^{page 382 note 1} The phases of the Aramaic language with which one has to deal are the following: (1) 925–700 B.C.: Old Aramaic (inscriptions from Syria and Palestine, from Mesopotamia - in borrowed Phoenician alphabet). (2) 700–200 B.C.: Official Aramaic (Imperial Aramaic, Reichsaramäisch: used from Elephantine in Egypt to Taxila in the Indus Valley, from northern Asia Minor to Arabia; includes the Aramaic passages in Ezra and probably also in Daniel). (3) 200 B.C.-A.D. 200: Middle Aramaic (development of clearly defined local dialects, e.g. Palestine and Arabia [Qumran, Murabba'at, Nabataea], Syria and Mesopotamia [Palmyra, Hatra]). (4) A.D. 200–700 (or later): Late Aramaic (distinction between Eastern and Western Aramaic clear and admitted: Western: Syro-Palestinian Christian Aramaic, Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, Samaritan Aramaic; Eastern: Syriac [Jacobite and Nestorian], Babylonian Talmudic, Mandaic). (5) A.D. ?-present day: Modern Aramaic (dialects of villages in the Anti-Lebanon region [Ma'lula], and of villages of Tur ‘Abdin, etc.).

For further details, see my commentary on The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I (BibOr 18A; 2nd ed.; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971), pp. 22–3Google Scholar n. 60; and ‘Methodology in the Study of the Aramaic Substratum of Jesus' Sayings in the New Testament’, Jésus aux origines de la christologie (Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium; Gembloux: Duculot, forthcoming.

^{page 382 note 2} See Drijvers, H. J. W., Old-Syriac (Edessean) Inscriptions Edited with an Introduction, Indices and a Glossary (Semitic Study Series, 3; Leiden: Brill, 1972)Google Scholar; ‘Syrische Inscripties uit de eerste drie eeuwen A. D.’, Phoenix xv (1969), 197–205Google Scholar; ‘Some new Syriac inscriptions and archaeological finds from Edessa and Sumatar Harabesi’, B.S.O.A.S. XXXVI (1973), 1–14Google Scholar (+pls. I-XII). Jenni, Cf. E., ‘Die altsyrischen Inschriften, I. -3. Jahrhundert nach Christus’, T.Z. XXI (1965), 371–85.Google Scholar

^{page 382 note 3} See chart I for a list of the more prominent texts from Palestine. ‘Palestine’ is used here in a slightly broader geographical sense to include certain Transjordanian sites that have yielded material which is so similar to finds from Palestine proper that they have to be included in a survey such as I am proposing. The pertinence of such finds to the Old Testament commentator is obvious in most cases. In some instances there is hesitation about one text or another because scholars question whether it may be Edomite, Ammonite, Hebrew or Phoenician, but written in Aramaic script. See Naveh, J., ‘Hebrew texts in Aramaic script in the Persian period?’, B.A.S.O.R. CCIII (1971), 27–32Google Scholar. It should also be noted that in some instances the text is quite small (e.g. an inscription of a few words on a piece of pottery); this is admitted, but even such small texts attest to the use of the language in Palestine over a long period.

^{page 383 note 1} See p. 382 n. 1 above.

^{page 384 note 1} I have touched upon this problem briefly in a number of places elsewhere:C.B.Q. XXX (1968), 420–1; XXXII (1970), 110–12, 524–5. In a review of Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospel and Acts (3rd ed.Oxford: Clarendon, 1967)Google Scholar, Greenfield, J. C. has made the same point: ‘Properly speaking, this is the only literary Aramaic that we have that is contemporaneous with the Gospels and Acts and theoretically it is with the Aramaic of the Qumrān finds that one should begin the examination of a possible Aramaic approach’, [his italics] (J.N.E.S. XXXI [1972], p. 60)Google Scholar. See further Kutscher, E. Y., ‘The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon, A Preliminary Survey’, Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta hierosolymitana, 4; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959), pp. 2–3Google Scholar; Wacholder, B. Z., review of M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1972)Google Scholar, J.B.L. XCIII (1974), 133Google Scholar; Rosenthal, F., Die aramaistische Forschung seit Theodor Nöldeke's Veröffentlichungen (Leiden: Brill, 1964), pp. 103–9.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 2} It is readily admitted that none of these texts is complete; all of them are fragmentary, but they do constitute a considerable bulk of material and cannot be dismissed as ‘miscellaneous“bits and pieces”’. The list is as complete as I can make it at this time; references are to either the definitive publications or the provisory and preliminary notices. See further Burchard, C., Bibliographie zu den Handschriften vom Toten Meer II (BZAW 89; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1965), pp. 321–44Google Scholar; continued in Z.D.P.V. LXXXIII (1967), 95–101Google Scholar; Sanders, cf. J. A., ‘Palestinian Manuscripts 1947–1967’, J.B.L. LXXXVI (1967), 431–40Google Scholar; ‘Palestinian Manuscripts 1947–1972’, J.J.S. XXIII (1973), 74–83.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 3} The date of composition of one or other text might well be prior to 150 B.C. By and large, the dates given are based on palaeographical evidence, and one most consult the discussions of the individual texts.

