^{page 297 note 1} A convenient sketch of previous work, together with references to the pertinent literature, can be found in Ellis, E. E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1957), pp. 1–5.Google Scholar See also Bonsirven, J., Exégèse rabbinique et exégèse paulinienne (Bibliothèque de théologie historique; Paris, 1939), pp. 264–5.Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 2} See Ellis, E.E., op.cit. pp.42, 83.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 1} See Brownlee, W. H., ‘Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the DSS’, Bibl. Arch. xiv (1951), 54–76;Google ScholarBruce, F. F., Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1959);Google ScholarGottstein, M. H., ‘Bible Quotations in the Sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls’, Vetus Testarnentum, iii (1953),79–82;CrossRefGoogle ScholarE1lliger, K., Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar corn Toten Meer (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 15; Tübingen, 1953), pp. 118–64;Google ScholarOsswald, E., ‘Zur Hermeneutik des Habakuk-Kommentars’, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, LXVIII (1956), 243–56;Google Scholarvan der Ploeg, J., ‘Bijbeltekst en theologie in de teksten van Qumrân’, Vox theologica, xxvii (1956–1957),Google ScholarRoberts, B. J., ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the O.T. Scriptures’, B.J.R.L., XXXVI (1953–1954), 75–96;Google Scholar ‘Some Observations on the Damascus Documents and the Dead Sea Scrolls’, Ibid. xxxiv (1951–1952), 366–87; Sanders, J. A., ‘Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul and the Old Testament’, Journal of Religion, xxxviii (1959), 232–44;CrossRefGoogle ScholarVermès, G., ‘Le “Commentaire d'Habacuc’ et le Nouveau Testament’, Cahiers Sioniens, v (1951), 337–49;Google ScholarWernberg-Moller, P., ‘Some Reflexions on the Biblical Materials in the Manual of Discipline’, Studia Theologica, IX (1955), 40–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 298 note 2} ‘Les citations de l'Ancien Testament dans “La guerre des fils de lumière contre les fils de ténèbres”’, R.B. LXIII (1956), 234–60, 373–90.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 3} We have thus excluded the IQpHab (Burrows, M., ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls of St Mark's Monastery, vol.1 [New Haven, 1950], p1. 55–61Google Scholar), IQpMic (Barthélemy, D. and Milik, J. T., Qumran Cave I [Discoveries in the Judaean Desert I; Oxford, 1955], pp. 77–80Google Scholar); I QpPs 57, IQpPs 58 (Ibid.. pp. 81–2); I QpZeph Ibid. p. 80); 4QpNah (Allegro, J. M., ‘Further Light on the History of the Qumran Sect’, J.B.L. LXXV [1956], 89–93Google Scholar); 4QpPs 37 Ibid. pp. 94–553 and P.E.Q.. LXXXVI [1954], 69–75Google Scholar); 4QpHos^aIbid.(J.B.L. p.93Google Scholar); 4QpHos^b (Allegro, J. M., ‘A Recently Discovered Fragment of a Commentary on Hosea from Qumran's Fourth Cave’, J.B.L. LXXVIII [1959], 142–7)Google Scholar; 4QpGn 49 (J.B.L. LXXV [1956], 174–6Google Scholar); 4Qplsa^aIbid.(pp. 177–82); 4QpIsa^b (‘More Isaiah Commentaries from Qumran's Fourth Cave’Google Scholar,J.B.L. LXXVII [1958], 215–18Google Scholar); 4QpIsa^cIbid. pp. 218–20); 4QpIsa^dIbid. pp. 220–1).

