1. See, for example, the work of Fraenkel, Jonah. Among his articles which deal with the nature of the talmudic story and the application of structural analysis to it are “Ma'ase be' R. Shila,” Tarbiẓ 40 (1970): 33–40,Google Scholar “She'eilot Hermenutiyot be-Heker Sippur ha-'Aggadah,”Tarbiẓ 47 (1978): 139–172, and “Ha-Zeman ve-'Isuvo be-Sippurei ha-'Aggadah,” in Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of J. Heinemann, ed. Petuchowski, Jakob and Fleischer, Ezra (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 133–162.Google Scholar

2. The most recent work using formula comparison as a means of text analysis and correction is Boaz Gottlieb's, Isaac“Formula Comparison in Midrash Research,” Jewish Quarterly Review 70 (1979 –80): 28–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. For example, Fraenkel, Jonah,“Paranomasia in Aggadic Narratives,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 27 (1978): 27–51.Google Scholar

4. See Heinemann's, Joseph work on the literary homily as a uniform, edited whole in his article “ 'Omanut ha-Qompoziṣiyah be-Midrash Va-Yiqra Rabbah,” Ha-Sifrut 2 (1971): 808–834Google Scholar [English précis:“Profile of a Midrash: The Art of Composition in Leviticus Rabbah,”Journal of the American Academy of Religion 39 (1971): 141–150], as well as his analysis of the structure of the petihta in “The Proem in the Aggadic Midrashim: A Form-Critical Study,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 100–122. See also Kagan, Zipporah, “Divergent Tendencies and Their Literary Moulding in the Aggadah,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 151–170;Google ScholarSibley Towner, Wayne, The Rabbinic Enumeration of Scriptural Examples (Leiden, 1973);Google ScholarPorton, Gary, The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael, Part Two: Exegetical Comments in Tannaitic Collections(Leiden, 1977);Google ScholarHammer, Reuven, “Section 38 of Sifre Deuteronomy: An Example of the Use of Independent Sources to Create a Literary Unit,” Hebrew Union College Annual 50(1979): 165–178;Google Scholar and Chernus, Ira, “On the History of a Pericope in the Midrash Tanhuma,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 11 (1980): 53–65. These works attempt to analyze midrashic texts using form and redaction critical tools. Note also the important comments of Richard Sarason in his article“Toward a New Agendum for the Study of Rabbinic Midrashic Literature,” in Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of J. Heinemann, pp. 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. For example, Davies, Philip R., “Passover and the Dating of the Aqedah,” Journal of Jewish Studies 30 (1979): 59–67;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Mihaly, Eugene, A Song to Creation (Cincinnati, 1975).Google Scholar

6. Note as an illustration, Mihaly's, Eugene analysis of pisqa 312 of Sifrei Devarim in his article“A Rabbinic Defense of the Election of Israel; An Analysis of Sifre Deuteronomy 32:9,” Hebrew Union College Annual 35 (1964): 103–143.Google Scholar

7. Though much of the material in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, like that of the other Exegetic Midrashim, probably emanated from the tannaitic period, scholars generally hold that it was compiled sometime during the first part of the amoraic period. See, in this regard, Zunz, Leopold, Ha-Derashot be-Yisra'el, trans, and enl. Albeck, Hanokh (Jerusalem, 1947), p.27;Google ScholarFriedmann, Meir, “Mavo,”Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (Vienna, 1870), pp. xvi–xxvi;Google Scholar and Towner, Rabbinic Enumeration of Scriptural Examples, p. 48, n. 1. For a survey of the scholarship on the dating and characteristics of the Mekhilta as well as an example of the minority view which regards it as a very late, post-talmudic compilation, see Wacholder, Ben-Zion, “The Date of the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael,” Hebrew Union College Annual 39 (1968): 117–144.Google Scholar

