² Another example is the translation of Edgar, J. Goodspeed from 1931. See, for instance, Mark, i. 15: ‘the reign of God is near.’Google Scholar

³ Over which God is ruling? English-speaking friends tell me that the word ‘realm’ still more than ‘kingdom’ has lost its suggestion of ruling.

¹ English translation 1902.

² Ed. of 1930, p. 77.

³ On this see below, p. 233 ff.

⁴ On the translation of ξν, see below, p. 220.

⁵ Or, ‘kingdom over men…shall appear’.

¹ 'Alenu (Singer's, S.19th ed. 1946, text p. 77).Google Scholar

² Melok ‘al kol-ha’olam (New Year's Service; Singer, p. 241).Google Scholar

¹ See Dalman, , p. 109.Google Scholar

² Cf. also Targ. I Sam., i. 35;Google ScholarActs, i. 6.Google Scholar

¹ Siphrah, Cf. xxvi. 41, p. 112b, 37 (Weiss): ‘Inspite of you, I establish my reignover you.’Google Scholar

² Benediction 11. Cf. the saying from Siphrah quoted in the preceding note. έπι in this sense perhaps also in Orac. Sib., iii. 48 (quoted above, p. 216).Google Scholar έπ or is also used to indicate for whom the malkut of God is revealed, so Targ. Ezek., vii. 7 (see below, p. 230 ff.).Google Scholar

¹ Op. cit. pp. 82, 313.Google Scholar

² Kommentar, I, 419.Google Scholar

³ On this question see below, pp. 233 ff.

¹ Cf., G. F. Moore, Judaism (1927), II, 374.Google Scholar

² Cf., Tob. xiii. 2, 7 f.,Google Scholar 9, 11, 16 f.; Welimlok (New Year's Service; Singer, p. 240).Google Scholar

³ ℵℷ itpe.

¹ Cf. further Targ. Isa., xlii. 13; li. 9; lix. 17; lxii. 11; lxvi. 7;Google Scholar Targ. Micah, iv. 7.Google Scholar Further material Dalinan, , pp. 311f.Google Scholar

² Other examples see my ‘Lichi’ und ‘Finsternis’ im A. T., im Spätjudentum und im Rabbinismus (1951), pp. 202ff., 228, 299ff.Google Scholar

¹ It is here not necessary to take a standpoint in thediscussion whether ένΤóς in this passage means ‘within’ or ‘among’. Some may perhaps feel that a ‘local’ conception of the kingdom is not compatible with the translation ‘within’. The local aspect is however not absolute. Beside it stands the motif of communion between persons (community). I suppose the difficulty here felt is not greater than when Paul speaks of us being in Christ, or in the Spirit, and at the same time of Christ, or the Spirit, as being in us.

² See Kultus und Evangelium (1942), pp. 72 f.Google Scholar (English translation: Lord of the Temple, 1961); Dos Vater-unser, 3rd ed. (1952), pp. 64 ff.Google Scholar

¹ Der Evangelist Matthäus, 4th ed. (1948), p. 209,Google Scholar to Matt., vi. 10.Google Scholar

² A strong support forray distinction between ‘coming’ and epiphany I find (after having given this paper) in the important article of Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘Acts vii. 52 ’;, J. T.S. XLVI (1945), 136ff. Kilpatrick shows that is a Hellenistic term for a theophany (used for instance by Josephus), while , on the other hand, has no such suggestions and therefore could be used of the Jewish Messiah, who was only a man. There existed to the Jewish mind a doctrinal distinction between the terms. True, Kilpatrick points out that the theological differentiation of terms existed only in Greek– Jewish texts, not in the Semitic originals here assumed, these havingonly one word (, Aram. ) at their disposal. This is correct, but it would be false from this circumstance to infer that the theological differentiation as such was wanting for Semitic-speaking or -writing Jews. This is also not suggested by Kilpatrick.Google Scholar

¹ Billerbeck, Cf., Kommentar, IV, 874; 981ff., and Kilpatrick (see the preceding note). Moses and others as ‘coming’, Syr. Bar. lix. 1.Google Scholar

² Cf. IV Ezra xiii. 29; Syr. Bar. lxx. 2.

