^{page 392 note 1} Besides the reinterpretation of the temptation of Abraham to replace God with a Satan–figure (found, for example, in Jubilees xvii–xix), which is part of a general apologetic reworking of such traditions (e.g. I Chron. xxi. s if.), one finds a general tendency to assign the testing of humans to demonic forces (e.g. iQM Xvi. II–xvii. 9, iQS i. i6–i8, iQS iii. 2 1–4, Benjamin, T. iii. 3Google Scholar, koth, B. Bera16bGoogle Scholar, Enoch xix. i) – see Korn, J. H., ΠΕΙΡАΣМΟΣ die Versuchung des Glaubigen in der griechischen Bibel (Stuttgart, 1937)Google Scholar. James certainly has a place for the demonic in human affairs, as iv. 7 and perhaps iii. 15 show, and his citation of Abraham and Job (both probably because of later develop ment of the traditions, such as The Testament ofJob, which stress not only the place of the demonic, but also the charitable activities of the two men) indicates a knowledge of traditions in which a Satan–figure plays a large part (on James's use of the Abraham tradition see Ward, W. B., ‘Works of Abraham: James 2: 14–26’, H. T.R. 61 [1968], 283–90)Google Scholar, but he chooses not to assign the test to the demonic (at least the external demonic) here, going beyond this tradition.

^{page 392 note 2} The role of the evil yēşer in James has been widely recognized, as a survey of the leading commentaries would quickly reveal. Unfortunately we do not have space here to discuss the fascinating implications of this and other conflations of tradition in James; we have, however, done so in our work cited in note 2 on page 389.

^{page 392 note 3} Ferd. Hahn, , The Titles of, Jesus in Christology, trans. by Knight, H. and Ogg, G. (London, 1969 [1963]), p. 140.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 4} Fuller, R., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York, 1965), pp. 33–4, 65, 111–14, 163–4, 188–91Google Scholar; Lövestam, E., ‘Die Davidssohnfrage’, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok XXVII (Lund, 1963), 72–82Google Scholar; Gibbs, J. M., ‘Purpose and Pattern in Matthew's Use of the Title ‘Son of David’, N.T.S. 10 (1963/1964), 446–64Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J., ‘The Son of David Tradition and Matthew 22, 41–46 and Parallels’, Consilium 20 (1967), 75–87Google Scholar; Suhl, A., ‘Der Davidssohn im Matthäus-Evangelium’, Z.N.W. 59 (1968), 67–81Google Scholar; Schneider, G., ‘Die Davidssohnfrage (Mk 12, 35–37)’, Biblica 53 (1972), 65–90Google Scholar; Robbins, V. K., ‘The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus (10:46–52) in the Marcan Theology’, J.B.L. 92 (1973), 224–43Google Scholar. Three articles which take up Son of David in connection with Solomon-as-exorcist are Fisher, L. R., ‘Can This Be the Son of David?’ in Jesus and the Historian. Written in Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell, ed. by Trotter, F. T. (Philadelphia, 1968), pp. 82–97Google Scholar; Lövestam, E., ‘David-son-kristologin hos synoptikerna’, Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 15 (1972), 198–210Google Scholar; and Berger, K., ‘Die königlichen Messiastradition des Neuen Testaments’, N.T.S. 20 (1973), esp. pp. 3–9Google Scholar. My own study of the Solomon-asexorcist theme is entitled ‘Solomon, Exorcism, and Son of David’, H.T.R. 68 (1975), 235–52Google Scholar. See now Kingsbury, J. D., ‘The Title “Son of David” in Matthew's Gospel’, J.B.L. 85 (1976), 591–602Google Scholar, which appeared too late for consideration here.

^{page 393 note 1} Burger, Christoph, Jesus als Davidssohn. Eine traditonsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, FRLANT 98 (Göttingen, 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 393 note 2} See especially Held, H. J., ‘Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories’ in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, trans. by Scott, P. (Philadelphia, 1963), pp. 165–229.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 1} Kee, H. C., ‘Aretalogy and Gospel’, J.B.L. 92 (1973), 419.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 2} Held, , ‘Matthew’, p. 251Google Scholar, cites many scholars for this conclusion.