^{page 299 note 1} This has been recognized, among others, by Baumgartner, W., Th. Rund. XIX (1951), 117Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts, pp. 71–2Google Scholar;. N.T.S. ii (1955–1956), 181.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 2} ‘“4Q Testimonia” and the New Testament’, T.S. xviii (1955), 513–37.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 3} 4Q Florilegium has been published so far only in part; see Allegro, J. M., ‘Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature’, J.B.L. LXXV (1956), 176–7Google Scholar [= Document II]; ‘Fragments of a Qumran Scroll of Eschatological Midrāišim’, J.B.L. xxvii (1958), 350–4.Google Scholar That this text is actually ‘a more complex type of pešer—one that employs additional biblical material [that is, isolated explicit quotations] to expound the biblical passage under consideration’, has been shown by one of my students, Lane, W. R., ‘A New Commentary Structure in 4Q Florilegium’, J.B.L. LXXVII (1959), 343–6.Google Scholar See also the improvements in the understanding of the text suggested by Yadin, Y., ‘A Midrash on 2_Sam. vii and Ps.i-ii: (4QFlorilegium)’, I.E.J. IX (1959), 95–8.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 1} A sketchy comparison of some of these formulae can be found in Ellis, E. E., op. cit. pp. 48–9;Google ScholarCharles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (Oxford, 1913), II, 789.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 1} See Metzger, B. M., ‘The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the N.T. and the Mishnah’, J.B.L. LXX (1951), 305;Google ScholarEllis, E. E., op. cit. pp. 48–9.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 1} See Burrows, M., ‘The Meaning of'šr' mr in DSH’, V.T. II (1952), 255–60.Google ScholarElliger, K., op. cit. pp. 123–5, calls this expression in the pešārím a ‘Wiederaufnahmeformel’.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 2} For the same underlying presupposition in the Mishnaic use of the Old Testament, see Metzger, B. M., op. cit. p. 306.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 3} See also C.D. xix., quoted below in C (b).

^{page 302 note 4} For the Mishnaic idea of instrumentality see Metzger, B. M., op. cit. p. 306.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 5} This formula also occurs in the pešārím (see 1 QpHab iii. 2, 13–14; v.6). Once again there is a slight difference in the usage; in C.D. it introduces an Old Testament quotation supporting the injunction which precedes, whereas in I QpHab it repeats a portion of a longer text which has already been given and partly expounded. See Burrows, M., op. cit. p. 257.Google ScholarElliger, K., op. cit. p. 124, calls this a ‘Rückverweisungsformel’. It should be noted, moreover, that the New Testament counterpart is used in the same way as the formula in C.D. and not like that in the pēšer.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 1} Biblical Exegesis in the Qunran Texts, p. 68.Google Scholar The same idea has been stressed by Stendahl, K., ‘The Scrolls, and the New Testament: an Introduction and a Perspective’, The Scrolls and the New Testament (New York, 1957), p. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 2} The same absence of these formulae has been noted in the Mishnah by Metzger, B. M., op. cit. pp. 306–7.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 3} Bonsirven, J. (op. cit. pp. 27–8) mentions the occurrence of the same feature in the Tannaitic literature.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 4} See the notes on these passages in Rabin, C., The Zadokite Documnents: I. The Admonition; II. The Laws (2nd ed., Oxford, 1958).Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 1} Op.cit. p. 298.Google Scholar See also. Bonsirven, J., op.cit. pp. 29–32.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 1} In one case (Lev. xix. 18) C.D. ix. 2 quotes the first part of the verse, while the New Testament (Matt., v. 43; xix. 19 xxii. 39;Google ScholarMark, xii. 31;Google ScholarLuke, x. 27;Google ScholarRom., xiii. 9; Gal. v. 14; Jas. ii. 8) quotes the second half.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 1} See Rabin, C., op. cit. p. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 2} This combining of texts from the Torah and the prophets is well known in the combined quotations in Paul and rabbinical literature; see T.S. XVIII (1957), 523;Google ScholarEllis, E. E., op. cit. pp. 49–51. In this passage quoted from Nahum it should be noted that the well-known reverence for the Tetragrammaton, attested elsewhere in Qumran literature, is evidenced here again, for the author has written, ℵℸה instead of הℸהә, found in the Masoretic Text.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 3} C.D. has a slight variant-in reading ℸוצר instead of the Masoretic in reading ℸיצℸ insitead of the Masoretic Text's ℸחימצ.

