see Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum (Göttingen, 1963)Google Scholar; Whiteley, D. E. H., The Theology of St Paul (Oxford, 1964)Google Scholar; Lindars, Barnabas, New Testament Apologetic (London, 1961)Google Scholar; the subject has been treated most recently by Klaus Berger, loc. cit. above, p. 8 n. 4.

^{page 10 note 2} Cowley, A., Aramaic Papyri of the First Century (Oxford, 1923), p. 112Google Scholar (Pap. 30. 15); cf. also Dalman, , Words of Jesus, pp. 266 f.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 3} 4Q En. 1. 9; [when He comes with] the myriads of His holy ones (⁷², έν άγίων άγγέλωλ μυριάἀιν) [to execute judgement upon all; and He will destroy all the wicked and convict all] flesh… G. δτι ēρΧεται σύν ταἰς μνριαοιν ἀύτοū κἀι τοīς άγιοις ἀύτοũ ποιη∼σαι αρίσιν κατά πάνεων, και άεολέσέιπάνπς τούς άσεβεīς και έλέξει πãσαν σάρκα…) (Edition of 4QEn. by J. T. Milik and M. Black, in preparation.)

^{page 10 note 4} The ñλθεν of Jude reflects a prophetic perfect (perfectum futurum or perfectum confidentiae) or possibly a precative perfect. The confident statement of K. G. Kuhn in Kittel (s. v. μαραναθα), supported by Dalman, that αθα could never be a future rests on the assumption that the prophetic perfect is unknown in Aramaic. It is rare (as it is also in Hebrew) but it exists. Cf. Strack, H. L., Abriss des biblischen Aramäisch (Leipzig, 1896), p. 21Google Scholar, citing Dan. vii. 27. For the precative perfect in the Semitic languages see Driver, S. R., Hebrew Syntax, p. 63 (contra Gesenius-Kautzsch (Oxford, 1910)Google Scholar, section 106 n. 2). I shall be discussing the Maranatha problem in a forthcoming contribution to the Festschrift for C. F. D. Moule.

^{page 11 note 1} Cf. Moule, C. F. D., ‘A Reconsideration of the Context of Maranatha,’ N.T.S. VI, 4 (1960), 307f.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 2} Harris, Rendel, Testimonies, I and II, 59 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 3} School of Matthew, pp. 69, 212. It was Jesus, Rendel Harris also claimed (op. cit. II, 96), who ‘set the Stone rolling’.

^{page 12 note 1} For the word-play, ’eben, stone, and ben, in the Old Testament, cf. Exod. xxviii. 29, Joshua iv. 6, 7, 8, 20 and 21; I Kings xviii. 31, Lamentations iv. 1–2, and in Isa. liv. II-13, also Zechariah ix. 16. For a number of cases in the Old Testament where this word has probably been wrongly translated, cf. Joseph Ryder on Job v. 23, ‘Contributions to the Scriptural Text’, in H.U.C.A., XXIV (1952–1953), 104Google Scholar, and Brongas, H. A. and Woude, A. S. van der on Exod. i. 16, Nederlandsch Theologisch Tijdschrift, xx (1961), 241–54Google Scholar. The word-play may be illustrated from rabbinical sources from the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum at Exod. xxxix. 7, cf. also Ex. Rabb. 29, Gen. R. 68. II.

^{page 12 note 2} With an ē ending. Some Palmyrene inscriptions give the form ℵℷℶℵ for the sing. (under Arabic influence). See Cooke, G. A., A Glossary of Aramaic Inscriptions (Cambridge, 1898), p.12Google Scholar. Cf. also Montgomery, J. A., ‘Notes on Early Aramaic Inscriptions,’ Journal of the American Oriental Society, LIV (1934), 423Google Scholar. See also Abbott, E. A., The Fourfold Gospel (Cambridge, 1917), pp. 667Google Scholar ff.; The Son of Man or Contributions to the Study of the Thoughts of Jesu (Cambridge, 1910)Google Scholar, parr. 3594, 3600; J. Ford, ‘The Jewel of Discernment’, Biblische Zeitschrift, XI (1967), 109 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 3} See further below, p. 13 n. 3.

^{page 13 note 1} Fiebig, Paul, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu im Lichte der rabbinischen Gleichnisse Neutestamentlichen Zeitalters (Tübingen, 1912).Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 2} ‘Das Gleichnis von den bösen Weingärtnern (Mark 12. 1–9)’, in Aux Sources de la Tradition Chrétienne, Mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Goguel (Paris, 1950).Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 3} One fact in favour of this interpretation is the description of the son in the parable as ‘the κληρονομός heir’ for this is the traditional rôle of the son. At Zechariah iv. 7, the chief corner-stone or headstone is interpreted as ‘the stone of inheritance’ (λίθος κληρονομίας) where ha'eben har'osha has been read as 'eben ha-jar'osh. This Septuagint interpretation suggests that the translator was well aware of the cryptic reference in 'eben to the son and heir, the Davidide.

^{page 14 note 1} Cf. Theod. Dan. 2: 44 (λικμσει). See further R. Swaeles, ‘L'Arrière-fond scripturaire de Matt. xxi. 43 et son lien avec Matt. xxi. 44’, in N.T.S. VI, 4 (1960), 310 ff. (Matt. xxi. 43 presupposes 44 in Matthew (from Q?).)