^{page 394 note 3} In addition to Held, recent studies on chs. viii-ix include Thompson, W. G., ’Reflections on the Composition of Mt 8:1–9:34’, C.B.Q. 33 (1971), 365–88Google Scholar; Drewes, B. F, ‘The Composition of Matthew 8–9’, S.E.A.J. Th. 12 (1972), 92–101Google Scholar; Burger, Christoph, ‘Jesu Taten nach Matthäus 8 und 9’, Z.T.K. 70 (1973), 272–87Google Scholar. Both Thompson, on the basis of the summaries in iv. 23 and ix. 35, and Burger, by analysis of chs. viii–ix, prefer a ‘triple office’, i.e. preaching, teaching, and miracle working; here, I have followed the earlier consensus.

^{page 395 note 1} Held, , ‘Matthew’, p. 259Google Scholar. In addition, I shall indicate that θεραπε⋯ω is a favourite Matthaean term, and it is important to note that νόσος is found in the summaries iv. 23–4 and the formula quotation Matt, . viii. 15Google Scholar (Isa. liii. 4) while μαλακία is found only in the Matthaean texts iv. 23, ix. 35 and x. 1. The combination of νόσος and μαλακία is found in Christian amulets; see Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, translated and adapted by Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W. (Chicago, 1957), p. 489.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 2} Out of ten miracles in Matt, . viii–ixGoogle Scholar, six are healings, two are exorcisms, one is a nature miracle, andone is a raising from the dead. In corresponding sections of Mark (Mark, i. 23–ii. 12Google Scholar, iV. 35 – V. 20), there are four healings, two exorcisms, one nature miracle and one raising from the dead. Mark, iii. 1–6Google Scholar has been transferred to Matt, . xii. 9–14Google Scholar. B. F. Drewes, ’Matthew 8–9’, attempts to argue on the basis of triadic cycles of miracles that healing should be subsumed under exorcism in Matt, . viii–ixGoogle Scholar. My position is based on summaries, structural arrangements, and points of detail in the redaction.

^{page 396 note 1} On the analysis of the formula quotation see Stendahl, K., The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament (Philadelphia, 1968), p. 107Google Scholar; Held, , ‘Matthew’, p. 230Google Scholar. On healing ‘by a word’ see Stendahl, K., ‘Matthew’, Peake's Commentary on the Bible, revised and edited by Black, Matthew and Rowley, H. H. (London, 1962), p. 781Google Scholar. The ‘word’ in context is simply ‘Go!’ (Matt, . viii. 8, 9, 13, 32).Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 2} Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (Philadelphia, 1961), p. 153.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 3} Held, , ‘Matthew’, p. 257.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 1} Stendahl, , School, pp. 91, 95–6.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 2} Held, , ‘Matthew’, pp. 226–8, 207–11Google Scholar; see the discussion below on Matt, . xv. 21–8.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 3} Perels, O., Die Wunderüberlieferung der Synoptiker in ihrem Verhältnis zur Wortüberlieferung (Stuttgart, 1934), Pp. 82–4.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 4} Dibelius, M., From Tradition to Gospel, trans. by Woolf, B. L. (New York, n.d. [1919]), pp. 55–6.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 5} Held, , ‘Matthew’, esp. pp. 168–206.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 6} Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. by Marsh, J. (New York, 1963), pp. 239–40Google Scholar. Exorcisms are, of course, also found in the Rabbinic materials, cp. McGinley, L. J., ‘The Synoptic Healing Narrative and Rabbinic Analogies’, Theol. Stud. 4 (1943), 95 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 7} Held, , ‘Matthew’, pp. 207–11Google Scholar, and for the added reason that they say nothing about faith or discipleship. On Matthew's omission of Mark, i. 23–8Google Scholar, see recently Kingsbury, J. D., ‘The Structure of Matthew's Gospel and his Concept of Salvation-History’, C.B.Q. 35 (1973), 451–74.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 1} Matthew's changes are not simply a variant translation of the Semitic if he is using Mark; neither will stylistic tendencies alone explain the changes.

^{page 398 note 2} Change: Matt, . xii. 15Google Scholar; addition of ‘all’: Matt, . xiv. 35Google Scholar; implied addition of ‘all’; Matt, . x. 7b –8a, xiv. 14Google Scholar; omission of ‘many’: Mark, vi. 13Google Scholar; omission of ‘a few sick people’: Mark, vi. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 3} Matt, . iv. 23–4Google Scholar, viii. 5, 16, ix. 35, xii. 15b, xiv. 13–14, 34–5, XV. 30, xix. 2, xxi. 10, 14.

