^{page 232 note 1} 1QGA XX. 28–9; 1QM xiv. 8–11; 4QM^a 6–8; 1Q Hodayoth ix. 11; IQ Hodayoth frag. iv. 6.

^{page 232 note 2} Fitzmyer, J., ‘Some Observations on the Genesis Apocryphon’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, XXII, 3 (1960), 284Google ScholarBrownlee, W. H., The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible (New York and Oxford, 1964), p. 120, n. 41. The present research grew out of a philological discussion with Prof. J. F. Ross of Drew, who first drew my attention to this link between Qumran and the New Testament.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 3} Flusser, D., ‘Healing through the Laying on of Hands in a Dead Sea Scroll’, Israel Exploration Journal, VII, 4 (1957).Google ScholarDupont-Sommer, A., ‘Exorcismes et guérisons dans les écrits de Qumrân’, Suppl. to Vetus Testamentum, VII (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 251–3.Google ScholarCf. Mark vi. 5. Driver, G. R., in The Judean Scrolls (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), proposes that the Christian accounts of healing by laying on of hands influenced the writer of 1QGA.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 4} See, for example, the translations of דעג in 1QM xiv. 10: Yadin, Y., The Scroll of the War… (Oxford, 1962), p. 326: ‘chided away’Google ScholarDupont-Sommer, A. (tr. Vermes), The Essene Writings from Qumran (Cleveland and New York: World Publishing Company, 1960?), p. 190: ‘caused to depart’Google ScholarGaster, T. H., The Dead Sea Scriptures (New York: Doubleday, 1956), p. 300Google Scholar‘Thou hast rebuked.’ In his translation of 1QGA xx. 28–9, Burrows, M. in More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking, 1958), p. 390, gives up the attempt to translate דעג. At this point he offers, ‘-----?-----.’Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 1} One must assume that Mark's portrayal of Jesus as a θεῑος νρ is self-evident, since F. Hahn's claim that Mark presents Jesus as a kind of hellenized new Moses, especially in the exorcism story of Mark i. 23 ff., lacks all documentation except a reference to Bultmann's Theology of the New Testament, p. 133! Hahn, Ferdinand, Christologische Hoheitstitel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1963), p. 295.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 2} Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (Eng. tr.), 1 (New York: Scribner, 1951), pp. 130–1. Also in his History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper, 1963), pp. 231–2.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 3} Bultmann, R., ‘The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Historical Jesus’, in The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, edd. Braaten, C. E. and Harrisville, R. A. (New York: Abingdon, 1964), p. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 4} Cf. note 4, p. 260 above

^{page 233 note 5} E.g. Jude 9.

^{page 233 note 6} Thus Burrows, M., in loc., More Light… (New York, 1958), p. 390.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 7} On pp. 249–51 of the article referred to in note 3, p. 260 above.

^{page 233 note 8} Dupont-Sommer, op. cit. p. 248.

^{page 233 note 9} Burrows, op. cit. p. 390.

^{page 234 note 1} Y. Yadin, op. cit. pp. 326–9.

^{page 235 note 1} Hunzinger, C.-H., ‘Fragmente einer älteren Fassung des Buches Milhḥama aus Höhle 4 von Qumran’, Z.N.W. LXIX (N.S. XXVIII) (Berlin, 1957), 131–51.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 2} The other occurrences in this category are Ruth ii. 16; Prov. xiii. 1, 8; xvii. 10; Eccl. vii. 5.

^{page 236 note 1} In Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, art. ‘Water’ (New York and Nashville: Abingdon, 1962).Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 1} The relevant texts are lxviii. 28 and cxxxvii. 24 from Gordon, C. H., Ugaritic Literature (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1949) and Ugaritic Manual, 11 (= Analecta Orientalia 35) (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1955). Elsewhere in the Ugaritic literature, דעג retains its root meaning of ‘roar’ or ‘neigh’.Google ScholarSee Young, G. D., Concordance of Ugaritic, in loc. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1956). In the texts noted above, דעג means rebuke in the sense of ‘put one in his place’.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 2} According to Milik, J. T., in Ten Years of Discovery in the Judean Desert (Naperville, Illinois: Alleman, 1959), p. 32, ten fragmentary manuscripts of Jubilees have been found from three different Qumran caves. In the Syriac text of the Apocalypse of Baruch (first published by Ceriani in 1871; English translation published by R. H. Charles in 1896, London: A. and C. Black) God's rebuke is twice spoken of: in relation to his transforming flames into obedient spirits to assist in the work of creation (xlviii. 8), and in relation to his reproving the angel of death in the end time.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 3} R. H. Charles unaccountably inserts a ‘not’ at this point in the text, so that he must also supply a ‘notwithstanding’ at the opening of the sentence. The point is the reverse: Mastema was put to shame until he was able to get aid from the Egyptians.

^{page 238 note 1} The significance for the Markan tradition of αἰσχνομαι, which is the Greek equivalent of דפח, will be discussed in another article now in preparation.

