^{page 365 note 1} εις τήν γενεάν τήν έαντων does refer to the steward's dealings with the debtors and the master's reaction (Tilmann, , p. 179;Google ScholarFonck, , p. 688),Google Scholar but does not mean ‘in dealings with their like’ (as Jülicher, Jeremias), but ‘judged by the standard of their generation’. Vincent, M. R., Word Studies… (1887), p. 394.Google ScholarLeaney, A. R. C., Comm. on the Gospel ace. to St Luke (1958), p. 220.Google Scholar εις is often interchangeable with έν and both are used in the sense of sphere or context: Robertson, , pp. 589, 591, 594;Google ScholarBlass-Debrunner, , para. 206, p. 132.Google ScholarBauer, , Gr.-Deutsches Wört. (1957),Google Scholar col. 455 cites εύθετο εις (fit for), τούτο ούκ ταύτας τάς ήμέρας λέγω (I speak not with reference to these days), λέγεινεις τινα (to speak with reference to someone), άσθειν εις τινα (to be weak in comparison with someone: II Cor, . xiii. 3),Google Scholar consequently at col. 1714 he definitely supports the interpretation of our passage given here. Cf. ‘…in his generations’ (Gen, . vi. 9) with the comment at B.T. San. 108a=Sonc. 741–2.Google Scholar

^{page 365 note 2} As Gerda, Krüger, ‘Die geistesgeschichtl. Grundlagen des Gleichn. v. ung. Verw.’, Bibl. Zeits. XXI (1933), 170–81,Google Scholar relying on Jerome, , Ep. 121, 6, 12–13;Google ScholarAugustine, , Quaest. Evang. 2, 34;Google Scholar Isid. in Migne, , P.L. 83, 126;Google ScholarIbidGreg, . 76, 207.Google ScholarKögel, (p. 597)Google Scholar and Fiebig (pp. 82–3) had anticipated her as to the idea itself.

^{page 366 note 1} See above, p. 204, n. 4.

^{page 366 note 2} A play upon words: is the opposite of (Riggenbach, , p. 24).Google ScholarCf., Luke xii. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 3} The reading in v. 22 which best fits the sense is undoubtedly ύμέτρον. ήμέτερον, which could easily be a palaeographical corruption, might be justified on tendentious grounds. It is a pity that Huck-Lietzmann's Synopse and the recent B.F.B.S. edition both print this inferior reading.

^{page 366 note 4} Riggenbach, , ubi cit. p. 24. See also below, pp. 378–9.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 1} A somewhat fantastic explanation of so, reading a pause where hardly any reader would expect to find it, namely ‘He who is faithful in the least and the most (or the great) is faithful, and he who is unrighteous in the least and the most (or the great) is unrighteous’, is particularly misleading as it might induce one who does not read Greek to suppose that here we had a definition of a ‘faithful’, and correspondingly an ‘unrighteous’ person, as one who bore the character respectively in all sorts of context and not in any sorts only.

^{page 367 note 2} See above, p. 208, n. 2.

^{page 367 note 3} Preisker, ubi cit. Cf., Job i. 10. On Jesus' antagonism to this point of view see Hauck in Theol. Wört. s.v. Mammon, para. 3. Perhaps this passage unduly stresses Jesus' objections to wealth as such; the remark satirizing charitable donations, etc., aimed at earlier applications of the parable as understood by Fonck and others of that period, appears to be imaginative. It was a matter of fact, as we infer from instances in the Gospel, that a man could hardly be rich in those days without neglecting the command ‘Love thy neighbour…’. Consequently riches and unrighteous living were virtually synonymous: but circumstances alter cases.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 1} Under Deut. xxxii. 4 it was axiomatic that the Holy One is perfect in the execution of justice. See B.K. 50a=Sonc. 288.

^{page 368 note 2} See above, p. 216, II. 8.

^{page 368 note 3} On the aims of the Pharisees see Travers Herford, R. in Rosenthal, E. I. J. (ed.), Judaism and Christianity, III, Law and Religion (London, 1938), p. 104;Google ScholarMoore, , op. cit. I, 58, 66.Google Scholar Jesus' comments on the results must be seen against this background only: Moore, , op. cit. II, 192.Google Scholar On spirit and letter see the stimulating article by Boaz, Cohen, ‘Letter and Spirit in Jewish and Roman Law’, Mordecai M. Kaplan Jubilee Volume. Eng. Sect. (New York, 1953), pp. 109–35. As often, the rabbinical scholar takes a jaundiced view of St Paul, but this can be discounted in favour of the learning employed upon the problem in general.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 4} See above, p. 205, n. 4.