^{page 308 note 1} See Rabin, C., op. cit. p. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 2} The Fourth Gospel is here quoting Ps. IXXXII. 6, where םיהגℵ has been interpreted by some scholars to mean ‘judges’. However, from the fact that it is parallel to תילז גב, a good case can be made out for the meaning ‘gods’.

^{page 309 note 1} See further Acts, vii. 37, 49–50;Google ScholarRom., iv. 3, 18; ix: 15–16; Xl. 3–4; I Cor. x. 7; Heb. vi. 13–14; ix. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 2} Further examples of precepts quoted in the New Testament are Matt, xv.4; xxii. 24, 37Google Scholar; Mark, vii. 10; xii. 19, 29; Luke, ii. 24; x. 27;Google ScholarRom, . vii. 7; xiii. 9; Gal, . v. 14; Jas. ii. 11Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 3} Ellis, Cf. E. E., op. cit.p. 126.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 1} See also IQpHab ii. 8–10. Bruce, F. F., op. cit. pp. 7–17, has well analysed this exegetical principle.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 2} Gottstein, M. H., V.T. III (1953), 82, has pointed out that the text of C.D., reading ןכ, agrees rather with the Targum and the Peshitta than with the Masoretic Text.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 1} See Bruce, F. F., op. cit. p. 28;Google ScholarRoberts, B.J., B.J.R.L. XXXIV (1951–1952), 371.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 2} There are two variants in the text of Malachi cited in C.D.: it omits םג after ימ, which is found in the Masoretic Text (see also δΙότΙ καί έν ύμίν of the Septuagint), and it reads ןתלℸ instead of the Masoretic Text's םילℸ. If the reading in C.D. should rather be ןתלℸ ‘my portals’ (confusion of waw for yodh by the medieval scribe), we would have a better parallel with ‘my altar’ in the second member.

^{page 311 note 3} The Masoretic Text has the imperfect םיקℵ, whereas C.D. has read the perfect with waw conversive. The latter is also found in the other passage in the Qumran literature which quotes this text from Amos (4QFlor. i. 12, see (40) below).

^{page 312 note 1} The perfect of the verbs is used here and it is difficult to say just what nuance of the perfect the sect saw in them. In view of the fact that this oracle is also quoted in 4Q Testimonia 9–13 along with other texts which promise the future coming of Messianic figures, it is quite likely that the perfect here should be regarded as the so-called ‘prophetic perfect’. It should also be noted that one of the members of the verse is omitted here (‘and he shatters the temples of Moab’).

^{page 312 note 2} This same device is also found in the New Testament; see, for example, I Cor. x. 4; II Cor. iii. 17; Gal. iii. 16. Cf. iQpHab xii. 3,4, 7, 9; 4QpPs 37 i. 5; ii. 12; 4QpIsa^b ii. 10 (?).

^{page 312 note 3} In 4Q Testimonia the interpretation of this verse is slightly different, for the first paragraph (quoting Deut. v. 28–9 and xviii. 18–19) refers to the coming of a prophet, the second paragraph (quoting Num. xxiv. 15–17) to the coming Davidic Messiah, and the third paragraph (quoting Deut. xxxiii. 8–11) to the coming priestly Messiah. In Test. Levi xviii. 3 the oracle of Balaam is applied to the Aaronitic Messiah.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 1} The first part of this quotation agrees with the Masoretic Text; the last part, however, is dependent on Deut. vii. 8, but is not introduced as an explicit quotation.

^{page 313 note 2} The text of C.D. is obviously corrupt here, reading בוℵל and ייתוצמ neitherof which makes any sense. We have accordingly octed them to agree with the Masoretic Text.

