^{page 22 note 1} 3rd edn. (Göttingen, 1962), 387–94Google Scholar. See also Kittel-Friedrich, , Theol. Wört. z. N. T. VII (1960), 88–93.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 2} Dannenbauer, K. in Der Bote aus Zion, LXX (1955), 15–21Google Scholar, cited by Jeremias, J., Die Gleichnisse Jesu, 6th edn. (Göttingen, 1962), 201.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 3} (Strack-)Billerbeck, Kommentar z. N.T. II (Munich, 1961), 180–1.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 4} Beauvery, R., ‘La route romaine de Jérusalem à Jéricho’, Rev. Bibl. XLIV (1957), 72–101Google Scholar. osephus, , Bell. Jud. IV, viii, 3.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 1} Wetstenius, ad loc. shows that the phrase is in any event a cliché.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 2} So Arabic, Diatessaron. Wis. xviii. 18Google Scholar; cf. IV Macc. iv. II. B. Weiss cites Galen, de morb. diff. 5: the word does not exclude a power of movement.

^{page 23 note 3} See Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, s.v. κτηνος; Diatessaron, 34, 22–45.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 4} As supposed by Bornhäuser, K. at Z. f. syst. Theol. IX (1932), 558.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 5} Ta'anit, b. 21a=Sonc. trans. 104–5Google Scholar; b. San. 108b=Sonc. 647.

^{page 23 note 6} Attending to the facts we find the Samaritan's generosity was not boundless, though extensive.

^{page 23 note 7} Nielsen, E., Shechem (Copenhagen, 1955)Google Scholar, deals with vi. 9 at 19n., 26, 283n., 290f. and 323n. He translates: ‘As robbers lie in wait, / a gang of priests / along the road they murder unto Shechem, / yea, wicked plans they carry out.’ Adam is ed-Damije. For the dialect, Hirschberg, H. H., Vet. Test. XI (1961), 382ff., 382–5.Google Scholar To the Qumran people v. 9 proved that God will requite the Seekers-after-smooth-things at Jerusalem, and they inserted it between the commentary on Isa. xxx. 18 and 19: Allegro, J. M., J. Bib. Lit. LXXVII (1958), 215–21, 219CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Studying the LXX, Syr., Symm. and the Qumran reading, the Vulg., Theod. and the Quinta we have the following words at our disposal: (1) lying in wait; (2) a man; (3) robbers; (4) company, association; (5) priests; (6) road; (7) they murder; (8) towards Shechem.

^{page 23 note 8} Mid. Rab. S.S. IIGoogle Scholar, 5, 3 = Sonc. 107; b. San. 89 b = Sonc. 594, ibid. 104a = 706 (cf. II Chron. ix. 29); Jos. Ant. VIII, ix; Constit. Apostolorum, IV, vi, 6. Ginzberg, L., Legends of the Jews, VI (Phila., 1959), 211, n. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 9} Orth, F., Protest. Monatsh. XVIII (1914), 406–11, 410Google Scholar; Kastner, K., Bibl. Z. XII (1914), 29–30.Google ScholarNoted by Bultmann, , Gesch. d. syn. Tr., 4th edn. (Göttingen, 1958), 221–2Google Scholar; Hauck, , Lukas (Leipzig 1934), 146f.Google Scholar; Peake's Commentary on the Bible, ed. Black, M., Rowley, H. H. (London, 1962), 318e.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 1} Philo, , De Spec. Leg. IV, xxxviGoogle Scholar; John i. 19; Deut. xvii. 9ff.; xxi. 5; Ezra xliv. 24; I Chron.xxiii. 4, cf. xxvi. 29; Sir. Xlv. 17. Jeremias, , Jerusalem, pp. 234 and n. 2, 304–5.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 2} Halévy, J., Rev. Étud. Juives, IV (1882), 249–55.Google ScholarC., Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels, II (London, 1927), 466–7.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 3} b. ‘Av. Zar. 22a= Sonc. III. Jos. Ant. XXIII, xxii, 29f.Google Scholar: Jeremias, , Jerusalem, p. 389Google Scholar. b. ‘Er. 31 b = Sonc. 216–17 (independence of interpretation).

^{page 25 note 1} Mishnah, , 'Avot, VI, 6Google Scholar; b. B.K. 110b = Sonc. 646–7.

