^{page 36 note 1} paraphrase, St John Damascene's, B.&J. 11. 96Google Scholar revealssome misunderstanding by the eighth century. Worthwhile modern studies include Buzy, D., R.B. 39 (1930), 47–61Google Scholar; Schlatter, A., Lukas (Stuttgart, 1931), pp. 346–52Google Scholar; Monnier, J., R.H.P.R. (1936), pp. 191–5Google Scholar; Trilling, W., Christus-verkündigung (Munich, 1969), pp. 108–22Google Scholar; Drury, J., Luke (London/Glasgow, 1973), p. 155Google Scholar; Rasco, E. in Donum Natalicium…Coppens 1 (Gembloux, 1967), 165–83 (bibliography)Google Scholar; Giblin, C. H., C.B.Q. 24 (1962), 15–31Google Scholar; Tooley, W., N.T. 7 (1964), 15–25Google Scholar. Goulder, M., Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London, 1974), pp. 399–400Google Scholar, takes Luke's version to be secondary, and Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Berlin, 1964), pp. 305–8Google Scholar isof the same view. Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (London, 1963)Google Scholar and Linnemann, E., Parables of Jesus (London, 1966)Google Scholar are the staple textbooks, but neither observed the matter figuring in the present study. The obvious connection of Luke xv. 4–10 with John x is ignored by Simonis, A. J., Die Hirtenrede… (Rome, 1967), p. 320Google Scholar; Kiefer, O., Die Hirtenrede (Stuttgart, 1967).Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 2} Evans, C. F., ‘The central section in St. Luke's gospel’, in Studies in the Gospels. Essays…Lightfoot (Oxford, 1955), pp. 37 ff. (at p. 48)Google Scholar. Trompf, G. W., R.H.P.R. (1973), pp. 141–54Google Scholar. Bligh, J., Christian Deuteronomy (Langley, 1970)Google Scholar placesour parable beside Deut. xix. 1–13 (cities of refuge). Habershon (cit. inf) did (p. 188) link Luke xv. 1–7 with Deut. xxii. 1–3. So did the oft-neglected Schlatter, , Matthäus (Stuttgart, 1929), p. 552Google Scholar, who rightly asserts that Luke illustrates Jesus' own behaviour.

^{page 36 note 3} Jülicher, Jeremias, Linnemann.

^{page 37 note 1} Derrett, , J.T.S. 23 (1972)Google Scholar, 438 ff., with references.

^{page 37 note 2} έρευναν: Gen. xxxi. 33–7 (LXX); John v. 39, vii. 52; Rom. viii. 27; I Cor. ii. 10.

^{page 37 note 3} The Textus Receptus retains the distinction, but Westcott and Hort, Souter, Nestle and Kil-patrick print the active, and so does the American Greek New Testament. Yet the evidence for the middle is not confined to the editorial hand of D.

^{page 37 note 4} Ps. cxix. 176; Isa. liii. 6; Jer. 1. 6.

^{page 38 note 1} See the notes to H. Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis 11.10.2 (ed. Barbeyrac or later editions). Roman law (M. Kaser, Das römische Privatrecht, Munich, 1955, 1, 359, citing Dig. 6.1.67, 47.2. 43.4). Hindu law: Kane, P. V., History of Dharmaśāstra 3 (Poona, 1946), 175–6, 464–5.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 2} Hittite laws 45, 60–2, 66, 71. Code of Hammurabi 9, 10, 11. There is an excellent discussion at Powis Smith, J. M., The Origins and History of Hebrew Law (Chicago, 1931, 1960), pp. 34, 50–1.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 3} Aelian, V.H. III. 45, iv.1.

^{page 38 note 4} Exod. xxiii. 4; Lev. vi. 3–7 (v. 20–6 MT). Falk, Z. W., Hebrew Law in Biblical Times (Jerusalem, 1964), p. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 5} Mekilta on Exod. xxiii. 4. Maimonides' 204th positive commandment and 269th negative commandment.

^{page 38 note 6} hēšîv also means ‘to repulse’ (cf. the Johannine scene). The LXX render the emphatic MT as if there were two actions, to go out of one's way and to restore the object. This is a halakic midrash.