^{page 369 note 1} The significance of this was recognized by Pautrel, , cit. sup. p. 217, n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 369 note 2} Lev, . xix. 14;Google ScholarMatt, . xxiii. 13;Google ScholarMishnah, , B.M. 5. 11Google Scholar (Danby, , p. 357). Preisker, , ubi cit. emphasizes that the chapter is intended to show the Pharisees confronted by the spirit of their own authorities.Google Scholar

^{page 369 note 3} The Sermon on the Mount.

^{page 369 note 4} This interpretation of the controversial phrase και πές εις αύτήν βιάзεται (cf., Matt. xi. 12)Google Scholar does not neglect points raised in Daube's, D. valuable ‘Violence to the Kingdom’, New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 285–300, but it takes a less despairing view of the completeness of the ideas surviving in the chapter.Google Scholar

^{page 369 note 5} See below p. 379. That parable seems to the writer to be intelligible (at present) only upon the basis that whereas the Jews had an express contract with God, the benefits of the contract were to be extended by the plenicudo potestatis of the host (cf the employer in the parable of the Workers in the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard), upon the grounds of the unworthiness of the Jews, and consequent frustration of the old Contract, to a much larger, miscellaneous, and doubtfully qualified group of parties to what was virtually a new contract. But these who for the first time enter into contractual relations with the Almighty must observe the implied terms of the Contract. The gift, or licence, or whatever free benefit it is which is being allowed to them, is not offered unconditionally: if they accept they do so as reasonable beings subject to the implied conditions. If they fail to observe them they too will never see the contract performed. But this is a provisional interpretation.

^{page 370 note 1} The subject cannot be more than glanced at here. Deut, . xxiv. 1–2;Google ScholarMatt, . v. 31–2; XIX. 9;Google ScholarMark, x. 11;Google Scholar I Cor, . vii. 10–11.Google ScholarMielziner, M., Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce (New York, 1901).Google ScholarYaron, R., ‘On Divorce in Old Testament Times’, Rev. Int. des Dr. de l'Ant. (3rd ser.), IV (1957), 117f.,Google Scholar where references are found to Neufeld, , Ancient Heb. Marriage Laws,Google Scholar and Epstein, L. M., Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud.Google ScholarTravers Herford, R., Talmudand Apocrypha (1933), p. 122;Google ScholarCharles, R. H., Teaching of N. T. on Divorce (1921).Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 1} Gressman, H., Vom reichen Mann und armen Learus, Abh. P.A.W. vu (Berlin, 1918).Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 2} B.B. 17a = Sonc. 86. See Jew. Encycl. 1, arts. ‘Abraham’, ‘Abraham, Apocalypse of’, ‘Abraham's Bosom’. Jesus says so at Luke, xx. 37–8.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 3} See references in previous note. Note how he could be conjured up to rescue the daughter of a digger of wells in B.K. 50a = Sonc. 288 (c. A.D. 70). This popular belief throws some light on John, viii. 56–7.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 4} See above, p. 201, n. 2.

^{page 371 note 5} His ability to move about freely is evidenced from the Rich Man's and Abraham's references to him. Naturally we are told that he did not go to the Rich Man's gate on his own feet; in this case he was put down there (by whom, we are not told). See below, p. 377, n. 2.

^{page 371 note 6} Lightfoot, Hor-. Hebr. on Luke, xvi. 20. The reference to Jūd. Zeits.f. Wissens. und Leben, VII, 200Google Scholar at J.E. 1, 92Google Scholar cannot be verified: Easton, B. S., Gospel acc. to St Luke (Edinburgh, 1926), p. 251;Google ScholarLuce, H. R., Gospel acc. to St Luke (Cambridge, 1936), p. 172;Google ScholarEncycl. Bibl. III, 2744–5. It is accepted that Lazarus = Lazar = Eleazar. Eleazar and Eliezer are parallel forms and in places apparently interchangeable. Several rabbis, for example, are known by both.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 1} That Eliezer the Steward of Abraham (Gen, . xv. 2)Google Scholar and the servant sent to negotiate for a bride for Isaac (Gen. xxiv) were the same is accepted in the Midrash, and no Jewish commentator on Genesis doubts it. Jew. Encycl. v, 111.Google Scholar In the treatise Derek Ere Zuta (1, 9) Eliezer is counted among the nine who entered paradise while still living.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 1} This is by no means to suggest that all, or even the majority of Jews were literate, but the rich man (contrasted with the 'Amme-hā-'āretz) was sure to be. In later ages rich Jews found it fashionable to study Torah as a pious act and an intellectual exercise, and in order to gain or maintain prestige in their community. We cannot expect that Dives was unacquainted with the text of the law and the prophets.