^{page 25 note 2} St. z. Sondergut d. Lukas (Gütersloh, 1934), pp. 69 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 3} Coulson, Mr N. J. denies that such an outlook has any place in Islamic teachings; Mr E. Cotran, a Palestinian Arab and a lawyer, describes the idea as ‘nonsense’.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 4} A story of a Jew actually cogitating whether to rescue a disabled man at the risk of breaking the sabbath laws appears at Midr. R. Eccl. 91 b, of which a version appears in Schoettgenius, C., Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae (Dresden/Leipzig, 1733), p. 279Google Scholar. It is significant that the benefactor ‘mastered his evil inclination’ (see below), and was rewarded by a miracle. We note, moreover, that he was afraid of his and his family's missing their meal, as well as a breach of a ritual law.

^{page 25 note 5} b. San. 73a=Sonc. 495–6; Sifra, par. K^edoshim (trans. Winter, J., Breslau, , 1938, p. 506).Google ScholarFathers acc. Nathan, R.Google Scholar, ch. XVI (trans. Goldin, J., Yale Jud. Ser. x, New Haven, 1955, p. 86Google Scholar). Billerbeck, I, 359. Paul broke this: Acts xxii. 20. It is the point of Ps. xxxviii. 12a (M.T.).

^{page 25 note 6} b. San. 57a = Sonc. 389. Maimonides, , Mishneh Torah, XI, v, iv, IIGoogle Scholar (Code of Maim., Book of Torts, trans. Klein, H., Yale Jud. Ser., New Haven, 1954, p. 208Google Scholar). Lightfoot, , Hor. Hebr., ad x. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 7} Sifre on Num., para. 130 (on Num. xix. 22), trans. Kuhn, K. G. (Stuttgart, 1959), pp. 5oof.Google Scholar b. Άv. Zar. 37b = Sonc. 182–3. Billerbeck, ubi cit. p. 183, is imperceptive. J. Jeremias, Gleichnisse, in earlier edns. gave weight to this aspect (see Parables of Jesus, trans. Hooke, S. H., London, 1954/1958, pp. 140–2)Google Scholar, but in his latest edn., p. 202, he voices doubts. These are answered here.

^{page 25 note 8} Deut. xx. 19; b. Hull. 7b=Sonc. 30. b. M.K. 22b, 25a; Maim. op. cit. XIV, IV, ix, II, trans. Hershman, (1949), p. 189Google Scholar. Note the delightful story at b. B.K. 91b=Sonc. 529; also cf. b. Ta'anit. 23a. On priests and such rending see b. Hor. 12b= Sonc. 90, 94.

^{page 26 note 1} b. Sot. 43b–44a = Sonc. 218–19. He would incur a disciplinary flogging: Maim., op. cit. XIV, IV, iii, 13.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 2} Mishnah, , Όholot, XVI, I (Danby, Mishnah, Oxford, 1933, p. 672Google Scholar; Blackman, P., Mishnayoth, VI, London, 1955, p. 278).Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 3} See Blackman on Όholot. Danby, , op. cit. index, p. 842Google Scholar. b. Pes. 90b–91a=Sonc. 485–6. Maim. op. cit.x, I, i, 13 (reference to a gentile may be post-Mishnaic, but in any case there was a doubt—and in doubts regarding death uncleanness the inference is positive, see Mishnah, , Taharot, IV, II (Danby, p. 722Google Scholar, Blackman, ubi cit. 498)).Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 4} b. Yev. 20 b. Mekilta, Kaspa 2 (Lauterbach, III, 166–7)Google Scholar. b. B.M. 30a=Sonc. 186 (priest and lost animal in cemetery).

^{page 26 note 5} b. Hull. 7a= Sonc. 28–9. Cf. Mishnah, , Shab. XIX, 3 (Danby, p. 117)Google Scholar; b. Sheb. 134a= Sonc. 678–87. b. B.B. 158b–159b. Maim. op. cit. XIII, v, 5 (trans. Rabinowitz, J. J., New, Haven, 1949, pp. 273ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 6} Lev. iv. 27–8, v. 17–18. Maim. op. cit. IX, IV, trans. Danby, H. (New Haven, 1950), pp. 93ffGoogle Scholar

^{page 26 note 7} Mid. R. Deut. I, 5, Sonc. trans., Rabbinowitz, J. (London, 1939), p. 16Google Scholar. Lauterbach, J. Z., H.U.C.A. VI (1929), 69–139Google Scholar. b. Sot. 44b=Sonc. 225ff.