^{page 314 note 1} The restoration of the lacunae follows that of Yadin, Y., I.E.J. ix (1959), 95–8.Google ScholarThe latter part of the comment contains an allusion to Deut. xxiii. 3–4 and Ezek., xliv. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 2} See note 3, p. 299.

^{page 314 note 3} The reconstruction offered here is that of Yadin, Y. (op. cit. p. 96), which is based on the Masoretic Text. It should be noted, however, that the text of 4Q Flor., in so far as it is preserved, agrees rather with iQIsa^a, which differs from the Masoretic Text somewhat, יגריס ℸי ℸ חתזחכ.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 1} We are again following the reconstruction of the text suggested by Ibid.Yadin, Y.,. He has more correctly identified the text of Ezekiel as xxxvii. 23 than Allegro, who proposed xliv. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 2} Modernization of the prophet's text is very frequent in I QpHab, as might be expected (see i,5,6,7, 8,10c–d,11, 13c–d, 14–15, 16a–b, 17; ii. 2d, 5–6,. 8a,–12=13, 15,–16, 17). Osswald, Cf. E., op. cit. pp. 247 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 1} Further examples in Matthew, : viii. 17; xi. 10; xiii. 35; xv. 8; xxi. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 2} See further Luke, xxii. 37;Google ScholarJohn, xii. 38; xiii. 18; xix. 24;Google ScholarActs, iii. 25; xiii. 33–4;Google ScholarRom., ix. 29; X. 15–16; XV. 21; II Cor. vi. 2; Heb.i. 5,8–9, 10–12, 13; iii. 7–11; iv. 3,7; v.6; viii. 8–12;x. 16–18.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 1} As was pointed out by Gottstein, M. H., op. cit. p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 1} Except for the four dots instead of the tetragrammaton the quotation agrees with the text of the Masoretes. IQIsa^a, however, reads ןℸשין instead of ןℸןין.

^{page 319 note 1} See the similar interpretation of Bruce, F. F., op. cit. p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 1} Matt., Cf. xix. 4.Google Scholar See the similar explanation of Bruce, F. F., op. cit. p. 29.Google ScholarDaube, Cf. D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion II; London, 1956), pp. 71–85.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 2} The text in C.D. agrees neither with the Masoretic Text (ℸℵש־י Ӕלגת ℵל ℸמℵ־תוחℵ תורצ ℵוה ℸ׭ℵ) nor with the Septuagint. Possibly C.D. has preserved a different Hebrew recension here.

^{page 320 note 3} Bruce, Cf. F. F., op. cit. p. 28 for a similar explanation.Google Scholar

^{page 321 note 1} The meaning of ‘staff’ which is usually employed for קקותמ in this passage can hardly be correct. Aside from the fact that the digging of a well with a staff is rather peculiar, the rapprochement of the two texts (Num. xxi. 18 and Isa. liv. i6) here suggests that the author of C.D. under. stood קקותמ in the same sense as ילכ hence our translation ‘tool’. In the Masoretic Text םתגצשמכ may well be a gloss; cf. the Septuagint. It is difficult to say what the connecting link between the well and the Torah was in the passage. According to Brownlee, W. H. (Bibi. Arch. xiv [1951], 56),Google Scholar the link was the Hebrew radicals ℸℵכ which could be vocalized as b'ēr, ‘a well', or as bē'ēr, ‘he explained’, as in Deut. i. 5. He also saw a connexion between תוℸכ ‘to dig’, and תרכ, ‘to cut; form (a covenant)’. Bruce, F. F. (op. cit. p. 31), on the other hand, saw a connexion in the ‘obvious- appropriateness of pure water as a figure of sound doctrine’.Google Scholar

^{page 322 note 1} B.J.R.L. xxxiv (1951–1952), 373.Google Scholar

^{page 323 note 1} This agrees with neither the Masoretic Text nor the Septuagint completely; possibly a different recension of the verse is here preserved.

