^{page 279 note 1} Job xiv. 11–14, i.e. release from Sheol. Cf. Driver, S. R. and Gray, G. B., The Book of job (Edinburgh, 1921), who think, however, that Job does not really expect it.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 2} Ps. xlix. 12–15. Cf. Isa. xxvi. 19–21; Eichrodt, W., Man in the Old Testament (London, 1951), p. 62: ‘In the audacious image which describes God as his portion, the writer of the 73rd Psalm summarizes what gives life an unfading value.…For this portion remains, even when body and soul disappear in death. When God upholds and guides and removes, the believer finds his ultimate shelter here, even if he can say nothing about the way in which God will maintain his connection with him.…’Google ScholarCf. Ellis, E. E., ‘Life’, New Bible Dictionary, ed. Douglas, J. D. (London, 1962), pp. 736 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 3} One other affinity has been noted between the present passage and the Qumran texts, i.e. that resurrected persons will be ‘like angels’ (Mark xii. 25: ώς άγγελοι; Luke xx. 36: ίσάγγελοι). But cf. also Enoch civ. 4 ff.; S.-Billerbeck, op. cit. 1, 891. This idea seems to have had a fairly wide currency.

^{page 279 note 4} Edgar, S. L., ‘Respect for Context in Quotations from the Old Testament’, N.T.S. IX (October 1962), 55–62. Unless noted otherwise, all references to Dr Edgar are to this article.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 1} Edgar, op. cit. p. 59.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 2} Ibid. p. 55.

^{page 280 note 3} Edgar, S. L., ‘New Testament and Rabbinic Messianic Interpretation’, N.T.S. V (October 1958), 47–54.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 4} Here I classify Luke iv. 25–7; Matt. viii. 4; xvii. 12; xxiii. 35; xxiv. 38–9. Throughout this study I cite Matthew, the richest source for O.T. quotation, in passages involving synoptic parallels, unless there is specific reason for calling attention to Mark and Luke. A parallel text ordered upon Matthew will quickly show how Mark and Luke stand.

^{page 280 note 5} Here I classify Matt. vii. 12; viii. 11; x. 21; Mark iv. 29; Matt. xiii. 32, 41, 43; Mark ix. 12b, 49; Luke xix. 10, 44; Matt. xxiv. 6, 7, 16; Luke xxi. 22, 35; Mark xiv. 18 (John xiii. 18 gives an explicit quotation); Matt. xxvi. 38.

^{page 281 note 1} See Edgar, ix, 57–8.

^{page 281 note 2} Luke xxi. 24 (Zech. xii. 3?); Matt. xxiv. 24 (Deut. xiii. 2?).

^{page 281 note 3} Dr Edgar cites this one among his flagrant Pauline examples: Edgar, ix, 56.

^{page 282 note 1} In fairness one should concede that a crucified man near death would not likely recite psalms at any length. The several references to Ps. xxii in the crucifixion narrative suggest that xxii. I should be regarded as part of a larger context of fulfilment, for which see Dibelius, Martin, From Tradition to Gospel, trans. Woolf, B. L. (New York, 1935), pp. 184–9, 193–4.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 2} This is clear for Matt. x. 35; xxvi. 31, and Luke iv. 18–19; 37: cf. Edgar, ix, 61–2 and his earlier article in N.T.S. v, 49–51. Since he refrains in both articles from consigning words of Jesus to church authorship, I presuppose a conservative tendency whenever specific comments are absent.

^{page 283 note 1} In due time we will consider whether modern, critical standards of respect for context are appropriate. Since Dr Edgar premised his study upon such standards, we will adhere to them for the purpose of the discussion.

^{page 283 note 2} Edgar, ix, 62.

^{page 284 note 1} Matt. v. 43 can be included, we notice, so far as it follows Lev. xix. 18. It provokes objection insofar as ‘and hate your enemy’ is not a true O.T. text.

^{page 284 note 2} Cf. Mishna Sotah i, 1–2.

^{page 284 note 3} Taylor, Vincent, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (2nd ed., London, 1957), p. 65: cf. Dibelius, pp. 44–53, and Rudolf K. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (3rd ed., Göttingen, 1957), pp. 66–70.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 1} The uniquely Matthean material (xii. 5–7, alluding to Num. xxviii. 9–10 and quoting Hos. vi. 6) reflects the compulsion. It seeks to improve the base with a specific case of sabbath-breaking based upon halakic precept from torah: this is clearly demonstrated by David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 67–71. What we may think is a misfit quotation–Hos. vi. 6 in Matt. xii. 7–puts added scriptural force behind the a fortiori argument: temple and sacrifice justify violation of sabbath law; the Son of man is weightier than the temple; and, to nail it down by Hos. vi. 6, an act of mercy outweighs sacrifice. The Hosea quotation is not used to pose the spirit against the letter of the law, as Dr Edgar suggests, ix, 60.

^{page 285 note 2} See Daube, pp. 76–9. I cite Mark for the divorce passage because Matthew shifts the issue over to grounds for divorce.

^{page 285 note 3} It is possible and even likely that Jesus faced situations demanding greater respect for context than the N.T. writers in general faced. But that is a different issue for it introduces a third factor and a different cause.

^{page 286 note 1} See Moore, George Foot, Judaism (3 vols., Cambridge, 1954), 1, 381–3.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 2} Ibid. p. 382, shows plainly how the Sadducees insist that respect for original context destroys proof-texts of this kind.

^{page 286 note 3} See Mishna Hagigah i, 8 and the tractate Nedarim; cf. Manson, T. W., The Teachings of Jesus (2nd ed., Cambridge, 1951), pp. 315–19.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 1} Cf. Acts iv. 11; Eph. ii. 20–1; I Peter ii. 7. The other O.T. material in the parable is Isa. v. 1–2. Its conscious echoes in the narrative introduction are satisfactorily contextual.

^{page 287 note 2} Edgar, ix, 62.

^{page 288 note 1} This atmosphere and its effects upon exegesis are superbly described by Moore, 1, 247–50.

^{page 288 note 2} Current historical-critical scholarship offers a good example: for it, ‘context’ denotes historical situation and the intention of the author. What quickly confuses our semantics is that such scholar-ship constantly reports on a lot of other ideas about context.

^{page 288 note 3} However, all groups may have agreed upon canons of context which are alien to later comers: in that case, so will their proofs seem ‘wild’ although they were considered satisfactory at the time.

^{page 288 note 4} E.g. I Cor. ix. 9, ‘Is it for oxen that God is concerned?’ is put forth as a purely rhetorical question anticipating (Greek: mē) a ‘No’ answer.