8. Lauterbach, Jacob, ed. and trans., Mekilla de-Rabbi Ishmael (Philadelphia, 1933), vol. 1, pp. 252–255.Google Scholar The text of the Lauterbach edition is superior to that of Hayyim Horowitz and Yisrael Rabin (Jerusalem, 1960), since Horowitz used mainly the early printed editions (Venice, 1545; Constantinople, 1515; and Leghorn, 1801) for his basic text, while Lauterbach utilized both MS Oxford, no. 151 and MS Munich Cod. Hebr. 117 (1) in his text. For a general comparison of the two editions, see Finkelstein, Louis,“The Mekilta and Its Texts,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 5 (1933–34): 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In addition, compare Melamed's, Ezra review of the Horowitz-Rabin edition in Tarbiẓ 6 (1934 / 35): 112–123Google Scholar with Lieberman's, Saul critique of the Lauterbach edition in Qiryat Sefer 12 (1934 / 35): 54–65. Even though Lieberman would have preferred it if Lauterbach had used one of the full manuscripts and points out the dangers and difficulties of an eclectic text, he repeatedly underscores the generally high quality of the Lauterbach edition.Google Scholar

9. The version in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon b. Yohai reads a bit differently here: Even though a similar phrase, appears on line 10, it probably was not an original part of the text, since it is not found in any of the other important parallels. These include the early-thirteenth-century Spanish work Sefer ha-Manhig (Hilkhot Pesah 2) and Sefer 'Or Zaru'a (Hilkhot Pesahim 234), which was compiled in the Provence at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Additionally, this phrase is not part of the repetition of the opening derash at the end of the passage (1. 43), even in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon version (MRSBY).

10. The Horowitz-Rabin edition, following the earlier printed editions, has the formula introducing the second text from Exodus 15:1.

11. At this point, the printed editions and, therefore, the Horowitz-Rabin text contain the following sentence: This segment is found in all the text witnesses following the question attributed to R. Nehemiah and the restatement of the opening derash as an answer. Even though Isaac Weiss, in the commentary to his edition of the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, en-titled Middot Soferim, argued that the order of the material in the printed edition was preferred and that the tradition regarding Abraham was correctly placed prior to the comment of R. Nehemiah (p. 406), this is surely not the case. Not only do the manuscripts and all the later parallels, such as Yalqut Shim'oni 1:240, confirm that this derash should appear only once in this passage and following the R. Nehemiah material, but from a structural point of view it can only appear there. (See my comments below, p. 12). The erroneous repetition of the material at this point in the passage is probably the result of a scribal error of the type called homoeoteleuton, by which the copyist simply moved his eye from line 5 to line 12 and copied the subsequent material.

12. The printed editions as well as Sefer ha-Manhig and Sefer 'Or Zaru'a do not have the opening as … but begin simply with the word This reading, which presents the comment attributed to R. Nehemiah as a statement of principle rather than a request for a biblical proof text, is probably the original, since the formulae which follow, come to supply illustrations or applications of a previously stated point. See additional comments about the function of the formula on pp. 11–12.

13. The MRSBY reads while the version in 'Or Zaru'a substitues for

14. The unit of material on lines 9–12 is not found in either Or Zaru'a or the Manhig.

15. The printed editions supply the end of this crucial proof text: “And He counted it to him for righteousness.”

16. The rest of the text from Exodus 4:31 reads: “And they heard that the Lord had remembered the children of Israel.”

17. The entire Psalm 31:24 text is “Love the Lord, all you His righteous ones. The Lord preserves the faithful, and plentifully repays him who acts haughtily.”

18. The key part of this biblical text, which is quoted in the MRSBY version as well as in a number of later parallels, like Tanhuma ha-Nidpas, Beshallah 10, and Yalqul Hosea 519, is “And his hands were faithful until the going down of the sun.”

19. In the MRSBY text, the superfluous quotation from Psalm 118:20 is missing and the material skips right to(Isa. 26:2).

20. The Munich MS, as well as the printed editions, adds here:

21. The text from Lamentations 3:23 is preceded by the words The peshat is clear: His (God's) mercy and compassion never cease. They are renewed every morning; great is Your faithfulness.