³ Syr. Bar. lxxii. 1, 2; Bab. Sanh. 97a (R. Jochanan); Midr. Song Sol., ii. 15Google Scholar (R. Chiyya b. Abbah); see also II Thess., ii. 9. Whether the ‘coming’ spoken of in IV Ezra iv. 28–30 can be characterized apocalyptic, is more doubtful. What interests the author is here the consummation of the world, the coming of the new age, not the separate apocalyptic events.Google Scholar

¹ Cf. Moffatt's translation of Matt., vi. 9:Google Scholar ‘thy reign begin!’ See also Goodspeed to Mark, i. 15, above p. 215, n. I.Google Scholar

² I am aware of the fact that ‘coming’ and ‘being revealed’ in O.T.–Jewish tradition sometimes stand fairly near each other; see Isa., lvi. 1.Google Scholar This is only what must be expected since ‘coming’ in O.T. texts is used also of the divine theophany. On the other hand, it is sometimes said that the Jewish Messiah is ‘revealed’, without any further implication than when said that he is ‘coming’; see IV Ezra, vii. 28;Google Scholar Syr. Bar. xxix. g; Pesiq. Rabb., xxxvi, p. 162aGoogle Scholar (R. Yischaq); Targ. Jer. xxx. Zech., iii. 8; vi. 12.Google Scholar The idea is here that the Messiah has been hidden, or ‘kept’, and then appears on the scene. There is probably nothing of theophany connected with the word in such contexts. Cf., also Gal., iii. 23. The words or and do not as such necessarily or always imply a revelation of divine glory.Google Scholar

¹ See Dalman, , p. 110.Google Scholar

² References in Dalman, , pp. 97 f.Google Scholar

³ ibid. pp. 102 f. 11; cf., Billerbeck, 1, 981.Google Scholar

⁴ IV Ezra, viii. 52Google Scholar (Dalman, ), pp. 104 f.Google Scholar

⁵ Syr. Bar. xliv. 13. Rabbinic references in Dalman, , p. 104.Google Scholar

⁶ Syr. Bar. iv. 3–6.

¹ The coming world as a dining room, into which one enters, in rabbinic texts, see Billerbeck, , IV, 840 f.Google Scholar

² Volz, P., Die Eschatologie derjüdischen Gemeinde (1934), p. 367.Google Scholar

³ When we here speak of a local conception of the kingdom this is of course not meant in contrast to what is temporal. Many concepts are in the N.T. described in local as well as in temporal categories, as for instance ‘world‘ (‘olam). The kingdom is moreover not exclusiuely seen under a local aspect, for instance not in the parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matt., xiii. 44), although the motif of kingdom as the highest bonum also here, without any doubt, is essential. The local aspect is probably only an indication of the deeper-lying concern of the conception presented in this paper. The idea of God's ‘reign’ starts at God and at that which he needs or does, for his own sake, at or his power, his glory and his deeds in history. Or it starts in a philosophy of history, according to which the kingdom (reign) is God's acting in history. In contradistinction to this I have tried to show that the idea of God's kingdom is characterized by the concern for man's redemption and for consummation of the world. It is essentially a soteriological idea.Google Scholar

¹ Ethiop. . Cf., Josh. v. 14Google ScholarDan., x. 13,Google Scholar etc.; 1 QM xiii. 10; xvii. 5 f.; Pirqe R. El. xiii (Billerbeck, , I, 137, 983f.).Google Scholar

² Billerbeck, iv, 510b. In Test. Dan vi. (2), 4, is mentioned the kingdom of Satan. But whether the expression implies that Satan is a king is uncertain. Besides it is not certain that the passage not influenced from the N.T.

³ See IQHx. 8; Gen. Apocr. ii. 4,7; 1QM vi. 6; xii. 7 f.

⁴ 1QS i. 18, 23 f.; ii. 19; cf. iv. ig; IQM xiii. 4; xviii. I, II. Cf., Service for New Year, Beken şaddiqim (Singer, p. 239 a):Google Scholar ‘the dominion of arrogance’ shall pass away; but God shall ‘reign’ (Timlok, p. 240).Google Scholar

¹ P. 88.