^{page 384 note 4} So the Essene community of Qumran is often judged to have been, mainly because of its communal, ascetic and secret practices. But one should recall that Josephus said of them that they ‘settled in large numbers in every town’ (B.J. II. viii. 4, § 124). And we still do not know how to specify the relation between such groups and those at the ‘mother-house’ of Qumran. And this bears on the question of Aramaic as a language used among them and precisely at the Qumran settlement itself.

^{page 385 note 1} Avigad, N. and Yadin, Y., A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1956Google Scholar; an extended bibliography on this text can be found in my commentary (see p. 382 n. I above), pp. 42–6. van der Ploeg, J. P. M. and van der Woude, A. S., Le targum de Job de la grotte XI de Qumrán (Leiden: Brill, 1971)Google Scholar; bibliography on this text will be found in my forthcoming article, ‘Some observations on the Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI’, C.B.Q. 36 (October 1974).

^{page 385 note 2} For a discussion of the possibility of Essene tenets in the Genesis Apocryphon, see my commentary (p. 382 n. I above), pp. 11–14; for the Essene authorship of the targum of Job see Tuinstra, E. W., Hermeneutische Aspecten van de Targum van Job uit Grot XI van Qumrân (Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen, 1970 [available from Hendrik Kraemer Instituut, Leidestraatweg II (Postbus 12), Oegstgeest 2407, Holland]), pp. 65–70Google Scholar. But the reasons set forth for the Essene composition of the targum by Tuinstra are scarcely convincing; see my remarks in ‘Some observations’.

^{page 385 note 3} cf.Segert, S., ‘Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu einigen aramäischen Texten von Qumran’, Ar. Or. XXXIII (1965), 190–206, esp. pp. 205–6Google Scholar. He is of the opinion that precisely because the texts were written in Aramaic they are of non-Essene origin, since the sectarian documents of the community (IQS, IQSa, IQSb, IQM, IQH and the various pesharim) were all composed in Hebrew. The same idea is also found in Lamadrid, A. G., Est. bibl. XXVIII (1969), 169.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 4} ‘4Q Visions de ‘Amram et une citation d'Origène’, R.B. LXXIX (1972), 77–97.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 5} Ibid. esp. pp. 89–90: and even , ‘Malki-resha‘’, the heavenly counterpart of ‘Malki-sedeq’. Milik, Cf. J. T., ‘Milkî-şdeq et Milkî-reša‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens’, J.J.S. XXIII (1972), 95–144, esp. pp. 126–9.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 6} cf.Albright, W. F., The Archaeology of Palestine (5th ed.; Baltimore: Penguin, 1960), pp. 201–2.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 1} The Words of Jesus Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language (Edinburgh: Clark, 1902), p. 326.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 2} Ibid.pp. 324–40. The reader will want to investigate his connection between Aramaic mārê’ and Hebrew môreh! Is there any?

^{page 386 note 3} Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), pp. 126–7.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 4} Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; London: SCM, 1956), I, 51.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 5} Herr ist Jesus (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1924)Google Scholar; Foerster, W. and Quell, G., ‘Κύριος, etc.’, T.D.N.T. III, 1046–95.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 6} The Christology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1963), pp. 195–237.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 7} ‘Discipleship and Belief in Jesus as Lord from Jesus to the Hellenistic Church’, N.T.S. II (1955–6), 87–99.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 8} The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity (New York/Cleveland: World, 1969), pp. 68–128.

^{page 387 note 1} ‘Maranatha und Kyrios Jesus’, Z.N.W. LIII (1962), 125–44Google Scholar. Some of the data amassed there needs slight correction today.