22. This formula was used to introduce similar material on lines 12 and 16.

23. The word is present in the Oxford and Munich MSS, in Tanhuma ha-Nidpas, Beshallah 10, and in Sefer ha-Manhig. Sefer 'Or Zaru'a reads:

24. This reading is an error on Lauterbach's part, since the manuscripts as well as the key parallel versions, such as Yalqul Shim'oni 1:240 and Yalqut Hosea 519, all read .

25. Heinemann, Isaac, Darkhei ha-'Aggadah (Jerusalem, 1954,) bk. 2, pp. 135–136, 140–143.Google Scholar

26. In this light, the reading in the Lauterbach edition, which does not have the term“prior to the Exodus 15:1 citation in lines 5, 12, and 45, seems to be preferred.

27. For a definition of in the Bible, see inter Bultmann, Rudolf and Weiser, Arthur, s.v.“Faith,” Kittel's Dictionary of the New Testament (London, 1961), p. 10;Google ScholarAbraham, Israels.v.“Belief,” Encyclopaedia Judaica 4:929–934; Max Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind (New York, 1952), p. 42;Google Scholar Claude Montefiore and Loewe, Herbert, A Rabbinic Anthology (Philadelphia, 1960), p. 336;Google Scholar and Dorfman, Dan, “Some Aspects of Faith in Rabbinic Literature” (rabbinic thesis, Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion, New York, 1976), pp. 16–18. It should be noted that God is not the exclusive object of . It is also used in the Bible to describe the relationship among people. See, for example, 2 Chronicles 20:20.Google Scholar

28. Isaac Heinemann, s.v.“ 'Emunah,”Encyclopedia Miqr'ayit 1:426–428, and Bultmann and Weiser,“Faith,”p. 44. Many biblical passages illustrate that in the Bible faith is nearly synonymous with obedience. See, for example, 2 Chronicles 19:9. Similarly, when Israel lacks faith or trust the Bible emphasizes its failure to observe God's commandments. In this regard, see Deuteronomy 9:23 and Psalm 78.

29. Note Dorfman's critique of scholars like Bultmann who assert that in rabbinic literature faith is identical with obedience to the law. In his thesis,“Some Aspects of Faith in Rabbinic Literature,”pp. 98–99, 168–169, Dorfman stresses that only a smattering of 'aggadol directly associate with the performance of the mitzvot.

30. Even Dorfman (p. 77) admits that Israel demonstrates its“faith”in God mainly by its faithfulness to its part of the covenant, i.e., by observing God's commandments. See, in addition, the comments by Jacobs, Louis, Faith (London, 1968), p. 101.Google Scholar

31. For example, note B.T. Ketubot 19b.

32. Bereshit Rabbah 100:9.

33. B.T. Sotah 48b.

34. K.G., Eckart, Untersuchungen zur Traditionsgeschichte der Mechilta (Berlin, 1959), p.54.Google ScholarMelamed, Ezra, in his Pirkei Maw le-Sifrut ha-Talmud (Jerusalem, 1973), p. 187, stresses that through the process of redaction, strophelike structures were created around major principles or themes, while Towner, Rabbinic Enumeration of Scriptural Examples, p. 154, has demonstrated that the stichwort at times functioned as a rather artificial criterion for adding biblical texts to a rabbinic enumeration pattern.Google Scholar

35. Note, as an illustration, the opening section in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. Massekhta de-Pisha, parashah 1, in which Moses is pictured at first as being superior to Aaron, since he received revelation while his brother did not. However, subsequently, through clear redactional additions, the two are declared to be equally important.