^{page 26 note 8} Jos. Ant. xx, viii, 8 (Niese, IV, p. 258); also ibid. ix, 2 (Jeremias, , Jerusalem, II, 121–2).Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 9} b. San. 82b=Sonc. 550 (death at hands of Heaven).

^{page 27 note 1} Maim. op. cit. x, v, i, vii, viii, trans., pp. 5 ff., 278 ffGoogle Scholar. Danby, , Mishnah, p. 714, n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 2} Uncleanness is communicated to most utensils and garments. Maim. op. cit. x, I, v, trans. Danby, (1954), pp. 23 ffGoogle ScholarPhilo, , De Spec. Leg. I, xxiv-xxv (Colson, 1937, vii, pp. 167–73).Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 3} b. Ta'anit 27a= Sons. 143 (on Mishnah, Ta'anit, IV, 2).

^{page 27 note 4} Read with caution Mid. R. Levit. VIII, I (trans. Israelstam, J. and Slotki, J. J., London, 1939), p. 227.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 5} An agent is as oneself. For an analogous rule see b. B.K. 1 110a = Sonc. 640 (an aged priest).

^{page 27 note 6} Mishnah, , Gitt. III, 7 (Danby, p. 310)Google Scholar, b. Gitt. 30a. It was possible to become rich on tithes (Josephus, , Vita, 12Google Scholar), therefore they could be secularized and converted in terms of money.

^{page 27 note 7} Danby, , p. 147.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 8} Mishnah, , Όholot, XVI, 4 (Blackman, p. 281).Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 9} Mekilta, Kaspa 2, cit. sup. For the principle see also b. Kid. 32a.

^{page 27 note 10} Exod. xxiii. 4, 5; Deut. xxii. 1–4.

^{page 28 note 1} b. B.M. 30a=Sonc. 186. b. Ber. 19b= Sons. 118–19.

^{page 28 note 2} b. Ber. 19b=Sonc. 117–18.

^{page 28 note 3} Mid. R. Exod. xv, 19 (on xii. I) = Sonc. 183–4. For priests' avoidance of graves see Mid. R. Lev. (K^ed.) XXIV, 7=Sonc. 309; XXVI, 5=Sonc. 329–30.

^{page 28 note 4} b. Ber. 19b = Sonc. 118; b. Meg. 3b = Sonc. 13–14; b. Shab. 81b = Sonc. 387.

^{page 28 note 5} Abrahams, , Studies, II, 39Google Scholar. Bacher, , Agada d. Tannaiten, I (Strasbourg, 1903), 57ff.Google ScholarMann, J., J.Q.R. n.s. VI (1915/1916), 421Google Scholar, refers to j.Pea 21b. Gimzo or Gamzu was a pupil of Johanan b. Zakkai and teacher of R. Άkiba (b. Shevu. 26a= Sonc. 138).

^{page 28 note 6} b. Ta'anit 21a= Sonc. 104–5.

^{page 28 note 7} M. Sheni v, 9; Ter. IV, 2. For forestalling by levites see b. Έr. 31b= Sonc. 216–17. A levite shows how to rinse before eating tithe at b. Hull. 196b = Sonc. 591.

^{page 28 note 8} Jeremias, J., Jerusalem, pp. 121–3.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 1} Jeremias, J., Gleichnisse, p. 202Google Scholar (‘der das Liebesgebot erfüllt’). Schlatter, A., Lukas (Stuttgart, 1931), p. 286.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 2} b. Nid. 56b=Sonc. 395–6; Masseket Kutim, I, 16.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 3} On έπί; Blass-Debrunner, , 9th/10th edn., §233 (3), trans. (1961), p. 122, have doubts; but Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, III, 2, a (p. 289) are contentGoogle Scholar. So Klostermann, , Das Lukasevangelium, 2nd edn. (Tübingen, 1929), p. 121Google Scholar. Recovery should be within three days to fit the symbolism: Mid. R. Gen. (Mikkets) XCI, 7=Sonc. 842–4; ibid. (Vayera) LVI, I=Sonc. 491 (both cite Hos. vi. 2). Yet, , Black, M., Aramaic Approach, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1954), pp. 151–2Google Scholar, suggests only a temporal sequence.

^{page 29 note 4} b. B.B. 174a=Sonc. 765–6. Maim. op. cit. XIII, III, xxv, 5 (trans. Rabinowitz, , p. 174).Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 5} Mid. R. Exod. xv, 18 (on xii. I) = Sonc. 183.