^{page 387 note 2} Other instances of the construct-chain usage can be found in Qumran texts: ‘the eternal Lord’ (IQ20 ii. 5); ‘the Lord of the ages’ (I QapGen xxxi. 2); ‘by the Great Lord’ (literally, ‘by the Lord of Greatness [or Majesty]’, I QapGen ii. 4); , ‘the Lord of the heavens’ (IQapGen vii. 7; xii. 17); , ‘the Lord of heaven and earth’ (I QapGen xxii. 16, 21).

^{page 387 note 3} See also 4QTLevi i. 10, 18; ii. 6. The example of ̀ℸη in IQapGen xx. 25, cited by Schulz, (Z.N.W. LIII [1962], 136)Google Scholar as ‘Gottesaussage’, is actually addressed to the Pharaoh. In 4Q‘Amram^b ii. 3 one also finds the form, but with the older spelling ̀ℵℸη (see Milik, J. T., R. B. LXXIX [1972], 79).Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 4} Z.N.W. LIII (1962), 138.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 5} Lest there by any misunderstanding in the subsequent discussion, it is proper to note that the word ‘absolute’ in the Kyrios-debate has normally been applied to the use of the title (with or without the definite Greek article) alone, when it has no possessive adjective (such as ‘my’ or ‘our’) or when it is not modified by a genitive or a prepositional phrase (e.g. κύριος…τοũ σαββάτου, Matt. xii. 8; or Κύριε τοũ ούρανοũ τ⋯ς γ⋯ς, Matt. xi. 25). This terminology, used of the Greek expression, should not be confused with the absolute state of the Aramaic noun. The Aramaic evidence underlying the Greek absolute usage could be in either the absolute state or the emphatic state. The Greek absolute usage is intended in the sense of attributlos.

^{page 387 note 6} See Pope, M., Job: Introduction, Translation and Notes (A.B. 15; 3rd ed.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1973), p. xxiv.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 1} The top of the aleph is barely visible in the photograph, and the editors have marked it as a probable reading. Even though the lacuna commences immediately after this broken letter, it is unlikely that the word has a suffix, either -ī or -an. One could not, of course, exclude some form of the emphatic state ending (e.g. -ᾱh, written with a final he instead of the aleph because of the preceding aleph; the more normative form would be *māryā’ at this period; see below). Indeed, that would make a better parallel with the emphatic but it would still mean ‘the Lord’. That the reading ℵ┐η is not improbable here can be seen from the support to be had for it in a few other Qumran Aramaic phrases that I had pointed out earlier; they are a little more ambiguous, because of the context, but that evidence can now be brought in to support the reading found here. In IQapGen xx. 12–13 Abram prays to God after Sarai has been taken away from him for the Pharaoh: , ‘Blessed (are) you, O God Most High, my Lord, for all ages! For you are Lord and Master over all.’ The form is in the absolute state here, and it is the only example that I had known of in which the title was ‘close to the Palestinian absolute use’ of ‘Lord’ for God (Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch [Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967], p. 36)Google Scholar. The example may not be clear because is coordinated with and both are followed by a prepositional phrase. This might make the instance closer to the modified usage, not the absolute usage (discussed above in note 5 no p. 387). Be that as it may, the form , in the absolute state, is attested here; and in this sense it can be invoked for the reading in IIQtgJob. It is interesting to note that Vermes, G., (Jesus the Jew [London: Collins, 1973], p. 112Google Scholar) cites the same instance in I QapGen xx. 12–13 and says that it ‘comes very close to a titular or absolute use’ of ‘Lord’. But he cites a second example, (I QapGen xx. 15–16), ‘you are the Lord of all the kings of the earth’. Though occurs again here in the absolute state, the following prepositional phrase would preclude its being understood in the absolute sense intended in the discussion of the Greek title.

As for my restoration of line 7, the root , used in the Hebrew text, is also known in Aramaic and so it is retained; the noun is translated by ┐∼ℸ in II QtgJob xxxiv. 4, and on the basis of that equivalence it is used here. The later targum of Job (see de Lagarde, P., Hagiographa chaldaice [Leipzig: Teubner, 1873 (reprinted, Osnabrück: Zeller, 1967)], p. 110Google Scholar) translates the verse thus: ‘But truly God will not act in guilty fashion, and the Almighty will not make light of justice.’ This is a good instance of the difference in the two targums. Save for and the restored the translation in the later targum is quite independent of the Qumran version – as is the case almost everywhere. See further ‘Some observations’ (p. 385 n. I above).