36. Finkelstein, Louis,“Studies in the Tannaitic Midrashim,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 6 (1935): 190.Google Scholar

37. In the parallel in Tanbuma ha-Nidpas, Beshallah 10, the introductory formula is which is the fuller version.

38. See n. 12, above.

39. Note, in this regard, the comments of Raphael, Yiṣḥak in the introduction to his recently published edition of Sefer ha-Manhig le-Rabbi Avraham be-Rabbi Natan ha-Yarลi (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1978), pp. 22–24.Google Scholar

40. In the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael there are eighteen passages in which the formula appears. In no fewer than sixteen of these, it comes to introduce a case which illustrates a previously stated principle or interpretation of the text. Only in Shirta, parashah 2 (Lauterbach ed. 11, p. 20) and 'Amaleq, parashah 2 (11, p. 159) does this pattern partially break down. It should be added that in many texts the formula is repeated a number of times, each time introducing another illustration or application, as is the case in our passage.

41. The only possible breakdown seems to come in the last paragraph (Sec. IV), where the reading in the Lauterbach edition and in the printed editions is (1. 38)instead of the fuller as is the case in the first two illustrations. Yet both the Oxford and Munich MSS as well as the Sefer ha-Manhig all have the added word . Moreover, unlike the first two cases, the last section has a second proof text appended (from Hos. 2:21 f.). However, this verse is associated creatively with the text from Song of Songs 4:8 by a subtle sound play on the roots and

42. Out of forty-five passages in which the formula appears in the Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, thirty-five cases only involve the supplying of additional examples for a previously mentioned point. In the other ten instances a derash is appended to the biblical citation which usually explains its connection to the main point. On occasion, we find a series of biblical texts cited, each introduced by the formula .

43. Though Eckart's words of caution about the unreliability of the ascription of individual passages to particular tradents in the Mekhilta are important (see his Untersuchungen, pp. 110–114), it is interesting to note that the observance of the commandments is viewed as effectuating redemption in several traditions attributed to R. Nehemiah, a third-generation Palestinian tanna. See, for example, Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 2:19 and Midrash Tehilim 12:5

44. The rabbis sometimes portray Abraham as having fulfilled all the laws of the Torah prior to Sinai. See, for example, M. Kiddushin 4:14, B.T. Yoma 28b, 'Aggadal Bereshit, chap. 56, and Midrash Mishlei 16:31. Nevertheless, here the emphasis has to be on Abraham's observance of one specific commandment, based upon R. Nehemiah's comment.

45. The best example is found in Massekhta de-Pisha, parashah 5 (to Exod. 12:6).

46. A number of passages in rabbinic literature emphasize that God Himself is considered faithful, i.e., an when He acts in this world. Note in this regard Sifrei Devarim 307: — “God showed His faith when He created the world.”See also Dorfman's comment, in“Some Aspects of Faith,”p. 57, that God is considered faithful primarily when He fulfills His promises of reward (and punishment) to humankind.

47. Not only does the beginning of Psalm 106 (v. 12) succinctly define 'emunah in terms of the fulfillment of God's commands, but it also emphasizes the importance of acting justly and righteously (v. 3), and, as well, describes God redeeming His people from Egypt and saving them at the Sea (vv. 7–11).

48. A parallel in Shemot Rabbah 23:5 spells out even more explicitly the play on and the stress on the song being a messianic projection: This text may also rest upon the interpretation of the word as referring to Abraham, who was the first person in the Bible about whom it was said that he“trusted in God”(Genesis 15:6 — ) and from whom Israel inherited its notion of 'emunah. Additionally, the word Tniwn also means “reward” or “gift”(see 1 Sam. 9:7), and this gives further support to the derash that Israel was to be rewarded i.e., redeemed, due to its 'amanah. See Song of Songs Rabbah 4:8:2 in this regard.