^{page 39 note 1} Reflected in the Targ. Pal, to Deut. xxi. 1–3. Jos., , J.A. 4. 274Google Scholar. Philo, Virt. 96. Siphre on Deut. §222–3. The object is to be kept as if it were a deposit. Maimonides, Code, xi (Torts), III.xi–xvii (trans. H. Klein, New Haven, 1954, 127 ff.). Fassel, H. B., Mišpaţê 'ēl (Vienna, 1852), §§388–94.Google ScholarLöwe, H. G. F., Schulchan Aruch II² (Vienna, 1856), bk. iii, §§259–71Google Scholar. Rubin, S., Das Talmudische Recht (Vienna, 1938)Google Scholar, §16. Albeck, S. in Principles of Jewish Law, ed. Elon, M. (Jerusalem, 1975), coll. 226–8Google Scholar. Herzog, I., Main Institutions of Jewish Law. The Law of Property 1 (London and New York, 1965), ch. 17Google Scholar, is perhaps a little less useful. Now see Goldenberg, , J.Q.R. 67 (1976), 30–35.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 2} rēšût is a concept analogous to ‘possession’ and independent of ‘ownership’. Herzog, op. cit. i, 226, 230f. S. Albeck, op. cit. col. 201.

^{page 39 note 3} The stone ('even ha-ţô'îm) is said to have been located: Sepp, J. N., Z.D.P.V. 2 (1879), 48–51Google Scholar. In fact ‘neighbours and acquaintances’ (on whom as a social unit see Krauss, S., Talmudische Archäologie 3, Leipzig, 1912, 21–4) were the people who were interested in finds (b.B.M.28b).Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 1} E.g. Maimonides, ubi cit. xi.III.xiii, 15–19 (trans., 138–9).

^{page 40 note 2} Fassel, op. cit. §392. Justirnan, Dig. 47.2.43.9. In some places a ερετρα was available: ibid., also Greg.Thaum. P.G. 10.1045C.

^{page 40 note 3} Maimonides, ubi cit. xii, 4 (trans., 132–3). , Derrett, ‘Workers in the Vineyard’, ed. Jackson, B. S., Studies in Jewish Legal History (London, 1974), pp. 64 ff., at pp. 75–80.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 4} In the ‘wilderness’ one avoided such suspicion. David (I Sam. xvii. 28) as understood at Midr.R.Exod.II.3 (Soncino trans., 49); so Moses, ibid. See b.B.Q.79b and b.Sanh.25b. These and other passages are used by Jeremias, at Kittel, T. W. N. T. 6 (1965), 487–8.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 5} Van Lith, at Z.pap. epig. 14 (1974), 144.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 6} Traceable to Tristram, supported by Bishop. Both were deceived by contemporary usage. Foerster, W., Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte ³ 1 (Hamburg, 1959), 129 n. says ‘perhaps’Google Scholar, yet Grundmann, , Lukas (1964), p. 308Google Scholar, adopts the idea. It was properly scouted by Edersheim, A., Sketches of Jewish social life in the days of Christ (London, n.d.), pp. 148–50.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 7} Coins lose their currency if deprived of more than one-sixth of their weight (Ejges, S., ‘Das Geld im Talmud’, diss. Giessen, 1930, p.34), but piercing a coin, even if not diminishing it by that amount, defaces it.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 1} Dr C. M. Kraay, Keeper of the Heberden Coin Room, Ashmolean Museum and Mr Martin Price of the Department of Coins and Medals, British Museum, carefully answered my queries relating to this coin.

^{page 41 note 2} Sperbel, D., ‘Costs of living in Roman Palestine’, J.E.S.H.O. 8 (1965), 248‘71 (see pp. 250‘1). One denarius/drachma would buy 12 loaves, one amphora of oil, or one very fine meal; a lamb fetched at different times 4, 8 and 10 denarii.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 3} Maimonides, ubi cit. xiv, 2–10, xvi. One who would like to acquire a lost coin listens intently for the (former) owner to show (e.g. by sighs) that he has performed yēûš, i.e. given up hope of recovery! Thus the woman must set about finding continuously, lest eventually one of her ‘friends’ acquire it! ‘If he hears the owner say, “What a misfortune that I've suffered a loss of money”, or use a similar expression…the lost property in question belongs to the finder’ (Maimonides, ubi cit., trans., 140–1).

^{page 41 note 4} The presumption is raised by the majority of unfixed position: see Maimonides, Code, v.II.viii, 11 (trans., 193).