^{page 30 note 1} Sugranyes De Franch, R., Etudes sur le Droit Palestinien à l' Époque Évangélique. La Contrainte par Corps (Fribourg, 1946).Google ScholarDeissmann, A., Light from the Ancient EastGoogle Scholar (trans. Strachan, , London, 1927), pp. 369–70.Google ScholarZingg, E., judaica, XVI (1960), 72–102Google Scholar, 156–71, 207–15. Cohen's, B. ‘Civil bondage in Jewish and Roman law’, Louis Ginzberg jubilee Volume (1945), pp. 114 ff.Google Scholar, has not been seen by the writer.

^{page 30 note 2} Black, M., op. cit. p. 98Google Scholar. For the contemporary law we must look behind the fictitious considerations, the kinyan sudar, q.v. in any textbook and encyclopaedia of Jewish law.

^{page 30 note 3} Cohn, , Z.V.R. XXXVI (1920) at pp. 148–50. CfGoogle Scholar. ibid. pp. 422–42, ref. b. B.B. 138a, b. B.M. 96b. Here no mandate could have been given.

^{page 30 note 4} J., Blumenstein, Die versch. Eidesarten… (Frankfurt, 1883), p. 15Google Scholar. Mishnah, , Gittin, I, 5 (Danby, p. 307).Google ScholarMontgomery, , Samaritans (Philadelphia, 1907), p. 185.Google ScholarEta, Linnemann, Gleichnisse jesu (Göttingen, 1961), p. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 5} b. San. 57a= Sonc. 388. Masseket Kutim, II, 28. Montgomery, , op. cit. p. 203Google Scholar. Cf. b. B.K. 113a=Sonc. 664; Mishnah at b. B.K. 37b=Sonc. 211.

^{page 30 note 6} άπελπίοντες cannot mean ‘expecting therefrom’ or ‘expecting in return’, not merely because it is unexampled, but because such a transaction would emphatically not be a loan, but a gift.

^{page 31 note 1} ‘Do this and live’ (v. 28b) recalls Gen. xiii. 18.

^{page 31 note 2} Mid. R. Deut. VIII, 4=Sonc. 152.

^{page 31 note 3} Mid. R. Gen. (Vayyishlah) Lxxx, 2–3= Sonc. 736–7. Theodor, J. and Albeck, Ch., Bereschit Rabba, par. XLVIII–LXXVI (Berlin, 1927), p. 953Google Scholar. Yalkūt Shim 'onī, p. 523Google Scholar. Levi paid (Exod. xxxii. 26)— see Yalkūt, p. 955Google Scholar (I. Ziegler, Königsgleichnisse, Breslau, , 1903, p. 249)Google Scholar. On b. Sot. 22b= Sonc. 112 see Gertner, M., B.S.O.A.S. XXVI (1963), 260, 262.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 4} Heb. xi. 31; Jas. ii. 25.

^{page 31 note 5} b. Ber. 11a=Sonc. 60–3. Kadushin, Max, Rabbinic Mind (New York, 1952), p. 125Google Scholar. Sh^ema' and robbers!

^{page 31 note 6} Kortleitner, F. X., Arch. Bibl. Summ. (Oenip., 1906), pp. 119–21Google Scholar. Maim. op. cit. VIII, v, ii, 12 (trans. Lewittes, , Yale, 1957, p. 170).Google ScholarPhilo, , De Spec. Leg. I, clxxix, ed. Colson, , 1937, vii, p. 201Google Scholar. Any wood might be burnt on the altar except olive and vine: Mid. R. Levit. VII, I =Sonc. 90.

^{page 31 note 7} Loisy saw the relevance, but Lagrange denied it.

^{page 31 note 8} b. Yoma 24b= Sonc. 113 (cf. Mishnah at b. Yoma 25a = Sonc. 116). Mishnah, Menahot, IX at b. Men. 86b=Sonc. 522; ibid. XII (end) and Sonc. 641–2, 658. Cell (or Chamber) of the House of Oils (see any plan of the Temple). Letter of Aristeas, § 92.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 1} Bell, Jud. v, xiii, 6 (Niese, v, 565, vol. 6, p. 511, but the text of Naber, S. A., Teubner, 1895, is better). Cf. Jdt. Xi. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 2} Gerhardsson, B., Good Samaritan (Copenhagen, 1958), p. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 3} Cohen, A., introd. to Sonc. trans. b. Άvodāh Zarāh (London, 1935), p. xiii.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 4} b. Yoma 55b = Sonc. 263, b.B.K. 69b = Sonc. 399 (Cuthean wine!). b. Hull. 6a = Sonc. 24. Mixed substances might not be titheable. Were the two poured simultaneously, as insisted by Ps.-Chrysostom, In parab. eius q. incid. in latr., Migne, P.G. LXII, col. 755, 757—αναμίξας? Cf. b. Shab. 134a = Sonc. 673.

