^{page 67 note 1} See the surveys in Cohn, L., ‘Einteilung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos’, Philologe, Suppl. 7 (Berlin, 1899), pp. 385–435Google Scholar; Schürer, E., Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 4 ed., 3 (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 633–95Google Scholar; Borgen, P., ‘Philo of Alexandria’, in Jonge, M. de and Safrai, S. (eds.), Compendia Rerun Iudaicarwn ad Novum Testamentum, II, 1Google Scholar: Oral and Literary Tradition in Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen, Google Scholar (in printing).

^{page 67 note 2} See Feine, P., Behm, J. and Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (New York, 1966), PP. 155 and 277 f.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 3} See Borgen, P., Bread from Heaven, Novum Testamentum Supplements, 10 (Leiden, 1965Google Scholar); Idem, ‘Logos was the true light’, Novum Testamentum XIV (1972), 115–30.Google ScholarMeeks, W. A., The Prophet King, Novum Testamentum Supplements, 14 (Leiden, 1967).Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 1} The Pentateuchal interpretation is evident in the following way. (1) In Philo's interpretation of the Jewish people as Israel, the one who sees God, and as the people under God's special care, where the scriptural basis is Gen. xxxii in particular. See Gaium 4, together with Leg. all. II. 34; Quod Deus 144; Conf. 146, etc. (2) In his interpretation of God's governing function through beneficent powers and punitive powers, where the scriptural basis is in particular the Pentateuchal terms for God, θεός and κύριος. See Gaium 6–7Google Scholar, together with Quod Deus 77–8Google Scholar; Plant 50Google Scholar; Conf. 171, etc. (3) In his interpretation of Flaccus' sin of arrogance and Gaius' sin of overstepping the bounds of human nature and claiming to be god – ideas which Philo in his exegesis finds to be expressed in Num. xv. 30. See Gaium 75Google Scholar and 367 f.; Flac. 152Google Scholar, together with Virt. 171–5.Google Scholar (4)In his interpretation of the punishment of Flaccus, where he draws on words from Deut. xxviii. (15–) 67. See Flac. 167.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 2} See Safrai, S. et al. The, Jewsh People in the First Century, in Jonge, M. de and Safrai, S. (eds.)Google Scholar, Compendia Rerun Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, I:1 (Assen, 1974), pp. 308–503.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 1} See kahana, Pesikta de-Rab103b and 186aGoogle Scholar; cf. Philo, , Vita Mos. II. 44Google Scholar; I Macc. ii. 67; II Baruch xlviii. 24; Aboth 3. 15. Weber, F., Jüdische Theologie, 2. ed. (Leipzig, 1857), PP. 57 ff.Google Scholar; Asting, R., ‘Nomismens innflytelse pä hellighetsbegrepet i jodedonunen’, Norsk teologisk tidsskrift, XXIX (1928), 43–70.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 2} For this characterization of the place of Torah in Judaism, see especially Asting, R., N.T.T. XXIX (43–70).Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 3} Apol. lud. 6.9. Concerning martyrdom for the sake of the Law of Moses, see I Macc. xiii. 14; GaiumGoogle Scholar 232 ff.; Talmud, B.Google Scholar, Aboda Zara 18a, etc.

^{page 70 note 1} See Wilckens, U., ‘Die Bekehrung des Paulus als religionsgeschichtliches Problem’, Z.Th.K. LVI (1959), 273–93.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 2} Haacker, K., ‘Die Berufung des Verfolgers and die Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen’, Theologische Beiträge VI (1975Google Scholar), 12 ff.

^{page 70 note 3} Ibid. pp. 13–16.

^{page 71 note 1} Dahl, N. A., ‘Motsigelser i Skriften, et gammelt hermeneutisk problem’, Suensk Teologisk Kuartalsskrift XLV (1969), 22–36Google Scholar; in German: ‘Widersprüche in der Bibel, ein altes hermeneutisches Problem’, Studia Theologica xxv (1971), 1–19.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 2} Feine, P., Behm, J. and Kümmel, W. G., Introduction, pp. 193–5.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 3} N.T.S. XVIII (1971). 1–14.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 1} Karff, S. E., ‘The Agadah as Source of Contemporary Jewish Theology’, The Central Conference of American Rabbis’ Yearbook, LXXIII (1965), 193.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 2} See Borgen, P., Bread from Heaven, pp. 151–2Google Scholar; cf. Dahl, N. A., ‘The Johannine Church and History’, Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, ed. Klassen, W. and Snyder, G. F. (New York, 1962), pp. 132–3Google Scholar; Meeks, W. A., The Prophet-King, pp. 299–300.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 1} Boismard, M.-E., St John's Prologue (Westminster, Md, 1957), pp. 136–40Google Scholar; Dahl, N. A., Current Issues, pp. 132–3Google Scholar, and n. 13; Borgen, P., Bread from HeavenGoogle Scholar, 150 f., Idem, Novum Testamentum XIV (1972), 115–30.

^{page 73 note 2} See for example Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (London, 1972Google Scholar), ad loc.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 3} Translation is taken from Herford, R. Travers, The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers (New York, 1962Google Scholar, repr.), ad loc.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 4} Cf. that in John, v. 46Google Scholar it is said that Moses wrote of Jesus. On this basis the following hypothesis can be formulated as to the formation of the Johannine tradition. Since Moses wrote about Jesus, the Evangelist and the Johannine community regarded the scriptures as valid sources to the words and works of Jesus, together with the Gospel-tradition received from his disciples. If so, then in John Gospel-traditions are interpreted and recast from exegetical insights into the Old Testament.

^{page 74 note 1} Cf. Luke, x. 21Google Scholar / Matt, . xi. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 2} Cf. Mark, xii. 26Google Scholar par.

^{page 74 note 3} Cf. Mark, iii. 14Google Scholar par; Matt, . xix. 28Google Scholar, etc.; I Cor. xv. 5.

^{page 74 note 4} Cf. Mark, i. 15Google Scholar par.

^{page 74 note 5} Cf. Mark, ii. 23–8Google Scholar par; vii. 15 par; x. 2–9 par; xi. 27 ff. par; xii. 35–37a par.

^{page 75 note 1} Several other aspects of the subject could also be taken up, such as the questions of transmission and form of tradition, as well as literary form. These points would bring us beyond the limits of this paper, however. It should only be stated here that they also have relevance for New Testament theology. If, for example, the author of Luke-Acts has followed Old Testament history writings as a model, then such an understanding of his work will contribute to the definition of how he interprets history as well as to an analysis of its literary form. Such an understanding of Luke-Acts against an Old Testament background does not exclude the possibility of Luke-Acts at the same time being viewed within a hellenistic context. See for example Dahl, N. A., ‘The story of Abraham in Luke-Acts’, in Keck, L. E. and Martyr, J. L. (eds.), Studies in Luke-Acts (New York, 1966), pp. 152–4.Google Scholar