^{page 41 note 5} Lamsa, G. M., Gospel Light (Philadelphia, 1936), p. 275.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 1} See above, p. 37 n. 3. Not middle in both cases (so Blass–Debrunner–Funk, Grammar, §316(ⁱ); Schmidt, K. L., T.W.N.T. 3, 498²)Google Scholar. Luke so uses the middle at ix. 1, xxiii. 13 and Acts x. 24, xxviii. 17. Herod. ².160. Hermas, sim. 5.2.11.

^{page 42 note 2} Rihbany, A. M., Syrian Christ (London, 1919), p. 109.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 3} See Moses at Num. xii. 7–8. A valuable study: Reumann, J., ‘“Stewards of God” – pre-Christian religious application of oikonomos in Greek’, J.B.L. 127 (1958), 339–49.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 4} The Master of the House theme is much used by Luke: xii. 39, 42–6 (esp. 46), xiii. 25; cf. Matt. xxiv. Dupont, J., ‘La parabole du maître…’ in Mélanges…Rigaux (Gembloux, 1970), pp. 89–116.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 5} Vincent, J. J., Stud. Evang. (Berlin, 1959), p. 88Google Scholar. Hickling, C. J. A., ‘A tract on Jesus and the Pharisees?…’, Hey. J. 16 (1975), 253–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Messiah is a faithful shepherd: Ps. Sal. xvii. 40. Moses was such: Pirqe de R. Eliezer, 40; Philo, , Vita Mos. 1, 60–4.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 6} Wolff, H. J., ‘Die Grundlagen des griechischen Eherechts’, Tjdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiednis 20 (1952), 5–7Google Scholar, 10. Lacey, W. K., The Family in Classical Greece (London, 1968) (see index).Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 7} Philo, Sobr. 63. Jos., B.J. v.458 f. Ezek. xlv. 20. I En. lxxxix. 36. Brand, J., Tarbiz 36 (1967),221–8 (summary at i-iii)Google Scholar. Mark ii. 26; Luke i. 51, xiii. 35, xiv. 23; John ii. 17. For ‘house’ meaning Jerusalem see I En. lxxxix. 50; Test. Levi x. 5. In Greek usage οκος can mean a pagan temple or a religious society. The valuable article by O. Michel, ‘οκος’ in T.W.N.T. does not mention our parable, as the peculiarity of ες τν οἰκον without αὑτο was not recognized. In Lucan usage ατο would have been requisite.

^{page 43 note 1} Isa. xl. ii, xlix. 22, lx. 4, lxvi. 12; Hos. xi. 3. z⁶rô'â can mean shoulder, so Num. vi. 19; Deut. xviii.3; II Kings ix. 24. Le Déaut, R., La. Nuit Pascale (Rome, 1963), p. 269Google Scholar. Isa. xl. 11 was the hafţarah to Exod. iii. 1: Mann, J., The Bible as Read and Preached… 1 (Cincinnati, 1940), 365–9Google Scholar. Note the extraordinary linking with ‘flesh’ at Num. xi. 11–13.

^{page 43 note 2} Mekilta, Bahodeš 2 (ed., trans. Lauterbach II, 203). Noticed by Schlatter, Lukas, p. 351.

^{page 43 note 3} Midr. R. Exod. 11.1 (Soncino trans., 49) noticed by Edersheim, , Montefiore, , Oesterley, , Schlatter, , Ginzberg, (Legends of the Jews v, 414, n. 109)Google Scholar, Bloch, R. (Moïse, Cahiers Sioniens 55, p. 138)Google Scholar, Glasson, (Moses in the Fourth Gospel, 1963, pp. 95–6)Google Scholar; Jónsson, (Humour and Irony, 1965, pp. 120–2)Google Scholar andmost usefully by Kasher, M. M., Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation 7 (New York, 1967), 75–102Google Scholar. Midrash ha-gadol on Exod. iii. 1 in fact quotes Ezek. xxxiv. 15. The story is still treasured: Daiches, D., Moses (London, 1975), p. 46.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 1} The church's interest in the Bush is well known: Mark xii. 26; Luke xx. 37; Acts vii. 30, 35. This theophany, important still for Sufis, has a prominent place in the Dura frescoes, which are concerned with immortality (Garte, E., J.Q.R. 114, 1973 1–15)Google Scholar. It is from the wilderness that Moses will bring the people back in the messianic age: Midr.R.Exod. 11.4 (Sonc. trans., 51). Hos. ii. 14.