^{page 373 note 2} It has not been noticed by commentators that whereas Dives has brotherly love for his consanguine brothers, but had no love for his brother Lazarus (equally ‘son of Abraham’), he takes it for granted that Lazarus is willing to show concern for his and Lazarus' brothers who are still alive. Why there are five of them still remains to be explained. The present writer is most unwilling to suppose that there is no significance in the number.

^{page 375 note 1} I gratefully acknowledge the help and encouragement. I have received, in order of priority, from Professor Erich Pritsch, the Rev. H. C. Green, Professor Otto Spies, the Rev. Professor K. Th. Schäfer; the Rev. Professor Fr Nötscher; Mr M. Gertner; Dr H. W. F. Saggs; Messrs D. Pearlman and G. A. Dover; and other friends, with whom I discussed the parable nearly to the limits of their patience. The Rev. Professor C. H. Dodd provided, inter alia, some advice on presentation.

^{page 375 note 2} The reader hardly needs to be told that in Strack and Billerbeck, and in Moore, innumerable examples are readily to be found which attest the similarity of Jesus' teaching with Jewish traditional doctrines expounded in, for example, midrashim. But that is another question.

^{page 377 note 1} Moore, , op. cit. II, 147–8,Google Scholar indicates a parallel injunction supported by the words, ‘Thou shalt fear the lord thy God’, and supplies the reason for the appearance of that formula. He deals with usury succinctly but on the whole accurately, Ibid. pp. 142–5.

^{page 377 note 2} This is the second interpretation offered by the Yalḳūṭ: עמוש ∁׀עיℵלה׀ ׳ ℵ∁הי םכℶ ימ ℵֹℶ ׀ניℶℵםה∁ℵ לשו עהיה ש∁ℶו עלוק…Obadiah (I Kings xviii. 3,12 הוהי־מאדי Bab.Tal. San. 39b = Sonc. 252–3) would fit the requirements adequately, but Eliezer's place in Jewish legend is more secure. Eliezer, like Abraham, had a sound knowledge of the Law and was a stout champion of the right, as well as the faithful servant. Ginzberg, L., Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1947), I, 292.Google ScholarWe note that Eliezer has the assistance of angels, Ibidp. 294.Google ScholarOn Obadiah see Ibid.. Index, sub nom.

^{page 377 note 3} Trans. Lehrman, S. M., Soncino Press (London, 1939), p. 397.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 4} Sonc. 384, where Lev, . XXV. 36 is not in fact cited, though Radal inserts the verse (on the authority of Tanhuma) in the text.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 5} The trans. reads ‘fill himself with falsehood and generally squander the king's treasures’: is evidently the original of διασκορπιзων It is curious to note that here the ‘robberies’ so far from enriching the treasury actually diminished its real value, stuffing it with untrue wealth. That this paradox underlies the Greek term no one would as yet be bold enough to assert, but the point deserves further investigation.

^{page 378 note 1} The appearance of these words in the midrash, drawn to the writer's attention after he had completed the reconstruction of the ideas of Luke xvi according to his own theory based primarily on the text itself, struck him as a welcome confirmation of the essential connexion between Luke, xvi. 1–8,Google Scholar 9 and 11: דקש וחוא חמא לש ׀וממ ול ןחנ The midrash further cites Hos, . x. 13: ‘Ye have ploughed wickedness… ye have eaten the fruit of lies ….’. See above, p. 218, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 2} Strack, H. L., Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, chap. xvii, 5^c (New York, Philadelphia, 1959), p. 215.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 3} The notion of ideal equality (into which it is impossible to enter here) is fully set out in Ex. Rab, . XXXI. 5 (ad fin.)Google Scholar citing Ps. lxi. 8 (7), taking the root of

^{page 379 note 1} Sonc. 388–90.

^{page 379 note 2} Or ‘drive out’. In the English translation it appears that the notion has been misunderstood, as if the friend were saying, ‘if you do not want her to die, why beat her?‘

^{page 379 note 3} Or ‘utterly reject’, ‘banish’. The use of Isa. 1. i in San. 105a=Sonc. 714 supports this.

^{page 379 note 4} The midrash enlarges on the implications of the verse. Moses asked: ‘Shall they remain in pledge for ever?’ God replied, ‘No, only Until the Sun appears’ Ibid., that is, till the coming of the Messiah; for it is written, ‘But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings’ (Mal. iv. 2).

^{page 380 note 1} The author of this and the previous article is Reader in Oriental Laws in the University of London.