^{page 462 note 1} Pelican edition (London, 1959), p. 19f.

^{page 462 note 2} p. 90. Otto was not concerned with Biblical religion in particular, but drew his data from other religious systems besides Judaeo-Christianity. It would be unjust to his work if one treated the words quoted as the views of an Old Testament scholar. They would seem, however, to present fairly his idea of the development of Hebrew religion. For a criticism of Otto in this respect, see Snaith, N. H., The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (London, 1944), p. 30f, 45f.Google ScholarCampbell, C. A., On Selfhood and Godhood (London, 1957), Lecture XVI, esp. pp. 342ffGoogle Scholar, has defended Otto against the charge that he entirely separated the religious and the ethical, by stressing the element of fascinans which Campbell believes has been overlooked by many of Otto's critics.

^{page 464 note 1} Stamm, J. J., Le Décalogue à la lumière des recherches contemporaiws (Paris, 1959)Google Scholar, and Reventlow, H. G., Gebot und Predigt im Dekalog (Gütersloh, 1962).Google Scholar Cf. Clements, R. E., Prophecy and Covenant (London, 1965), esp. chapter IV, ‘The Law in the Pre-Exilic Prophets’.Google Scholar

^{page 464 note 2} Reventlow, , Wächter über Israel (Berlin, 1962), esp. pp. 95–116.Google Scholar

^{page 464 note 3} ‘Remarks on the Modern Interpretation of the Prophets’, JBL, 1961, pp. 309ff.Google Scholar

^{page 465 note 1} See Gemser, B., ‘The Rib—or Controversy—Pattern in Hebrew Mentality’, VT Supplements III (Leiden, 1955), pp. 120–37;Google ScholarWright, G. E., ‘The Lawsuit of God’, Israel's Prophetic Heritage (London, 1962);Google ScholarMuilenberg, J., The Way of Israel (London, 1961), pp. 36ff.Google Scholar But see also Clements, op. cit., p. 78f, and Huffmon, H., ‘The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets’, JBL, 1959, pp. 285–95Google Scholar who distinguishes between covenant lawsuits and those derived from the idea of a Divine Assembly.

^{page 466 note 1} See, for example, Snaith, op. cit., passim, Muilenberg, op. cit., pp. 59–61. The possibility that the Northern Kingdom remembered the Sinaitic (Moses) covenant while the South emphasised the Davidic covenant would not affect the moral teaching which arose out of the covenant relationship.

^{page 466 note 2} cf. Vriezen, Th. C., An Outline of Old Testament Theology (Oxford, 1958), chapter IV, pp. 128–47.Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 1} One may cite on the one hand von Rad's, G. title essay in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh, 1966)Google Scholar, and Noth, M., Ueberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart, 1948).Google Scholar Taking the second view are Beyerlin, W. E., Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar, and Newman, M. L., The People of the Covenant (London, 1962).Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 2} The Jewish scholar Kaufmann, Y., The Religion of Israel (Chicago, 1960)Google Scholar, does not link prophecy and cult as closely as this article has done. The great value of Kaufmann's viewpoint is that he underlines the primacy of morality in the prophets. It was ‘but a step from the moral outlook of the Torah to the doctrine of primacy of morality (cf. Deut. 10.17ff); but this step was never taken before prophecy’ (p. 160f and see pp. 158–61, 365–7). His remarks are a salutary warning not to neglect what is novel in prophecy in the interests of emphasising its link with the past.

^{page 468 note 1} ‘Prophetie in Israel and Ägypten. Recht und Grenze eines Vergleichs’, VT Supplements IX (Leiden, 1962).Google Scholar Cf. Bentzen, A., Introduction to the Old Testament (Copenhagen, 1948–1949), Volume I, p. 259.Google Scholar The later arrangement of prophetic writings may have affected the interpretation of their teaching, particularly the element of prediction, see Barr, J., Old and New in Interpretation (London, 1966), pp. 118–26.Google Scholar But this is not likely to have changed the significance of the moral teaching.

^{page 468 note 2} ‘Prophetie und Magie’, ZAW, 1966, pp. 25–47.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 1} ‘The Woe-Oracles of the Prophets’, JBL, 1962, pp. 249–63.Google Scholar

^{page 469 note 2} ‘Common Trends in curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-Inscriptions compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah’, ZAW, 1963, pp. 155–75.Google Scholar

^{page 470 note 1} ‘On the Ethics of the Old Testament Prophets’, VT Supplements VII (Oxford, 1959). PP. 75–101.Google Scholar

^{page 471 note 1} See Lindblom, J., ‘Wisdom in the Old Testament Prophets’, VT Supplements III (Leiden, 1955), pp. 192–204Google Scholar, and Terrien, S., ‘Amos and Wisdom’, Israel's Prophetic Heritage (London, 1962).Google Scholar Cf. also J. Muilenberg, op. cit., pp. 98–106.

^{page 472 note 1} ‘The Basis of the Ethical Teaching of the Prophets’, Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (Edinburgh, 1950).Google Scholar

^{page 475 note 1} Lewis, H. D., Morals and Revelation (London, 1951), p. 175.Google Scholar Cf. Niebuhr, R., An Interpretation of Christian Ethics (London, 1936), p. 19fGoogle Scholar and chapter 3, pp. 75–109. For a somewhat different interpretation of this point see Snaith, op. cit., p. 65f.

^{page 475 note 2} The Theological Frontier of Ethics (London, 1961), ‘“Ought” implies “Can”’, PP. 192–99.Google Scholar

^{page 476 note 1} It is not clear that right moral conduct on the part of the ‘nations’ would lead to their salvation. They, too, are in the last resort dependent on Yahweh's universal graciousness.