^{page 44 note 2} See below, p. 45, n. 4. Also Targ.Pal., Exod. xii. 4 (if the house is fewer than ten the near neighbours shall take according to the number of souls).

^{page 44 note 3} ‘Designation’ or ‘inscription’: Mishnah, Pes. v.3, Zev. v.8, b.Pes. 61 a. Mekilta on Exod., xii.4. The company are called h auûrâ (= ϕρατρα) (Segal, cit. inf. 256).

^{page 44 note 4} Exod. xxviii. 12.

^{page 44 note 5} Cf. I Sam. xiv. 34. The precious information is contained in an ancient discussion whether the usage overrides the Sabbath (the text itself was not formulated prior to A.D. 100, but the information is much older). Mishnah, Pes. vi.i, (b.Pes. 65b, Epstein, Soncino trans., 1938, 332; b.Erub. 103a, Sonc. trans., 715; j.Pes. on vi.i). Neusner, J., The Rabbinical Traditions…, pt. 1 (Leiden, 1971), 246–7Google Scholar. Schwab, M., Talm. Jér. 5 (1882), 81–2Google Scholar. The oldest authority is Tos., Pish a iv.13, translated and analysed by Neusner, ibid. pp. 231–5, 286–9. Later versions appear at j.Shab. xix.i (Schwab, iv, 1881, 178), b.Ŝab. 66 a, Sonc. trans., 334–5. A thief, too, takes a sheep on his shoulder (Tos., B.Q. vii.10, b.B.Q.79b), but though Jesus as a porēṣ (cf.päriṣîm at Jer. vii. II) is a worthwhile topic it seems out of place here. See below, p. 53, n. 4.

^{page 45 note 1} Strabo, xvi.2.23 (Tyre).

^{page 45 note 2} Exod. xii. 15; Deut. xvi. 4. There must be no leaven in the house even if one eats the Passover somewhere else. Maimonides, Code, iii.v.2.3 (trans. Gandz and Klein, 1961, p. 327), ibid. 16–19 (trans., 331–2). Oesterley, W. O. E. and Box, G. H., The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue (London, 1921), p. 385Google Scholar; Friedlander, G., Laws and Customs of Israel (London, 1921), p. 312Google Scholar. Habershon, A., The Study of the Parables (London, 1904), pp. 313, 348Google Scholar, alone came within reach of observing the implication in our parable.

^{page 45 note 3} Segal, J. R., The Hebrew Passover (London, 1963)Google Scholar, deals with the removal of leaven at pp. 26–8, 34, 67–9, 179–80. In no sacrifice to Yahweh is leaven used: e.g. Lev. ii. 11, vi. 17, vii. 12, x. 12. Füglister, N., Die Heitsbedeutung des Pascha (Munich, 1963), pp. 106–7Google Scholar, 113 n. 35. Le Déaut, R., La Nuit Pascale, pp. 266–7Google Scholar. Neofiti Targum on Exod. xii. 42 (the fourth night).

^{page 45 note 4} Num. xiv. 26; 1 QS vi. 3, 6; 1 QSa. ii. 22.Jos. B.J. 11.461. Mishnah, Meg. iv.3, 1.3; 'Av. III.6(7) Ten implies the whole. Haag, H., ‘Die biblischen Würzeln des Minjan’, Abraham unser Vater. Fest. Michel (Leiden, 1963), pp. 235–42Google Scholar. Houses (Exod. xii. 3–4) could consist of five, but ten are ideally required for Passover (b.Pes. 85b). Segal, op. cit. p. 263. For the number 10 see also R. Yaron at Jur. Rev. (1966), pp. 42–6.

^{page 45 note 5} Exod. xii. 6, 14, 24, 42, xiii. 46–7. The Targ.Pal. insists that all the congregation shall mix together to perform it. Num. iX. 13; Jub. xlix. Mishnah, Pes. x. i. Note the phrase ‘in one house shall it be eaten’. Jesus operated towards the totality of God's people (Luke xiii. 16, xix. 5, 9; John xi. 50): Flender, H., Die Botschaft Jesu von der Herrschaft Gottes (Munich, 1968), p. 24Google Scholar. For the people of God, see Num. xvi. 3.

^{page 46 note 1} Ps. lxxviii. 70–2 (cf. Ps. lxxvii. 21). Ezek. xxxiv. 23–4. Midr.R.Exod. 11.2 (Soncino trans., 48–50). Philo, De Jos. 2.