^{page 238 note 2} The fact that μβριμομαι is probably to be understood as the Greek equivalent of דעג with the primary meaning of ‘roar’ or ‘groan’ demands separate treatment. C. Bonner's article on thaumaturgic technique in Harvard Theological Review, XX (1920), 171–89 is still useful, but may now be modified in the light of new philological evidence.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 3} Charles, R. H. (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), p. 494.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 4} In Kittel, G., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated by Bromiley, G. W., vol. II (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1964), p. 624. The original German has ‘büssen’ at this point. The text of III Maccabees followed here is that of H. B. Swete, The Old Testament in Greek.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 5} From The Old Testament in Greek, ed. Swete, H. B., vol. III, p. 713 (Cambridge University Press, 1930).Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 1} Charles, R. H. (ed.), The Assumption of Moses, tr. from Latin (London: A. and C. Black, 1897), pp. 106–10.Google ScholarFor a recent discussion of the problem see Reicke, Bo, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (The Anchor Bible 37) (New York: Doubleday, 1964), pp. 200–3.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 2} The word addressed to Satan reads: זטשב היב דעגנ אנמחר.

^{page 239 note 3} The text is given in P. Fiebig, in Kleine Texte 78 (ed. H. Lietzmann) (Bonn, 1911).A German translation in Fiebig, P., Jüdische Wundergeschichte (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1911), pp. 25, 26.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 4} Cf. Dupont-Sommer, op. cit. pp. 256–8. The text was published by J. T. Milik in Revue Biblique, LXIII, 407–15.

^{page 240 note 1} (1) Meaning rebuke or censure: De Somniis 11: 19: 135, 137; De Josepho 73, 74; De Spec. Leg. 23; (2) Meaning dignity or (civil) rights: In Flaccum 79; Quis Rerum Div. Heres 27; De Spec. Leg. 1: 102; III: 78. References are to the Cohn–Wendland edition, Philonis Alexandrini Opera, 6 vols. (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1896–1915). (Reprinted by DeGruyter, 1962.)

^{page 240 note 2} Edited by Tcherikower, V. A. and Alexander, Fuks, 3 vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, for the Hebrew University, 1957–1964.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 3} The verb, πιτιμν, is not found, but three instances of πιτ׀μ[ι]ον occur.

^{page 240 note 4} In a recent study of the relationship of Lucian to the New Testament, H.-D. Betz draws attention to certain similarities in detail between exorcisms reported by Lucian and those told of Jesus in the Gospels, but acknowledges that there is a ‘fundamental difference’ without explaining what the difference is. It is proposed in the present essay that the difference lies in the meaning discerned in the exorcisms. See Betz, H.-D., Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961).Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 1} Preisendanz, K., Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri (Leipzig and Berlin, 1928–31).Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 2} The text from Hadrumetum in Bible Studies. English translation by Grieve, A. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1901), pp. 273–93, esp. p. 281.Google ScholarThe Paris Magical Papyrus was published in Light from the Ancient East, English translation by Strachan, L. R. M. (New York: Harper, n.d.), pp. 254–64.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 3} Cf Betz, H.-D., op. cit. p. 155. Also Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper), p. 210. Cf.Google ScholarDibelius, M., From Tradition to Gospel (New York: Scribner, 1965), pp. 77–8, where the ‘secular motives’ of the Gerasene Demonic story are commented upon.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 4} M. Dibelius, op. cit. p. 169.

^{page 241 note 5} Preisigke, Friederich, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyruskunden… (Berlin: Gelbstverlag der Erben, 1925).Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 1} Preisigke, F., Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, 5 vols. (Strassburg: Trübner, 1915–50).Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 2} Bernard, P.Grenfell, and Arthur, S.Hunt, , The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898–1919).Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 3} Mitteis, L. and Wilcken, U., Grundzüge und Chrestomalhie der Papyruskmde, 2 vols. (each in two parts). Originally published in Leipzig, 1912; reprinted by Olms, Hildesheim, 1963.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 4} The classic treatment of Mark i. 21–8 from the standpoint of the saying of the demon is Bauernfeind, O., Die Worte der Dämonen im Markus-Evangelium (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1927), pp. 3–28.Google ScholarSee also the analysis of the Pericope by Bultmann, R. in History of the Synoptic Tradition, English tr. (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), pp. 209–10.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 5} In addition to the discussion in Bauernfeind as cited in note 4 above, cf. Taylor, V., The Names of Jesus (London: Macmillan, 1953). Proksch, in Kittel, Th. W.B. I, art. on ἅγιος, adjudges it to be ‘plainly’ evident that ἅγιος here means Jesus bears the Holy Spirit and is therefore empowered to overcome the unclean spirit of the demoniac. If this were as self-evident as Proksch claims, it would support the general picture being constructed in this article as the background for Mark's exorcism stories.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 6} In The Problem of History in Mark (London: SCM Press, 1963), p. 36. A similar claim, equally unsupportable, is made by D. E. Nineham in Gospel of Mark (Baltimore: Penguin), p. 75.Google ScholarPubMed

^{page 243 note 1} On this point see Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 1953), p. 173.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 1} E.g. Branscomb, H., The Gospel of Mark (New York: Harper, n.d.), p. 87.Google ScholarTaylor, V., Gospel According to St Mark (London: Macmillan, p. 275).Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 2} Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper), pp. 211–12.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 1} Against J. M. Robinson, who asserts that ‘Prior to the Marcan context, and apart from the commentary in [Mark] iii. 22 ff., the exorcism stories resembled many exorcism stories of the ancient world, and could have been understood in the same non-eschatological way’ (op. cit. p. 38). While one cannot claim that this understanding is entirely wrong, it is evident that Mark has heightened the attention to the person of the wonder-worker and yet has preserved the older eschatological meaning of the exorcisms. The Christological comments ‘Who is this? Whence his authority?’ came from Mark or a later stage of the tradition, as we have seen.

^{page 246 note 1} Dibelius, M., From Tradition to Gospel (New York: Scribner), p. 171.Google Scholar