^{page 398 note 4} Matt, . viii. 16Google Scholar, xii. 10, 15, x. I. Matthew omits θεραπε⋯ω only at Mark, vi. 5 and vi. 13Google Scholar where he omits ‘many’.

^{page 398 note 5} Matt, . xiv. 14Google Scholar, xvii. 16, xix. 2.

^{page 398 note 6} Matt, . viii. 7Google Scholar, x. I, xii. 22, xvii. 18.

^{page 398 note 7} Matt, . iv. 23, 24Google Scholar, ix. 35, xv. 30, xxi, 14.

^{page 398 note 8} Matt, . iv. 23, 24Google Scholar, ix. 35, xv. 30.

^{page 398 note 9} Mark, vi. 34Google Scholar, x. I: δıδάσκω.

^{page 398 note 10} Mark, ix. 18Google Scholar; Luke, x. 14:Google Scholar έκβάλλω.

^{page 398 note 11} Luke, ix. 12, 42:Google Scholar ίάω; Matthew appears to ίάω in Matt, . xv. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 1} Matt, . i. I, 20Google Scholar, ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22, xx. 20, 31 (Mark, x. 47, 48)Google Scholar; and xxi. 9, 15. The title is inferred in Matt, . xxii. 42Google Scholar (Mark, xii. 35).Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 2} Burger, , Davidssohn, pp. 72 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 3} Matthew omits ραββουνί in ix. 28 and xx. 33 (Mark, x. 51)Google Scholar and ραββί in Matt, . xvii. 4Google Scholar (Mark, ix. 5)Google Scholar and xxi. 20 ff. (Mark, xi. 21).Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 4} Matthew omits Mark, i. 24Google Scholar in his omission of i. 23–8 as well as Mark, v. 7Google Scholar in viii. 29 (TR adds it) and Mark, x. 47Google Scholar, in ix. 27 and xx. 30, 31.

^{page 400 note 1} Matthew omits Mark, i. 24 and x. 47Google Scholar; he substitutes Γαλıλαίου in Matt, . xxvi. 69Google Scholar (Mark, xiv. 67)Google Scholar and two verses later uses Ναξωραίου as in ii. 23. For background discussion see Gundry, R. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St Matthew's Gospel (Leiden, 1967), pp. 97 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 2} Bornkamm, G., ‘End-Expectation and Church in Matthew’, in Tradition and Interpretation, pp. 41–3.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 3} Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. by Funk, R. W. (Chicago, 1961)Google Scholar, par 147(3) with evidence from Matt, . ix. 27Google Scholar, xx. 30, 31 (р⁴⁵ υίέ). The comment should include Matt. i. 20.

^{page 400 note 4} On the difficult question of the origin of the cry see Lohmeyer, E., Gottesknecht and Davidssohn FRLANT LXI (2nd ed.Göttingen, 1953), pp. 69 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar., with reference to Pss. vi. 2, ix. 13, xxiv. 16; cp. Isa. xxxiii. 2; Berger, , ‘Messiastraditionen’, suggests a possible independent tradition in Test. Sol. xx. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 5} See Burger, , Davidssohn, pp. 77–9Google Scholar; Hummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (Munich, 1963), pp. 116–28Google Scholar; Edwards, R. A, The Sign of Jonah in the Theology of the Evangelists and Q, Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 18 (London, 1971), pp. 64–6.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 6} Matt, . iv. 25Google Scholar, V. I, vii. 28, viii. 1, ix. 32, 36; exceptions in ix. 23, 25 where the ‘crowd’ already at the ruler's house is not the ‘crowds’ which follow Jesus.

^{page 401 note 1} Matt, . vii. 28Google Scholar, iv. 25, ix. 8, 33, 36. Also, whereas the ‘crowds’ are the object of the Q statement ‘You brood of vipers’ in Luke, iii. 7Google Scholar, in Matt, . iii. 7Google Scholar it is the Pharisees and Sadducees.

^{page 401 note 2} A negative judgement on the ‘crowds’ as finally joining the ranks of Israel's leaders is found in Walker, R., Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium (Göttingen, 1967)Google Scholar; for a critique with which I agree see Kingsbury, J. D., The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13 (Richmond, Va., 1969), p. 140.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 3} For a negative judgement on the ‘crowds’ in chs. xiii and xxvii of Matthew, see Kingsbury, Ibid. pp. 16, 27–8.