^{page 389 note 1} See Black, F. R., ‘Studies in Semitic Grammar, V’, J.A.O.S. LXXIII (1953), 7–16Google Scholar, esp. pp. 12–14. Widengren, Cf. G., ‘Aramaica et syriaca’, Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer, (Paris: A. Maisonneuve, 1971), pp. 228–31, esp. pp. 228–31.Google Scholar

^{page 389 note 2} Panammu 19; Bar Rakkab i. 5, 6, 9; A.P. xvi. 8; xxxviii. 17; xxxviii. [2]; xxxix. 2; liv. 10; lxvii. 7; lxviii. [9]; lxx. 1, 2; lxxxvii. 1; lxxx. 9; B.M.A.P. xiii. 1, 9; A.D. iii. 3, 5; iv. 2; x. 1, 2; HermW iii. 1; etc. The form ∼ℸη may also turn up sporadically before the first century (Asshur ostracon 6; A.P.O. lxxxvi. 10); but these texts are problematic. In any case the evidence is not from Palestine.

^{page 389 note 3} It should be obvious that ℵℸη cannot be vocalized in the absolute state as mārā or mārāh. The ending -a' would make an emphatic state of it; and the ending-āh would be either an alternate ending for the masculine emphatic state or the feminine absolute state. This has to be stressed because writers who should know better (e.g. G. Vermes, [Jesus the Jew, p. 112]) have misunderstood the form.

^{page 389 note 4} An isolated instance of ℸη is found on a seal impression from Khorsabad; see Sprengling, M., ‘An Aramaic seal impression from Khorsabad’, A.J.S.L. XLIX (1932), 53–5.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 1} cf.Kahle, P. E., The Cairo Geniza (2nd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1959), p. 222Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), pp. 83–4.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 2} The Titles of Jesus, p. 105.

^{page 390 note 3} See S. Schulz, ‘Maranatha und Kyrios’, p. 133.

^{page 390 note 4} The targum on the Psalms is of no help at this point, since it has preserved two paraphrases of v. I and in neither of them is there the play on the words; ‘Dixit Dns in verbo suo, se constituturum me dominum totius Israelis, sed dixit mihi denuo, operire vero Saulem, qui est de tribu Benjamin, donec moriatur, quia non convenit regno cum socio, et postea ponam inimicos tuos suppedaneum pedum tuorum.’ The second targumic paraphrase reads: ‘Dixit Dns in verbo suo, se daturum mihi dominatione(m), eo quod incubuerim doctrinae Legis Dexterae ejus; Expecta donec ponam inimicum tuum suppedaneum pedum tuorum.’ The text of these targumic paraphrases is taken from Walton, B., S. S. Biblia polyglotta (6 vols.; London: Thomas Roycroft, 1657), III, 266Google Scholar; with slight variations they can be found in de Lagarde, P., Hagiographa chaldaice, p. 67.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 5} See Hay, David M., Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), esp. pp. 158–9.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 1} Further support for this evidence can be found in the remarks of Black, M., ‘The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, N.T.S. XVIII (1971–1972), 1–14Google Scholar, esp. 9–11.

^{page 391 note 2} See Nock, A. D., Gnomon XXXIII (1961), 584Google Scholar; Higgins, A. J. B., C. J. T. VI (1960), 202Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A., T.S. xxv (1964), 429Google Scholar; Brown, R. E., T.S. XXXIII (1972), 32Google Scholar n. 38. What is now clear from the text is that the titles used there are not linked with the title ‘messiah’ or ‘anointed one’ (contrast II QMelch 18), so that even if the regal figure with whom the text may deal has to be understood in an apocalyptic rather than in a historical sense, this fragmentary text does not yet reveal the explicit conflation of titles such as one finds in the second part of Ethiopic Enoch. Hence on should beware of Nock's formulation about Qumran evidence ‘stating the Messiah's relationship to God in terms of sonship’ in this text.