^{page 32 note 5} Mishnah, , Demai, I, 4 (Danby, p. 21)Google Scholar; Shab. IX, 4 (ibid. p. 108). Schwab, M., Talm. de Jérus. III (1902), 210–11 (Masser Schéni, II, I).Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 6} Wine: Deut. xxxii. 38 (Άv. Zar. 31a=Sonc. 147); Mishnah, , Άv. Zar. II, 3 (Danby, p. 438)Google Scholar, b. Άv. Zar. 31a=Sonc. 155–6; b. Nid. 56b=Sonc. 397, 57a=400. Oil: Mishn. Άv. Zar. II, 6 (Danby, p. 439), Sonc. p. 171, n. 8. Cf. Jos., Vita, 13. R. Judah II permitted the oil: Άv. Zar. 35b–36a = Sonc. 173–6.

^{page 32 note 7} Jdt. x. 5; xii. 1–4, 19; Dan. i. 8; b. Shab. 13b, 17b.

^{page 33 note 1} Does Cullmann, O. go too far, in Early Church (London, 1956), p. 186 (race-prejudice)?Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 2} ‘Do this and live’ recalls Deut. v. 30; vi. 24; Lev. xviii. 5. ‘Go’ recalls Exod. iii. 16, iv. 12, 19; xxxii. 7. Cf. Matt. ii. 20; Acts ix. 15; Luke xvii. 19. The word is attributed to Jesus in this conclusive sensel Luke v. 24; vii. 50; viii. 48; John iv. 50; viii. II. But ‘hither’ at Luke xviii. 22d (sequel to the deuteronomic section) is, as it were, an improvement. Manson, T. W. said (Teaching of Jesus, Cambridge, 1955, p. 301)Google Scholar that Jesus refused to legislate, but this is using the word ‘legislate’ in another sense.

^{page 34 note 1} Sifre on Num. 131. Mark xiv. 62 appears to contain an example.

^{page 34 note 2} Rom. xiii. 8–10; Gal. v. 14; Jas. ii. 8–12. Sifre, 782. Mid. R. Levit. (K^ed.) XXIV, 5= Sonc. 307–8.

^{page 34 note 3} Sifra, para. K^edoshim (trans. Winter, , p. 507)Google Scholar. Bacher, , Agada, I, 417–18Google Scholar; Moore, , Judaism, II (Cambridge, Mass., 1927/1958), 85Google Scholar; Abrahams, I., Studies, I (Cambridge, 1917), 18–29Google Scholar; Foerster, W., Neutest. Zeitgesch. 3rd edn. (Hamburg, 1959), p. 199Google Scholar; Billerbeck, , op. cit. I, 357–8.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 4} So Kosmala, , referring to Weiss and Bacher, at Judaica, IV (1948), 248ff.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 5} I John iii. 17; iv. 20. Fathers acc. to R. Nathan, cited above. Didache, I, 2. Jas. iii. 9–10.

^{page 34 note 6} Bundy, W. E., Jesus and the First Three Gospels (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), pp. 339–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarKnox, W. L., Sources of the Syn. Gos. II (Cambridge, 1957), 57–8Google Scholar. Tatian fits Luke x. 28b–37 on to Mark xii. 32–34 a. Matthew comments on Mark xii, 29b being excised and the misleading xxii. 38–39a added.

^{page 34 note 7} Άv., Zar. II, 5 (Danby, p. 439).Google ScholarJeremias's, J. suggestion (after Lightfoot) at Z.N.W. XXVI, (1926), 129Google Scholar, though plausible linguistically, is not now adhered to. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. Works, (London, 1823, xii, p. 99)Google Scholar draws attention to a similar amoraitic usage.