^{page 401 note 4} Matthew has ninety instances of τότε in comparison with Mark's six and Luke's fifteen.

^{page 401 note 5} If BD, etc. are correct, the simple reference to κωφόν would indicate that Matthew is still thinking of the dumb demoniac of the Qstory (Luke, xi. 14)Google Scholar. The variants attempt to correct this problem by adding τυφλόν.

^{page 401 note 6} Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., Greek Grammar, para. 427Google Scholar; Strecker, G., Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit. Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus, FRLANT LXXXIII (Göttingen, 1966), p. 118Google Scholar; Burger, , Davidssohn, p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 7} See above, p. 392, n. 4. For possible Markan connections see Duling, , ‘Solomon, Exorcism, and Son of David’, H.T.R. 68 (1975), pp. 249–52.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 1} Suhl, , ‘Davidssohn’, pp. 78–9Google Scholar, is in my view incorrect to say that ‘Son of David’ in the mouth of the crowds indicates their misunderstanding.

^{page 402 note 2} Most of the changes are characteristically Matthaean; see Burger, , Davidssohn, pp. 79–81.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 3} In contrast to Luke, Matthew omits everyone of Mark's eleven instances of τ⋯ πν⋯υμα τ⋯ άκάθαρτον but Mark, vi. 7Google Scholar, par. Matt, . x. IGoogle Scholara. Mark's other references are I. 23, 26, 27, iii. II, 30, v. 2, 8, 13, vii. 25, ix. 25. Matthew has a second instance (from Q) in Matt, . xii. 43Google Scholar. Both instances, however, are related to generalized healing summaries, e.g. Matt, . ix. 35Google Scholar and xii. 15b.

^{page 402 note 4} Held, , ‘Matthew’, pp. 220, 230Google Scholar; cp. Matt, . viii. 13Google Scholar, xv. 28 and xvii. 18.

^{page 403 note 1} For the Gentile interpretation see McNeile, A. H., The Gospel According to St Matthew (London, 1949), p. 107Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., Jesus' Promise to the Nations, trans. by Hooke, S. H. (London, 1958), pp. 34–5Google Scholar; Davies, W. D, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 325–32Google Scholar. The contrary position is held by Hummel, , Auseinandersetzung, pp. 136 ffGoogle Scholar.; Trilling, W., Das wahre Israel (Leipzig, 1959), pp. 130–8Google Scholar; and Kingsbury, , Parables, p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 2} Held, , ‘Matthew’, pp. 219 ffGoogle Scholar.; Burger, , Davidssohn, pp. 72 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 3} Luke's special instances (vii. 13, XV. 20) do not make the connection with healing; Mark and Matthew do make the connection. Matthew omits Mark, i. 41 and ix. 22Google Scholar, the latter being replaced by Matthew's own formulae (Matt, . xvii. 15)Google Scholar. Matt, ix. 36Google Scholar reproduces Jesus’ compassion of Mark, vi. 34Google Scholar, but immediately after the healing summary in ix. 35; a similar case exists in Matt, . xiv. 14 and xv. 32Google Scholar. A new instance is found in Matt, . xx. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 1} Hahn, , Titles, p. 255Google Scholar; Fuller, Foundations, p. 112.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 2} Bornkamm, , ‘End-Expectation’, pp. 33–4.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 3} Matthew's view of the ‘Coming One’ in the earthly ministry includes his conception of the therapeutic Son of David; a parousia conception (Son of Man?) is found in Matt, . xxiii. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 4} For the view that ‘Hosanna to the God of David’ in Did. x. 6, is an alteration from ‘Hosanna to the Son of David’ in Matt, . xxiGoogle Scholar. to, in order to assert the superiority of Jesus' divine sonship, see Wrede, W., ‘Jesus als Davidssohn’, in Vorträge and Studien (Tübingen, 1907), pp. 173 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 1} The only transition between the two events is the statement of the ‘crowds’ that Jesus is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee (Matt, . xxi. II)Google Scholar, a theme which Matthew employs most probably to show Jesus' continuity with the persecuted prophets, his temporary protection from arrest, and the prophetic act of cleansing which immediately follows, cp. Matt, . v. 12Google Scholar, x. 41, xiii. 57, xxiii. 29–31, 34, xiv. 5, xxi. 26, 46, and here, xxi. II.

^{page 405 note 2} See the discussion of Matt, . viii. 16–17Google Scholar above; one of the refrains of Ps. cvii repeats the term τάθαυμάσıα (LXX), see vv. 8, 15, 21, 31.

