^{page 117 note 1} Thackeray, H. St. J., The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (London: Macmillan and Co. Limited, 1900), p. 186.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 2} Lietzmann, H., An die Galater, Tubingen, 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 3} Pukko, A. F., ‘Paulus und das Judentum’, Studia Orientalia, Helsingfors, 1928, pp. 64ff.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 4} ibid., pp. 86–7.

^{page 117 note 5} Marmorstein, A., ‘Paulus und die Rabbinen’, ZNTW 30, 1931, pp. 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 118 note 6} Bonsirven, J., Exégèse Rabbinique el Exégèse Paulinienne (Paris: Beauchesne et ses fils, 1939), 348.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 7} Klausner, J. ‘From Jesus to Paul’, Expository Times, 1944, pp. 54–55.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 8} Doeve, J., Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Van Gorcum and Co., 1953), p. 99.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 9} Ellis, E. E., ‘A Note on Pauline Hermeneutics’, New Testament Studies, Vol. 2, 1955–1956, 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 118 note 10} Ellis, E. E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), p. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 11} Amsler, S., L'Ancien Testament dans L'Eglise (Neuchâtel, 1960), p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 12} Schoeps, H., Paul (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 13} Müller, H., ‘Der Rabbinisch Qal-Wachomer-Schluß in Paulinischer Typologie’, ZNTW, 58, 1967, p. 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 119 note 14} Jeremias, J. ‘Paulus als Hillelit’ Neotestamentica et Semitica, Eds., Ellis, E. E., Wilcox, M. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1969), p. 92Google Scholar; On the other side see Haacker, K., ‘War Paulus Hillelit?’, Das Institutum Judaicum der Universität, (Tubingen, 1971–1972), pp. 106–120Google Scholar and Sandmel, S., Judaism and Christian Beginnings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 335–376.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 15} Hanson, A., Studies in Paul's Technique and Theology (London: SPCK, 1974), pp. 206–207.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 16} I have restricted this study to those letters whose authenticity is unquestioned, Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galalians, Phillipians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon (see Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism. (London: SCM Press, 1977). P. 431).Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 17} Midr. Ps. on L.1.

^{page 120 note 18} Ab. R.N. (Vers. II), XX, 22a.

^{page 121 note 19} Sifre Deut. Re'eh, §II8f., 98b.

^{page 122 note 20} San. 91b.

^{page 122 note 21} Ex. R.(Shemot III, 12).

^{page 123 note 22} Mek. (Beshallah, §6–7).

^{page 123 note 23} Ab. Zar. 2a.

^{page 123 note 24} Gen. R. 68.12.

^{page 124 note 25} Lam. R. (Introduction, 24f., 6b).

^{page 125 note 26} R. H. 16b.

^{page 125 note 27} ? Tanh. B. Hukkat, 61a.

^{page 125 note 28} Sifre Deut., Ekeb., §48f., 84b.

^{page 126 note 29} In the years between 130 and 160 A.D. R. Eliezer b. R. Jose The Galilean extended these thirteen rules to thirty-two, but he did no more than build upon Hillel and Ishmael's foundation.

^{page 126 note 30} Mishnah Betza, 5.2.

^{page 127 note 31} This example is given by J. Doeve, op. cit., p. 97.

^{page 127 note 32} Besides using this principle in exegetical contexts Paul frequently has occasion in theological discussion to resort to an inference of minor and major. For example in Rom. 5.8 Paul states that ‘God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.’ This refers to the present, and is the minor case. The next verse is an inference from the present to the future (the major case): ‘much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath (the final judgment) through him.’ This argument is continued by another similar inference from minor to major in verse 10: ‘For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more, being reconciled we shall be saved by his life.’

^{page 128 note 33} Pes. 68a.

^{page 128 note 34} There is a major difference between this rule and the analogy of expressions. In the latter case, the analogy rests on the use of identical words in different Scriptural verses. Here, however, a text is sought in which there is an analogous trait.

^{page 129 note 35} See Mielziner, M., Introduction to the Talmud (New York: Block Publishing Co., 1968), p. 166.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 36} J. Jeremias, op. cit., p. 93.

^{page 130 note 37} M. Mielziner, op. cit, p. 175.

^{page 130 note 38} J. Jeremias, op. cit, p. 94.

^{page 130 note 39} Mekilta (Bo., 8).

^{page 131 note 40} Midr. Ps. on 40.1 (129a, §1).

^{page 131 note 41} Mek. Shirata, Beshallah, §4, p. 130; Mek. 3 Vol. II, p. 31.

^{page 132 note 42} Tan. d. b. El. p. 195.