^{page 323 note 2} See note 3, p. 312 above. This text is also cited in (12). For a discussion of the form of the text used here and a comparison with the Masoretic Text and versions, see Carmignac, J., R.B. LXIII (1956), 238.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 1} Similar devices have been found also in the Pēšer on Habakkuk; see the list in Brownlee, W. H., Bibl. Arch. XIV (1951), 60–2.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 2} ‘Citations de 1'Ancien Testament dans le Nouveau Testament’, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplémen, II, 43.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 1} Ibid.; Bonsirven, J., op. cit. pp. 330ff.Google Scholar See especially Schmid, J., ‘Die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Paulus und die Theorie vom sensus plenior’, Biblische Zeitschrift, III (1959), 161–73, where the instances from Paul's letters which are discussed give numerous examples of this use of Scripture.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 2} C.D. reads ℵוℶי, whereas the Masoretic Text and iQ Isa ^a have הוהי ℵיבי. Roberts, B. J. (B.J.R.L. xxxiv [1951–1952], 372)Google Scholar ascribes the change to the unwillingness of the author to ascribe these events to God. This is possible, but it is more likely that the medieval copyist confused a waw and a yodh. The general reluctance of the Qumran scribes to write the tetragrammaton would account for its omission here; in such case ℵיבי would be preferable. If we should not restore the negative according to the Masoretic Text, then the translation would run, ‘He will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house days such as have come to pass since the day when Ephraim parted from Judah’. However, we prefer to restore it with Rabin, C. (op. cit. p. 28).Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 1} There is a play on words in the sentence. In Isa. Vii. 17 we find the words לצמ םיℸכℸ רוס םוימ פרוהי. The word רוס is first explained by ℸרכהב, ‘when the two houses separated’, and then by ℸש, ‘Ephraim became ruler over Israel’. See the note in Rabin, C., op. cit. p. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 2} The ending of this quotation is somewhat telescoped in C.D.

^{page 327 note 1} The ending of this quotation in C.D. is different from that of the Masoretic Text. See the note in Rabin, C., op. cit. p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 2} This text is also listed by Carmignac, J. (R.B. LXIII [1956], 235) as one of the explicit quotations, even though he admits that ‘pour intégrer cc texte dans sa propre phrase il le retouché assez profondément’.Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 1} ‘Nous avons ici un bel exemple d'exégèse “extensive”, qui dépasse le sens littéral, la ruine d'Assoür, pour appliquer ce texte à la ruine définitivede tous les ennemis du peuple juif’ (Carmignac, J., R.B.: [1956], 239).Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 1} Earlier in our discussion we mentioned forty-two passages in the Qumran literature which contain Old Testament quotations, but have presented an analysis of only forty of them. The reason for this is that in two cases we have introductory formulae used, but the quotation introduced is not from the Old Testament, or at least cannot be found in any of the known texts or versions. They are C.D. ix. 8–9 and xvi. 10.

^{page 330 note 2} We have re-examined all the New Testament quotations in the light of the four categories which emerged from our analysis of the Qumran passages. Many of them fall easily into the same categories, as we have tried to indicate above. However, we do not want to give the impression that these four categories exhaust the uses of the Old Testament in the New; there is always the danger in such a comparative study of creating a Procrustean bed. Further analysis of the New Testament passages along lines which we have suggested here may necessitate more categories than the four which emerge from the Qumran material.

^{page 331 note 1} ‘The Habakkuk Commentary (DSH) and the Gospel of Matthew’, Studia Theologica, viii (1954), 1–24.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 2} The School of St Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (Uppsala, 1954), pp. 200 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 3} In this we disagree with Gärtner's, B. remarks (op. cit. p. 14) about the similarity of these ‘fulfilment’ quotations to Certain Qumran formulae.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 4} According to the Scriptures: the Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London, 1953).Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 1} op. cit. pp. 129 and 90ff.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 2} Op. cit. p. 173.Google Scholar