^{page 46 note 2} Zeph. i. 11–12.

^{page 46 note 3} Mark ii. 17 par.

^{page 46 note 4} It is notorious that the Qumran community were notionally, if not actually divided into tens and hundreds. It would not be out of our way to examine the έκατνταρχοι of the New Testament: how many of them are ‘testifiers’? According to notions endemic to Asia the centurion would not merely command but also represent his band.

^{page 47 note 1} The motif is very ancient, continuous and heathen: Leclercq, H., ‘Pasteur (Bon)’, Dict. Arch. Chrét. Lit. 13, 2 (1938), 2272 ff.Google Scholar, esp. §§iv, ix. Klauser, T., ‘Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der christlichen Kunst I’, J.A.C. 1 (1958), 20 ff.Google Scholar, at pp. 24–44, with a catalogue of instances (see pls. 1–4). With his corrections see also Jost, W., ‘Poimen’ (Diss. Giessen, 1939), p. 523Google Scholar. Trench, R. C., Notes on the Parables (London, 1898), p. 384 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 2} Spiegel, S., The Last Trial (New York, 1967), assembles all the material.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 1} As at Gen. xxxvii. 15; b.B.Q. 81 b (Sonc. trans., 463).

^{page 48 note 2} Derrett, , Law in the New Testament (London, 1970), p. 181n. 4 for references.Google ScholarInf, p. 56 n. 6. With κατα πσαν πώλειαν (Deut. xxii. 3) cf. Matt. vii. 13, Phil. i. 28, iii. 19, Rom. ix. 22.

^{page 48 note 3} Statistically, from Matthew's usage, it is more probable that ν here means ‘one’ than that it represents τινα, but translators are not agreed. An Aramaic original would be quite ambiguous. The want of the numeral at Luke xiv. 5 might not be so decisive at this place as suggested by Black, M., Aramaic Approach³ (Oxford, 1967), p. 105.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 4} βθυνος and its variant βθρος mean pit (where one may well be drowned), not drain (where it is less likely). It is a favourite word for hazard (as at Matt. xv. 14), and thus is used at Ps. lvii. 6, xciv. 13; Prov. xxvi. 27; Isa. xlvii. ii. βθρος renders bôr (pit) seven times in Ezekiel. Versions of Ps. cxl. so adopt it. As a synonym for šeôl it is rare, unlike ϕρέαρ (which is Luke's variant: xiv. 14) which renders b⁶'ēr 37 times (Jellicoe, S., ‘Hebrew-Greek equivalents for the nether world…’ Textus 8, 1973, 1–19).Google Scholar The Dead Sea Scrolls use bor for hell.

^{page 48 note 5} See last note. Much depends on the impression created by γερεī. Of the two verbs used for the Resurrection it appears that the original was νέστη, but that this term was partially replaced by ήγέρθη. Note έγεíρετε (Matt. x. 8); έγεíρονται (Mark xii. 26); γειρεν (Mark ix. 27). Cf. γερσις at Matt. xxvii. 53. My point is that any tradition containing this root would be scrutinized by the church for covert promises of resurrection.

^{page 48 note 6} Unobserved by Strecker (1962), p. 19 and Lohse (1960). Hummel, R., however, rightly recognizes the passage as Christian halakah: Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum (Munich, 1963), p. 45Google Scholar. The facts are evident from Billerbeck, Kommentar i, 629Google Scholar, which most commentators cite. The downright CD xiii. 23 as well as Mishnah, B.Q.V.6 have the same tendency: lifting the animal is forbidden. The relatively permissive rule quoted as a minority opinion at b. Šab. 128 b does not authorize the act propounded by Jesus. Braun, H., Spätjüdisch-häretischer… 1 (Tübingen, 1957), 119Google Scholar andn. 3. It is time to reopen the question of the reading at Luke xv. 5, where on the analogy of 15 νος might be preferred. ‘Release’ is the theme of both passages: see CD xiii. 9 f. (of the m⁶vaqër). One's neighbour's ox and ass must be helped under the principles of Deut. xxii. 1–4! How much more the neighbour himself!

^{page 49 note 1} Luke xiii. 15–16.

^{page 49 note 2} Luke xix. 9–10: τ οκῳ τοτῳ, evidently not Zacchaeus'!

