^{page 364 note 2} Buchanan, G. W., ‘Some vow and oath formulas in the New Tesrament’, H.T.R. LVIII (1965), 319–26Google Scholar, is ingenious but misleading. He refers to Belkin (below). Hart, J. H. A., ‘Corban’, J.Q.R. xix (1907), 615–50Google Scholar, is unsatisfactory. Montefiore, G. G., Synoptic Gospels (London, 1909), I, 164–6Google Scholar, relies on post-Tannaitic usage. Mann, J., ‘Oaths and vows in the synoptic Gospels’Google Scholar, Am. Theol, J.. xix (1917), 260–74.Google ScholarBelkin, S., philo and the oral Law (Cambridge, Mass, 1940), 162Google Scholar, reporting the view of Wünsche, A., Neue Beträge, p. 13.Google ScholarKlausner, J., Jesus of Nazareth (trans. Danby, 1925), p. 306.Google ScholarLeibermann, S., Greek in the Jewish Palestine (New York, 1942), pp. 129–32.Google ScholarLamas, G. M., Gospel Light …from Aramaic and Unchanged Eastern Customs (Philadelphia, 1939), p. 186Google Scholar (interesting, but out of focus).

^{page 364 note 3} Mishnah, , Ned. I, 2Google Scholar; b. Shev. 20b = Soncino translation, p. 106.

^{page 364 note 4} Mishnah, , Ned. II, 5, III, 2Google Scholar; b. Ned. 42a = Sonc. 135; b. Shev. 25a = Sonc. 131. Mishnah, B.K. ix, 10Google Scholar is a neglected passage. But it appeared in Bonsirven's, J. index: see his Textes Rabbiniques (Rome, 1955), § 1645.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 5} Montefiore and Mann deceived Manson, T. W. (Teaching of Jesus, 316 ff.Google Scholar) amongst others. A real dedication was envisaged. Unless the property were redeemed it could not be enjoyed without ‘trespass’.

^{page 365 note 1} Josephus, c. Ap. I, 166 f.Google Scholar (Niese), Loeb, edn., I, 228–30.Google ScholarDiscussed at Ned. III, 4 = Sonc. 267.Google ScholarBelkin, , p. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 365 note 2} Cf. the rule relating to vows of ‘valuation’. Mishnah, , Avot, v, 6Google Scholar explained by Maimonides, , Code, VI, iii, 14Google Scholar (trans. Klein, , 181Google Scholar). For busybodiness cf. Mishnah, , Sheni, M. v, 8Google Scholar (Danby, , p. 81Google Scholar); Shek, . I, 1–3.Google Scholar Vows of valuation were a category of korbān as Josephus says, Ant. IV, iv, 4 (= 72–3. Loeb, edn., IV, 511Google Scholar). On Philo's relation to the Torah here see Goodenough, E. R., Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt (New Haven, 1929, repr. 1969), pp. 45–6.Google Scholar

^{page 365 note 3} See p. 367 n. 9 below. Allegro, J. M., Treasure of the Copper Scroll (London, 1960), pp. 53, 148 n. 109Google Scholar (Cf. Lehmann, M. R. at Revue de qumran 17, vol. v (1964), pp. 102–4Google Scholar).

^{page 365 note 4} Blackmail by use of the formula is illustrated at b. Ned. 27a = Sonc. 69.

^{page 365 note 5} Philo's analysis is just: De Leg. Spec. II, 16–17. He does not contemplate the annulment of vows. Belkin, , 159–60. 165 (does he represent Philo correctly?).Google Scholar

^{page 365 note 6} Mishnah, , Ned. IV, 9Google Scholar; Arak., passim.

^{page 366 note 1} Cf. the report of Origen, below.

^{page 366 note 2} b.Ket. 70a = Sonc. 434.

^{page 366 note 3} See below, p. 368 n. 1

^{page 366 note 4} See p. 365 n. 5 above. The view of the sect of the Dead Sea cannot be ascertained. DR (= CR) xvi, 14–15 (Charles, , Ap. and Pseud, . II, 834; xx, 11–12Google Scholar) is disputed. Burrows, Millar, Dead Sea Scrolls (London, 1956), p. 364Google Scholar avoids the difficulty. Gaster, (Scriptures, p. 94)Google Scholar has ‘polluted food’ Lohse (Die Texte aus Qumran, p. 101) has ‘ Speise (seines) Mu(ndes)’ while Dupont-Sommer (Les Écrits Esséniens, 3rd edn. p. 178)Google Scholar and Vermes, (The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, pp. 109–10)Google Scholar have ‘food of his house’. The last attracts, because Mic. vii. 2 (‘Each hunts his brother with a net/votive-offering (hrm)’) is appropriate in view of the pun at Mishnah, Ned. II, 5 (which has been missed: but see Liebermann, , p. 128).Google ScholarFitzmyer, J. A., N.T.S. vii 1961, 297 ff., at p. 323.Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 5} Deut, . xxiii. 21, 24Google Scholar; Ps. 1. 14, lxxvi. 11; Eccles, . v. 4–5Google Scholar; Ecclus, . xviii. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 6} So Büchler, Philo. A., Die priester und der Cultus in letzten Jahrzehnten des jerusalemischen Tempels (Vienna, 1895), p. 93Google Scholar (Jesus was aiming at the priests?).