^{page 391 note 3} It is reported that Milik will publish the text shortly in H.T.R. One should recall that Milik has already published some fragments of a Pseudo-Danielic cycle from Qumran Cave IV; See ‘“Prière de Nabonide” et autres écrits d'un cycle de Daniel, fragments de Qumrân 4’, R.B. LXIII (1956), 407–15.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 1} Likewise gratuitous is the introduction of the mention of angels in 1. 3. Milik translated ⌝$⊓ℵ as ‘Syria’, rather than as ‘Assyria’ (see IQM i. 2–4, where it occurs in collocation with in a Hebrew text of apocalyptic tenor). Again, in i. 4 must be masculine, and then it could hardly modify , ‘years’ (as restored by Milik), since this word is feminine. Moreover, in Aramaic ⊐ℸ normally means ‘great’, and not ‘many’ (for which the usual term is . Lastly, does the feminine form really mean ‘successor’ in the sense intended?

^{page 393 note 1} Details and full discussion of this text will have to await another occasion. For the restoration of i. 8 (‘all men shall make peace’), I have simply borrowed an expression that occurs in ii. 6 of the text, .

^{page 394 note 1} Milik supplies before this phrase, ‘[and His spirit] rested upon him’.

^{page 394 note 2} See, for example, Winter, P., ‘Some observations on the language in the birth and infancy stories of the Third Gospel’, N.T.S. I (1954–1955), 111–21Google Scholar; Turner, N., ‘The relation of Luke i and ii to Hebraic sources and to the rest of Luke-Acts’, N.T.S. II (1955–1956), 100–9Google Scholar; Benoit, P., ‘L'senfance de Jean-Baptiste selon Luc I’, N.T.S. III (1956–1957), 169–94.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 3} ‘“Peace upon Earth among Men of His Good Will” (Lk 2: 14)’, T.S. XIX (1958), 225–7Google Scholar; reprinted in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Chapman, 1971), pp. 101–4.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 4} Ibid. for bibliography on the Hebrew usage.

^{page 395 note 1} See Ginsburger, M., ‘Die Anthropomorphismen in den Thargumim’, Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie XVII (1891), 262–80, 430–58Google Scholar; Moore, G. F., ‘Intermediaries in Jewish theology: Memra, Shekinah, Metatron’, H.T.R. xv (1922), 41–85Google Scholar; Hamp, V., Der Begriff ‘Wort’ in den aramäischen Bibelübersetzungen (Munich: Neuer-Filser-V., 1938).Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 2} See, for example, Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (i–xii) (A.B. 29; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), pp. 523–4Google Scholar. An attempt to remedy the ‘neglect of targumic evidence’ concerning the background for John's choice of Logos as a designation for Christ’ has recently been made by McNamara, M. (Targum and Testament: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972], pp. 102–3)Google Scholar. He bases his argument on Tg. Neofiti I and its insertion into Exod. xii. 42 of ‘a song in honour of four nights’ of deliverance in salvation history. He quotes approvingly A. Diez Macho's Aramaic version of John i. 14 (from ‘El Logos y el Espiritu Santo’, Atlantida I [1963], 389–90)Google Scholar, without ever asking himself whether such Aramaic surrogates as or (in the buffer sense) or such Aramaic words as (‘see’), (conjunction) are otherwise attested at this period. See further McNamara, M., ‘Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 12⁴²)’, E.T. LXXIX (1967–1968), 115–17.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 3} A Commentary on the Book of Job (tr. H. Knight; London: Nelson, 1967), pp. ccxviii–ccxix.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 4} This targum is said to be of Palestinian origin and to date from the fourth of fifth century A.D.; see Grelot, P., R.Q. VIII (1972–1974), 105.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 5} It seems to occur also in 4Q‘Amram^b ii. 6’ in the sense of ‘command’; but the text is damaged and little can be concluded from it. See J. T. Milik, ‘4Q Visions de ‘Amram’ (see p. 385 n. 4 above), p. 79.

^{page 396 note 1} See Reider, J., ‘Etymological Studies in biblical Hebrew’, V.T. IV (1954), 276–95Google Scholar, esp. p. 294; Driver, G. R., ‘Job 39: 27–28: the KY-bird’, P.E.Q. CIV (1972), 64–6.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 2} See Grelot, P., ‘Note de critique textuelle sur Job xxxix 27’, V.T. XXII (1972), 487–9Google Scholar; Pope, M. H., Job (3rd ed. 1973), p. 314.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 3} See my article ‘Methodology’ (p. 382 n. 1 above).