49. Since the time of Leopold Zunz (Ha-Derashot, p. 27), scholars have viewed the Exegetic Midrashim as collections of independent expositions arranged according to the order of scriptural verses. They thought that these texts simply strung together traditions drawn from a variety of disparate sources without attempting to shape them into homogeneous structures. See, in this regard, Albeck, Hanokh, Maw u-Maftehot le-Midrash Bereshit Rabbah (Jerusalem, 1965), pt. I, p. 1;Google ScholarEpstein, Jacob N., Mevo'ot le-Sifrut ha-Tannaim (Jerusalem, 1957), pt. III, p. 572;Google Scholar and Joseph. However, our analysis has shown that at least certain sections of these compilations reflect some degree of editing and the development of unified themes. For a similar view, note the work of Petuchowski, Jakob, “A Sermon on Psalm 29 Attributed to Rabbi Ele'azar Hamoda'i,” Hebrew Union College Annual 48 (1977): 243–264, and Hammer, “Section 38 of Sifre Deuteronomy,”pp. 165–178. In addition, note the comments of scholars like Joseph Heinemann, who, in his works Literature of the Synagogue, pt. III, pp. 119 and 135, and Derashot ba-Zibbur be-Tequfat ha-Talmud (Jerusalem, 1971), p. 17, underscores the few examples of the proem (petihta) pattern of public sermon preserved in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael and in Sifrei Devarim.Google Scholar

50. See n. 7 above.

51. See, for example, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. Massekhta de-Babodesh, parashah 6 (to Exod. 20:6).

52. For example, Kimelman, Reuven, “Birkat ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity,”in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2, Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period, ed. Sanders, E. B. (Philadelphia, 1981), pp. 229–233;Google Scholar Lawrence Schiffman,“At the Crossroads: Tannaitic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism,”in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2, p. 149; Urbach, Ephraim, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans, from the Hebrew by Abrahams, Israel (Jerusalem, 1975), vol. 1, p. 303Google Scholar; Avi-Yonah, Michael, The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest, trans, from the German by the author (New York, 1976), pp. 139–140;Google Scholar and Chernick, Michael, “Some Talmudic Responses to Christianity, Third and Fourth Centuries,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 17 (1980): 305, 405.Google Scholar It should be noted that a clear description of the Jewish-Christian groups in Palestine is difficult, since their history is scantily documented, and the church fathers from whom we receive information do not have a very clear notion of their doctrinal positions. See the different portraits of Jewish-Christian groups by such scholars as Alon, Gedaliah, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age, trans, from the Hebrew by Levi, Gershon (Jerusalem,1980), vol. 1, pp. 294–302;Google ScholarBruce, F.F., New Testament History (London, 1969), pp. 371–373;Google Scholar Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church, trans, from the German by Douglas Hare (Philadelphia, 1969), pp. 10–12; and Danielou, Jean, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, trans. Baker, John (Philadelphia, 1978), pp.55–64.Google Scholar

53. Note the additional comments of Schiffman,“At the Crossroads,”pp. 155–156; Avi-Yonah, Jews of Palestine, pp. 143–147; and Chernick,“Some Talmudic Responses,”p. 394; as well as those of Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (Leiden, 1977), p. 224; Alon, Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age, pp. 305–307; and Smith, Morton, “Early Christianity and Judaism,” in Great Confrontations in Jewish History, ed. Wagner, Stanley M. and Allen Breck (Denver, 1977), pp. 44–55.Google Scholar In addition, see Eugene Mihaly's understanding of pisqa 312 of Sifrei Devarim as a response to a series of Christian arguments current in the second century in his article“A Rabbinic Defense of the Election of Israel,”passim.

54. Smith,“Early Christianity and Judaism,”p. 61, and Chernick,“Some Talmudic Responses,”p. 394.

55. Among others, see Schweitzer, Albert, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (London, 1956), pp. 220–226;Google Scholar Krister Stendahl,“The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,”Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 199–215; and Davies, W.D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (New York, 1965), pp. xiii and 221–222. Davies argues that justification by faith was merely a metaphor used by Paul due to polemical necessity. In his Epistles to the Galatians and to the Romans, Paul consciously presents his claims over against those of Judaism, and the emphasis upon faith vs. works was a convenient polemic for him. In regard to Davies's claims, it is interesting to note that out of a total of 109 instances of the use of the term (“faith”) in Paul's Epistles, 62 of them occur in Galatians and Romans.Google Scholar