^{page 366 note 7} Belkin, , pp. 164 ff.Google Scholar The doctrine was old, if not pre-Pharisaical.

^{page 366 note 8} Mishnah, , Ned. IX, IGoogle Scholar (vows generally). Discreditable vows reflect on the middar's parents (Danby, , p. 275Google Scholar; Freedman, , Sonc. trans. p. 204Google Scholar). Ibid. ix, 4 (a valid pattern); b. Ned. 64a = Sonc. p. 205.

^{page 366 note 9} Mishnah, , Ket. VII, 1Google Scholar (Danby, , p. 254Google Scholar): unless an agent is used, where the wife is the muddar, the relationship must end—no annulment is contemplated! b.Ket. 70a = Sonc. p. 434 raises Jesus’ point (but with reference to the wife, so that it was overlooked). b. Ned. 35a = Sonc. p. 106. Ned. vii, 9 (Danby, , pp. 273–4Google Scholar). At B.K. IX, 10 (Danby, , p. 345Google Scholar) a father disinherits his son, and rights accrue therefrom to third parties. Cf. Arak, . VI, 3Google Scholar (Danby, , p. 549Google Scholar): one may vow everything and this may well render one's wife and child destitute (but not oneself!). Maimonides, vi, ii, xi, 1–5 (trans. Klein, , pp. 101–2Google Scholar); ibid. III, iii, 15 (trans. pp. 181–2). Pending an annulment no use could be made of the property; b. Shab. 127b (Montefiore and Loewe, H., Rabbinic Anthology, § 1280).Google Scholar Ned. 35a = Sonc. p. 106: in one view a konam loaf cannot be consumed without trespass and a need for redemption (at a period when the title of the Temple could not have been created).

^{page 366 note 10} Philo cited at p. 368 n. 1 below. Belkin, , p. 165Google Scholar (antisocial vows might be annulled at the middar's application). Walker, T., The Teaching of Jesus and the Jewish Teaching of his Age (London, 1923), p. 277Google Scholar, was deceived by Montefiore and Herford, R. T. (ibi cit.)Google Scholar.

^{page 367 note 1} Derrett, , Law in the New Testament (London, forthcoming), pp. 109–11.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 2} Ibid. pp. 453–4.

^{page 367 note 3} Belkin, , pp. 161, 168.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 4} Jewish Encyclopedia, sub v.

^{page 367 note 5} Mishnah, , Avot, IV, 18Google Scholar (Danby, , p. 455Google Scholar). Manson, , Teaching of Jesus, p. 318Google Scholar (Klausner corrected).

^{page 367 note 6} Milik, J. T., Studi Biblici Franciscani, Liber Annuus (Jerusalem) VII (1956/1957), 232–9 (not seen)Google Scholar; Rev. Bibl. lxv (1958), 409; Fitzmyer, J. A., J.B.L. lxxviii (1959), 60–5.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 7} ‘Notes and observations on Talmudic vows’, H.T.R. LIX (1966), 311–12.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 8} Superstitious sanctions do not affect them. On the Diatagma Kaisaros, Irmscher, J., Z.N.W. XLII (1949), 172–84Google Scholar; Agourides, S., Theol. (Athens), XXIII (1952), 122–31.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 9} Mishnah, , Sheni, M. IV, 10–11Google Scholar (Danby, , p. 80Google Scholar). Korbān = a dedicated object, naturally.

^{page 367 note 10} H.T.R. LIX (1966) at p. 310.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 1} Blackman, , Mishnayoth, , Nashim, , 111, 236–7Google Scholar (Danby, , p. 271Google Scholar). Philo states that when it is dedicated it is the property of Heaven: Hypothetica, ap. Euseb., Praep, . Evang, . VIII, 7Google Scholar (Loeb, edn. IX, 425Google Scholar). Vows of the maintenance of wife and children or servants prevent the middar from supporting them until God is propitiated and the votary absolved. The redemption of korbān objects was still discussed as late as b. Yev. 88a = Sonc. pp. 597–8. Belkin, , pp. 159, 166.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 2} b. Yev. 71a = Sonc. p. 480. Mishnah, , Ned. VIII, 7.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 3} Mishnah, , Ket. VIII, 1Google Scholar also Ned. iv, 7 (Sonc. p. 137; Danby, , pp. 270–1Google Scholar, q.v.). b. Ket. 70b = Sonc. pp. 437–8. Compulsory annulment was out of the question.