^{page 49 note 3} Derrett, Law in the New Testament, pp. 282–5, where I failed to see the double meaning in οκος (last note).

^{page 49 note 4} Midr.R., Deut. VI. 4 (Soncino trans., 123). Derrett, op. cit. p. 100 n. 2. b.Sanh. 72a.

^{page 49 note 5} Mishnah at b.Sanh. 46a.

^{page 49 note 6} R. 'Aqiba at Sifre on Num., §131; Targ. Pal., Num. vi. 2.

^{page 49 note 7} Derrett, Law, pp. 454–5. b.Sanh. 46a (Mishnah).

^{page 50 note 1} I Cor. ix. 8–11.

^{page 50 note 2} b.Sanh. 45b–46a. Jos., J.A. 4, 202.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 3} Gal. iii. 13; I Pet. ii. 24; Acts v. 30, X. 39, xiii. 29. The emphatic effect of this accumulation is remarkable.

^{page 50 note 4} Haggadah says that Isaac carried the wood like a man condemned to be impaled (literally like Mark viii. 34, x. 21, xv. 2 I, since σταυρς is a stake) (see Spiegel, cit. sup.). Jewish writers insist that Deut. xxi. 23 has nothing to do with crucifixion: Hertz, J. H., Pentateuch and Haftorahs (London, 1956), p. 842Google Scholarad loc. Griffiths, at N.T.S. 16 (1969–1970), 358Google Scholar. is helpful.

^{page 50 note 5} Hermas, sup., p. 42 n. 1. Justin, Dial. 1.2. Irenacus, adv. haer. V.15, 2 (P.G. 7.1165C). Tertullian, de pudic. 7, 10. Jerome, ep. lxix ad Oceanum, i. The obvious citations, Heb. xiii. 20; I Pet. ii. 24–5; Rev. vii. 17 may relate rather to Ps. xxiii and prophetic passages. The ‘chief shepherd’ at I Pet. v. 4 clearly raises such doubts.

^{page 51 note 1} Most commentators including Schmid, J., Matthäus und Lukas (Freiburg i. B., 1930), p. 306Google Scholar and onwards.

^{page 51 note 2} Dehandschutter, B. in L'Évangile de Luc…Cerfaux (Gembloux, 1973), p. 292Google Scholar and n. 29 (bibliography) argues for its antiquity. But see Rasco (sup., p. 36 n. i), pp. 173–4; Menestrina, G., Bibbia e Oriente 17 (1975), 7Google Scholar if. at pp. 86, 92. Haenchen, E., Botschaft (1961), p. 47Google Scholar. Schrage, , Verhältnis (1964), pp. 194 f.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 3} Hauck, Fr., Die Stellung des Urchristentums zu Arbeit und Geld (Gütersloh, 1921), esp. pp. 70–93Google Scholar. Hengel, M., Properly and Riches (London, 197), ch. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 4} Luke xvi. 9.

^{page 51 note 5} Mark xiv. 6. See lexica under t ôv (i ‘good’, 2 ‘oil’) and cf. Qo. vii. i.

^{page 51 note 6} Jastrow, Dictionary, p. 385, col. i.

^{page 51 note 7} Midr.R., Num. XXII. 8 (Soncino trans., 860).

^{page 51 note 8} NDH. See esp. Isa. xi. 12, Xvi. 34, xxvii. 13, lvi. 8; Ps. cxlvii. 2. nidāh im at Deut. xxii. i is related to nidah a at Ezek. xxxiv. i6 and Mic. iv. 6 (excommunicated). Cf. Zeph. iii. 19.

^{page 52 note 1} See sup., p. 47 n. i. Malakbel (could there be anything more heathen?) was a psychopompic deity.

^{page 52 note 2} Derrett, , J.T.S. 25 (1974), 426–32Google Scholar and references.

^{page 52 note 3} Derrett, , ‘The Good Shepherd: St John's use of Jewish halakah and haggadah’, Stud. Theol. 27 (1), 25–50.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 4} John xii. i6 relates back to ii. 17, 22.

^{page 52 note 5} Derrett, , ‘Law in the New Testament: the Palm Sunday colt’, N.T. 13 (1971), 241–58.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 6} Siphre on Deut., §224, and legal works cited sup., p. 39 n. i.