^{page 34 note 8} Fathers acc. to R. Nathan, trans. p. 112Google Scholar. Mekilta, Kaspa 2, cited above. Billerbeck, , op. cit. I, 358.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 9} Mishnah, , Ber. IX, 5 (Danby, p. 10)Google Scholar, b. Ber. 54a= Sonc. 328: middāh, modeh, me'od. Midrash Tannaim…Devarim (Hoffmann), pp. 25, 26. Rashi, ad loc. Wünsche, , Neue Beitrüge (Göttingen, 1878), p. 437.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 1} Mishnah, Ber. IX, 5; b. Ber. 61b=Sonc. 385; b. San. 74a= Sonc. 502; Targ. Onkelos, Deut. vi. 4b (5). The LXX trans. me'od as ıσχύς only at II Kings xxiii. 25, and as δύναμıς only at Deut. vi. 5 (!).

^{page 35 note 2} So Delitzsch. Alef and Ayin are interchangeable and may be removed or added according to the 'al-tikrey technique. Thus one answers Johnson's, S. E. doubt at Harv. Theol. Rev. XXXVI, (1943), 146–7.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 3} Jer. xxii. 15–16; Ecclus. xlix. 1–4. b. Shab. 56b=Sonc. 264.

^{page 35 note 4} Easton, B. S., Gospel acc. to St Luke (New York, 1926), p. 168Google Scholar. II Kings xxiii. 3 takes up Deut. iv. 19; X. 12; xi. 13; xiii. 3; xxvi. 16; xxx. 2, 6, 10.

^{page 35 note 5} Fathers acc. to Nathan, R., XVI (trans. Goldin, p. 86)Google Scholar: ‘…as thyself: I am the Lord. And why is that? Because I have created him (Isa. xlv. 8). Indeed, if he acts as thy people do, thou shalt love him; but if not, thou shalt not love him.’

^{page 35 note 6} Billerbeck, ubi cit. Fichtner, J., Kittel-Friedrich, , Theol. Wört. z. N.T. VI (1959), 210–14Google Scholar. Only in Exod. xi. 2 can the word re'a mean ‘non-Jew’ exclusively—and the context is peculiar. Exod. xx. 16, 17; Lev. xix. 13; xx. 10; Deut. iv. 42; xix. 4, 5, 14 are doubtful, but rabbinical exegesis confines the second Leviticus citation to Jews: b. San. 52b=Sonc. 356. The following are certain examples of re'a meaning Jews: Exod. xxi. 14; xxii. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 26 (cf. 25); Lev. xix. 17 (= brother); and Deut. xv. 2. Lev. xix. 34 is evidence, but why was it necessary to add it? The ger toshav was therefore not a ‘neighbour’ in the sense of v. 18. Deut.x. 18–19 proves that what was meant was charity. The choice of v. 18 to go with Deut. vi. 4 (5), ignoring v. 34, calls for emphatic comment. Lev. xxiv. 17–22 is not to the point. Deut. xxiv. 7 was never taken in the inclusive sense.

^{page 35 note 7} Montefiore, H., Nov. Test. v (1962), 157–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The testaments of the twelve patriarchs are not evidence of Jewish doctrine temp. Chr. Jonge, M. de, Stud. Evangel. (1959), pp. 546–56Google Scholar; Nov. Test. IV (1960), 182–235Google Scholar; v (1962), 311ff.

^{page 35 note 8} ύπολαβών in v. 30 indicates lively debate, therefore the parable is a retort (so Lagrange). The word appears 22 times in Job.

^{page 36 note 1} Jer. xviii. 22; Job v. 18.

^{page 36 note 2} Jer. xxx. 17. Mid. R. Levit. XVIII, 5=Sonc. 233. Mid. R. Deut. III, 3=Sonc. 70, 71. Mid. R. Num. (Sh^elach L^echa) XVII.I=Sonc. 698.

^{page 36 note 3} Exod. xx. 6. Gen. xxix. 20; xxii. 2, xxiv. 67; xxv. 28, xxxvii. 3, 4, xliv. 20.

^{page 36 note 4} Mid. R. Deut. II, 33=Sonc. 61–2.

^{page 36 note 5} Evans, C. F., ‘Central Section of St Luke's Gospel’, in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford, Blackwell, 1957), 37–53 at p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 1} A draft of this article was read by the Rev. Richard Coggins, Professor J. B. Segal and the Rev. Professor C. F. Evans. I am grateful for their comments, and also for encouragement from Dr M. Gertner. I have profited from discussion with Dr K. G. Klemen, a former pupil of Professor E. Stauffer and the author of a thesis on this parable.