² Dalman, Cf., p. 88,Google Scholar who refers to Dan. iv. 21 (= 24), where TM has and LXX ; Theod. has . Cf., the O.T. passages mentioned above, p. 224 ff.,Google Scholar containing the expression to ‘come upon’. True, in these O.T. passages it is usually a question of a calamity coming upon somebody, not of something good. This is of course different -in Matt., xii. 28Google Scholar (or in Luke, x. 9).Google Scholar But this difference cannot be said to reduce the value of the parallel. The in v.7 of the Ezekiel passage, where the word malku is introduced (the word is interpreted as ‘crown’), represents a third idiom, indicating before whom the revelation of the malkut takes place, cf., above p. 219,Google Scholar n. 2. This usage has its starting-point in Isa., lx. 2: ‘Upon you shall the Lord shine forth, and his glory shall be seen upon you.’ There are consequently three different, : (I) indicating the inevitable and undeniable fact of a thing happening to somebody; (2) indicating over whom God's reign is ruling; and (3) indicating for whom it reveals itself or shines forth. When connected with the malkut, the last two expressions are exclusively Jewish, the first, on the other hand, peculiar to Jesus' usage (although it is, in other connexions, used also in Judaism).Google Scholar

¹ Cf. the expression ‘offspring of the kingdom’ () of the members of the royal house, II Kings xxv. 25; Jer., xli. 1;Google ScholarEzek., xvii. 13;Google ScholarDan., i. 3.Google Scholar

² On this text see below.

¹ SeeJohann, Meier, Die Texte vom Toten Meer (1960), II, 46,Google Scholar to Dam., III. 19.Google Scholar

² Cf. further the ‘house of Absalom’, 1 Qp Hab. v.9; the ‘guilty house’, IV. 11; the ‘house of judge. ment’, x. 3 (here different interpretations are possible); ‘house of the Law’, Dam., xx. 10; ‘house of the truth’, 1QS v. 6.Google Scholar

³ The specialists are inclined to understand the word ‘house’ here in a concrete sense, that is, as referring to the building where the congregation of the synagogue assembles. Cf., xlvi. 8Google Scholar (where I, however, can see no basis in the text for using plur. ‘congregations’, as do Beer and Charles). It is true, the word for ‘congregation’ here used (möstegubu', 1.v. möstegubā') is not the usual term for ‘congregation’ in a more theological sense. But this latter (māchbar) we find in xxxviii. I, in a similar context saying that ‘the congregation of the righteous shall appear’ (cf., also lxii. 8).Google Scholar This parallel suggests a not so trivial interpretation of liii. 6. Perhaps ‘house’ here is best understood as referring to the New Jerusalem (cf., Volz, op. cit. p. 23: ‘die Wohnstätte der Heilsgemeinde’). We then obtain a conception related to that in c. 29–36, where ‘house’ is a parallel to the kingdom of God in the gospels (see above, p. 229).Google Scholar

Professor M. Black draws my attention to 1Q28 b (= I QS b) iv. 25 f., where the High Priest is called ‘a servant in the temple of the kingdom’. It is very possible that also this text is inspired by the Nathan prophecy (cf. I Chron., xvii. 14). The context is fragmentary and therefore difficult to interpret. The word ‘house’ does not occur, but it may have been replaced by. On the other hand, the word probably does not here mean ‘kingdom’, but ‘reign’ (as usual in the Qumran texts). That can be concluded from the fact that words such as ‘glory’ and ‘light’ appear as its synonyms.Google Scholar

¹ Here we can, in fact, with the Uppsala school, speak of democratization.

² I Enoch XLI. i f. has yet to be mentioned, see below.

³ Cf., Meier, op. cit. II, 46.Google Scholar

¹ is in the LXX often the Greek rendering of Heb. Aram. .

² Cf., Ps. Sol. xvii. 5Google Scholar (= I Macc., ) ii. 57;Google ScholarEccius., xlv. 25.Google Scholar Billerbeck may, however, be right in saying that evidence of this understanding of the passage is missing in rabbinic literature, see Kommentar, III, 677.Google Scholar

³ This would hold also if we admit that the bracketed words, which are missing in the Palestinian version, are added later. They interpret the benediction correctly. The Isaiah context contains nothing like that.

¹ , often translated ‘covenanted with D.’

² The LXX has often + dative when rendering ().