^{page 52 note 7} Cullmann, O., ‘Der johanneische Gebrauch doppeldeutiger Ausdrücke…’, T.Z. (1948), 360 ff.Google Scholar, id., Early Christian Worship (London, 1953), 41, 50.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 1} Olsson, B., Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel (Lund, 1974)Google Scholar, rev. Hey. J. 16 (1975), 442–3.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 2} ii. 13, 23.

^{page 53 note 3} The topic deserves separate treatment. Mark insinuates that the temple held a περδειπνον!

^{page 53 note 4} Haenchen (Weg, 1966, 38–9) is sceptical of the episode because of the strange use of Isa. lvi. 7 and Jer. vii. ii (cf. Ezek. vii. 22). But the temple became a cave because of the illegitimate use of its space, not the trade. Doubts as to whether Jer. vii. ii is in point (Wolff, C., Jeremia, 1976, pp. 155–7) are unnecessary.Google Scholar For the Jesus-robber theme (sup., p. 52 n. 3) much must be said, but elsewhere.

^{page 53 note 5} κέρμα seems a better reading than κέρματα since the collective noun is more comprehensive (it includes silver): but the original reading cannot be established on that ground alone.

^{page 53 note 6} Daube, D., Civil Disobedience in Antiquity (Edinburgh, 1972), pp. 101–9Google Scholar (transition to violence in the nature of sedition); Hengel, M., Victory over Violence (London, 1975)Google Scholar, ch. 8 (exemplary demonstration). The theological discussions, listed below, do not concentrate on the ‘violence’ theme, but it is implicit in the incident itself: Lightfoot, , Gospel Message of St Mark (Oxford, 1950), pp. 60–9Google Scholar (the event has to do with the rights of gentiles); Léon-Dufour, X., R.S.R. 39 (1951), 155–75Google Scholar; Cullmann, O., Early Christian Worship (sup.), pp. 71–4Google Scholar; Doeve, J. W., N.T.S. 1 (1954–1955), 297–308Google Scholar; Mendner, S., Z.N.W. 17 (1956), 93–112Google Scholar; Buse, I., E.T. 50 (1958), 22–4Google Scholar; Hamilton, N. Q., J.B.L. 133 (1964), 365–72Google Scholar; Eppstein, V., Z.N.W. 15 (1964), 42–58Google Scholar; Trocmé, E., N.T.S. 15 (1968), 1–22Google Scholar; Griffiths, J. G., N.T.S. 16, (1969), 358–64Google Scholar; Hiers, R. H., J.B.L. 90 (1975), 82–90Google Scholar (preparation for the kingdom of God).

^{page 54 note 1} Roth, C., ‘The cleansing of the Temple and Zech. xiv. 21’, N.T. 4 (1960), 174–81.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 2} I Macc. iv. 46, xiv. 41–2. The fact that Jesus acted as prophet was observed by Lightfoot, ubi cit., pp. 68–9.

^{page 54 note 3} Declared with all solemnity by Herzog, op. cit. i, xxii, n. 3.

^{page 54 note 4} So far as the criminal law was concerned the famous Greek inscription (now in Istanbul) makes this clear, with its threat of death (Derrett, Law, p. 433 for references); and the right of young priests to kill priests serving in uncleanness (Mishnah, Sanh. ix.6: the commentary of Maimonides as reported by Goldin, H. E., Hebrew Criminal Law (New York, 1952), p. 191Google Scholar, frankly admits that ‘if they see fit to punish in this manner they are not to be interfered with’!). The civil law of the Temple was peculiar in numberless ways, e.g. the absence of a rule of restitution, the non-applicability of the law of usury, and infinite privileges of the heqdēš (possibly the ancestor of privilegia piae causae in canon law?). Flogging was appropriate for misdeeds in the temple: Mishnah, Makk. iii. i ff. For the hostility of sectarians and others to the temple procedure (cf. Acts vi. 54) see Cullmann, O., J.B.L. 74 (1955), 222–3Google Scholar, id., N.T.S. 5 (1958–1959), 157–73Google Scholar; Gärtner, B., The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A. in Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L., Studies in Luke-Acts (London, 1968), pp. 233 ff.Google Scholar, at p. 249.

^{page 55 note 1} The Jewish Law is peculiar. The gratuitous bailee (šômeēr h innam) is liable except for inevitable accident. Dembitz, L. N., J.E. 2 (1902), 456–9Google Scholar. God had no desire to acquire the animals and cash and therefore the temple had no reēšût. Property on one's premises when the latter are not kept for one will not be in one's reēšût, as it is deemed certain to be lost or to be taken by others and is not at one's disposal: Albeck, ubi cit., p. 202. The animals were within the reēšût of the sellers until Jesus' action, when momentarily they came within Deut. xxii. 1–3.