^{page 397 note 1} Pace G. Vermes, ‘Appendix E: the use of in Jewish Aramaic’, in Black, M., Aramaic Approach (3rd ed. 1967), pp. 310–28Google Scholar, it is never found as a circumlocution for ‘I’ (p. 320), nor does it ‘mean “I”’ (p. 323). See the similar criticism levelled against him by Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology (New York: Scribner, 1971), p. 261Google Scholar n. 1. Vermes reiterates his position in Jesus the Jew, pp. 188–91.

^{page 397 note 2} See further C.B.Q. XXX (1968), 426–7Google Scholar. To the data given there one should now add the following instances of : II Qtg Job ii. 8; ix. 9; xi. 3; xii. [9]; xix. [7]; xxi. 5; xxii. 6; xxiv. 4, 5; xxv. 6; xxvi. 3; xxviii. [1], 2bis; xxxi. 4.

^{page 397 note 3} See ‘Problèmes de la littérature hénochique à la lumière des fragments araméens de Qumrân’, H.T.R. LXIV (1971), 333–78Google Scholar; ‘Turfan et Qumran: Live des Géants juif et manichéen’, Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1971), pp. 117–27.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 1} Flusser, D., ‘Healing through the laying-on of hands in a Dead Sea scroll’, I.E.J. VII (1957), 107–8Google Scholar; Dupont-Sommer, A., ‘Exorcismes et guérisons dans des écrits de Qoumrân’, Congress Volume, Oxford 1959 (VTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960), pp. 246–61Google Scholar; Kee, H. C., ‘The terminology of Mark's exorcism stories’, N.T.S. XIV (1967–1968), 232–46.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 2} The closest that one comes to it in the Old Testament is II Kings v. 11, where the Syrian Naaman expects that Elisha would ‘wave his hand over the place’ cf. the LXX. The text is problematic at best; see my comments on it, CBQ XXII (1960), 284 n. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 3} The Judaean Scrolls (New York: Schocken, 1965), p. 461Google Scholar. This view, of course, depends on Driver's interpretation of the Qumran Scrolls in general, on which see de Vaux, R., R.B. LXXIII (1966), 212–35Google Scholar; N.T.S. XIII (1966–1967), 89–104Google Scholar; New Blackfriars XLVII (1966), 396–411.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 4} Assyrian or Babylonian? (so A. Dupont-Sommer); Hellenistic? (see Weinreich, O., Antike Heilungswunder: Untersuchungen zum Wunderglauben der Griechen und Römer (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 8, I; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1909), pp. 63–6.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 1} Reading in I QapGen xx. 28–9; see my commentary, p. 139. Another possibility would be ‘that blasphemer’, which really does not suit the context as well.

^{page 399 note 2} ‘Further light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave II’, J.B.L. LXXXVI (1967), 25–41Google Scholar; reprinted in slightly revised form in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Chapman, 1971), pp. 245–67.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 3} ‘Milkî-sedeq et Milkî-resa dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens’, J.J.S. XXIII (1972), 95–144.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 4} ‘Visions de ‘Amram’ (see p. 385 n. 4 above), p. 79.

^{page 400 note 1} For a similar list of non-Aramaic parallels, see Murphy, R. E., ‘The Dead Sea scrolls and New Testament comparisons’, C.B.Q. XVIII (1956), 263–72.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 1} Contrast the remarks of Dalman, G., The Words of Jesus, p. 34Google Scholar; Die Worte Jesu (2nd ed. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930), p. 27Google Scholar; Black, M., Aramaic Approach, p. 238.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 2} See Dalman, G., The Words of Jesus, pp. 23–4Google Scholar; Die Worte Jesu, pp. 17–18.

^{page 401 note 3} For the distinction between ‘parallel’ and ‘contact’ and its bearing on what S. Sandmel has called ‘parallelomania’, see my remarks in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, p. 205 n. 1.

^{page 402 note 1} The list in chart is as complete as I can make it at this time. It may be that I have overlooked some texts. I should be grateful to anyone who would inform me of lacunae in it and of the neglected material.

^{page 404 note 1} Trying to keep track of the published Qumran texts is an arduous task. Aside from the fact that some of the preliminary publications appear in unexpected places, there is the further complication of the change of the sigla for some of them. Milik has dome this at times with some of the Enoch material. I have tried to sort out the details, and it is to be hoped that I have given them correctly in this chart. Milik has announced the publication (with the collaboration of M. Black) of the Enoch material, scheduled apparently to appear in October 1974, The Books of Enoch, Aramaic Ffragments of Qumrán Cave 4.