^{page 406 note 1} See Wrede, , ‘Davidssohn’, pp. 165–9Google Scholar; Bultmann, , History, p. 146.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 2} See Bauer, , Lexicon, p. 686Google Scholar, definition 3; contrast Hahn, , Titles, p. 253.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 3} See Matt, . i. 21–5.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 4} Johnson, M. D., The Purpose of the Biblical Geneaologies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 210 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 5} For recent views see Davies, W. D., Setting, pp. 74–7.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 6} Suhl, , ‘Davidssohn’, pp. 67–8.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 1} Lindars, , New Testament Apologetic, pp. 192–4.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 2} Duling, D., ‘The Promises to David and Their Entrance into Christianity – Nailing Down a Likely Hypothesis’, N.T.S. 20 (1973), 68–9.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 3} Absalom: II Sam, . xiii. IGoogle Scholar; Solomon, : I Chron. xxix. 22Google Scholar; II Chron, I. I, xiii. 6, xxx. 26, xxxv. 3; Prov. i. I; Eccl. i. I.

^{page 407 note 4} Perhaps the original read ‘Shoot of David’; Lohmeyer, , Gottesknecht, p. 68Google Scholar and Burger, , Davidssohn, p. 18Google Scholar, believe the reference is simply to the re-emergence of the true Davidic line; contrast Lohse, E., ‘υί⋯ς Δαυίδ’ T.W.N.T. 8, 464.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 408 note 1} Contrast Berger, , ‘Messiastraditionen’, p. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 2} In Old Testament texts from the tradition which the New Testament and the Targums share, such as Gen. xlix. to and Isa. xi. I, the Targums interpret with reference to descent while the New Testament texts take up the metaphors of the Old Testament, cp. Rev. v. 5, xxii. 16; Rom. xv. 12. Where the Targums have the title Son of David in messianic contexts such as Hos iii. 5 and Jer. M. 9, the references are not found in the New Testament. The same is true of the title in the Targum of Cant. iv. 5 and its doublet in vii. 3.

^{page 408 note 3} R. Jose b. Kisma speaks of the Son of David; cp. the debates of R. Eliazar b. Hyrcanus and R. Joshua b. Hananiah who, however, do not mention the title. For intensification of Messianic expectation in this period, see Klausner, J., The Messianic Idea in Israel, trans. by Stinespring, W. F. (New York, 1955), p. 392.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 4} Other Rabbinic interpretations focus on the ‘ass’ of Zech. ix. 9 in connection with statements about the first redeemer, Moses, and the last redeemer, the Messiah (Midr. Eccl. i. I; Pirke R. El. xxxi); or Zech. ix. 9 is used to contrast the lowliness of the Messiah Son of David with the warlike Messiah Son of Joseph (Gen. R. 75; Tan. Gen. 2a); Ps. R. lx. 9 interprets the ‘sceptre of Judah’ in Ps. lx. 9 (cp. Gen. xlix. 8–12) as the Son of David who is the ‘humble (one)’ who triumphantly enters Jerusalem (Isa. xxvii. 6) and the ‘king, the Messiah’ who enters Jerusalem ‘humble and riding on an ass’ (Zech. ix. 9). Midr. Gen. R. interprets Gen. xlix. 11 by Zech. ix. 9: ‘when he will come [cp. Gen. xlix. 10] of whom it is written, ‘lowly and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass’, and this is followed by interpreting Gen. xlix. 10 by the Isaianic Root of Jesse from Isa. xi. 10 (cp. Rom. xv. 12). The reference I have cited in the main text is from b. Sanh 98a and is well known. Here R. Alexandri opposes Dan. vii. 13 with its term ‘clouds’ () and Zech. ix. 9 with its term ‘lowly’ () to suggest that if the Jews are meritorious the Messiah (= Son of Man) will come with the clouds; if not, ‘lowly, and riding on an ass’. On the interpretation of Gen. xlix. 10 in Jewish traditions see Posnanski, A., Schiloh, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre (Leipzig, 1904)Google Scholar to which one must now add at least I QS^b v. 20 ff. and 4 QPB. These texts make it obvious that Zech. ix. 9 is used by the Rabbis to stress that the Messiah, Son of David, is humble, and that the symbol is the lowly ass. Does not Matthew know these or similar traditions?