56. See Rom. 3:20–31, 4:2–16, 9:30–33, 10:4–12 and Gal. 2:16–21, 3:6–25 among many. Though Paul' rejection of the law might be understood as applying only to ritual, it should be noted that for him the essential contrast is between (“faith”) and (“work”). In fact, for Paul, justification through faith implies that no independent human activity of any kind, even ethical behavior, is necessary. Yet Paul speaks of both —“the law of Christ”(Gal. 6:2) and —“a law of faith”(Rom. 3:27), which seems to show that he does not inculcate total ethical indifference, as Hans-Joachim Schoeps points out in his Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (London, 1961), p. 210. Faith completely revolutionizes the believer and produces within him a new kind of life. The stamp of Christ will be upon the whole of the Christian's daily activity; the life of the believer is one of moral renewal. See, in this regard, Rom. 12:2, 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:16, and Eph. 4:23–25, as well as the comments of William Henry Paine Hatch, The Pauline Idea of Faith (in Its Relation to Jewish and Hellenistic Religion) (London, 1917), pp. 39, 47, and 53.

57. See Gallan's, Terrence astute comments on Galatians 3, in this regard, in his article, “Pauline Midrash: The Exegetical Background of Galatians 3:19b,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 549–567.Google Scholar

58. For example, Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 550, and Schoeps, Paul, p. 171.

59. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, pp. 482–483. Like other New Testament scholars, Sanders emphasizes that for Paul salvation comes through faith and not through the law for two reasons: (1) if salvation came as a result of the observance of Mosaic law, it would exclude the Gentiles and nullify Jesus' appointment as savior of all who believe; and (2) if it is sufficient to keep the law in order to inherit the promise of salvation, Jesus died in vain (p. 490).

60. Earle Ellis, Edward, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 1957), pp. 119–120.Google Scholar

61. Rom. 4:17. See Kasemann's, Ernst insightful comments in“The Faith of Abraham in Romans 4,”in his Perspectives on Paul, trans. Kohl, Margaret (Tubingen, 1969), pp. 79–90.Google Scholar

62. Issues such as the observance of circumcision, Sabbath, festivals, and the avoidance of forbidden foods are discussed throughout Galatians, in several places in Romans, e.g., chap. 14, as well as in Corinthians (1 Cor. 8, 10:18–33).

63. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians appeared at the very end of the first century C.E.

64. Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 10. Here, Clement seems to follow the point of view expressed in the Epistle of James. Contrary to Paul, the Epistle of James, which was written for Judeo-Christians, understood Genesis 15:6 to mean that Abraham was justified by his works and not by faith alone when he willingly offered his son, Isaac, as a sacrifice (2:21–24).

65. Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 22.

66. Schoeps, Paul, pp. 263–271. See, for example, Irenaeus' Treatise against Heresies, IV, 12:4.

67. Justin Martyr, The Dialogue with Trypho, chaps. 10, 18, 19, and 43; Irenaeus, Treatise against Heresies, IV, 13:1, 16:5; and Tertullian, Against Marcion, chap. 4.

68. Justin Martyr, Dialogue, chaps. 16 and 43; Irenaeus, Treatise, IV, 16:2; and Tertullian, Against Marcion, loc. cit.

69. Justin Martyr, Dialogue, chap. 23; and Irenaeus, Treatise, IV, 16:2, 21:1, and 25:1.

70. Note, for example, John 3:18, in which belief is seen as the sole vehicle for salvation.

71. Letter of Barnabas, chap. 9.

72. Ibid., chap. 13:7.

73. Gal. 3:19 reads:“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it [the law] was ordained by angels through a mediator.”

74. Letter of Barnabas 9:4.

75. Barnard, Leslie W., Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and Their Background (Oxford,1960), p. 118.Google Scholar

76. As an illustration, note Irenaeus' description of Simon Magus' view of the law in his Treatise against Heresies, II, 23:2–3.

77. Jonas, Hans, The Gnostic Religion (Boston, 1963), p. 142.Google Scholar

78. Seep. 15, above.