^{page 55 note 2} For the meaning of heēšîv see sup., p. 38 n. 6. Unlawful acts do not bind the principal: Derrett, Law, 52–3. Before a bailment liability can be delimited by agreement: Mishnah, B.M. vii. 10, 11, b.B.M. 94a. Onerous serviudes acquired tacitly are examples of licences accorded by mistake which may be revoked unilaterally: Albeck, p. 204. One must not impound lost property (whether or not doing damage), for it is like a deposit (see last note), or one becomes a robber (b.B.M. 7a). The mode of return of lost animals is immaterial: b.B.M. 31a (Soncino trans., 192).

^{page 55 note 3} For the two modes of acquisition, viz, drawing and lifting, see Herzog, op. cit. i, ch. xi; Derrett, , Law, pp. 6–7Google Scholar. A finder must not appropriate the find or he is a thief: b.B.M. 26b.

^{page 56 note 1} Ejges, cit. sup., does not compel us to visualize their acting as bankers. They gave change, and automatically performed δοκιμασíα of silver and gold coinage (see Jer. vi. 30). Here Jesus acts as the great money-assayer! Their tables, by the way, were not tables as we know them but wooden benches at no particular height from the ground.

^{page 56 note 2} Derrett, Law, p. 329 n. 4. Bearers of the holy spirit, even if not prophets or sons of prophets, might quixotically comport themselves towards the Sabbath, Passover, and the jurists' objections: so said Hillel: b.Pes. 66a (Soncino trans., 335).

^{page 56 note 3} See sup., p. 55 n. 3.

^{page 56 note 4} Derrett, , Law, p. 25 n. 3 for references.Google Scholar Siphre on Deut., §223 makes it plain that if one does not return ‘lost’ property promptly one is liable for damage that accrues in the interval.

^{page 56 note 5} The grammar is commented on by every commentator, and especially the rarity of τε…καí (Blass–Debrunner–Funk, Grammar, §§443, 444).

^{page 56 note 6} It is essential to draw attention to the different levels of the New Testament at which Ps. viii figures in the Christian apologetic: Matt. xi. 25, xxi. i6; I Cor. i. 27; Heb. ii. 6–8; I Cor. xv. 27–8; Matt. xxviii. 18. I contended that this psalm was indeed Jesus' defence of the cornfield episode (Derrett, , J.R. As. Soc. 1975, 1 ff., at pp. 9–10).Google Scholar So Bornhäuser, K., N.K.Z. 33 (1922), 325–34Google Scholar. See Midrash on Psalms, Ps. 8, §§7–8, and b.Sanh. 38 b. The messianic character of the psalm is not doubted.

^{page 57 note 1} The Hebrew tifq⁶dennû can well be read, by 'al tiqrê, as tafqidennû, meaning ‘makest him an inspector’. The relevance of this to the Cleansing of the Temple is obvious. We cannot deny St John's, or his source's, acquaintance with the Masoretic Text, and variant pointings thereto.

^{page 57 note 2} Deut. xvi. 2, 6; Jer. vii. 3–14; John xi. 48.

^{page 57 note 3} Waldstein, W., ‘Geisselung’, R.A.C. 185 (1974), 471Google Scholar, col. i. Schneider, C., T.W.N.T. 4, 522Google Scholar. Krauss, S.Synagogale Altertümer (1922), pp. 186 f.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 1} I Cor. x. 57. Cullmann, , Early Christian Worship (1953), 72–4Google Scholar. Hoskyns, E. C., Fourth Gospel (London, 1947), p. 196Google Scholar. II Cor. vi. 16; Eph. ii. 21; I Pet. ii. 5; Heb. iii. 6; I Pet. iv. i I Tim. iii. 15. The psalm figures at Rom. xv. 3 in the context of eating. Jesus' alienation from his brothers (as at Ps. lxix. 8–9) may be relevant. h erpôt h ô⁶feychaā could mean ‘those who were objects of reproach by them that scorned thee’, which would fit Jesus' ‘sinners’.

^{page 58 note 2} Derrett, Law, pp. 229–38.

^{page 60 note 1} Ibid. pp. 119–20, 123.