¹ On “hatred” in Qumran, see Sutcliff, E. F., Rev. Qum. 2 (1960), 345–356Google Scholar , cf. idem, The Monks of Qumran (1960), 81 f.

² This passage in Josephus is closely related to 1 QS i also in its stress on the right relation to those in power (μάλιστα δὲ τοîs κρατοῆσιν). Hence Josephus may refer to the leaders of the community; or, and what is more probable, he consciously generalizes the community attitudes to have them serve as an ideal for common social virtues. This seems to be the case also when he describes them as “holding righteous indignation in reserve (ὀργῆs ταμíαι δíκαιοι — lit.: righteous controllers of wrath), being masters of their temper, champions of fidelity, very ministers of peace” (viii,6). For the more specific and colorful nature of this attitude at Qumran, see below note 16.

³ . On raqam in the Old Testament, see G. E. Mendenhall, in the Wittenberg Bulletin, Dec. 1948, pp. 37–42.

⁴ It should be noted that the “enemies,” the men of perdition and deceit, are the sons of darkness and are always outsiders; the tensions between members of the community are handled with a different terminology, see e.g. v, 24–vi, 1 and vi, 24–vii, 25. See also CDC vi, 20 ff. and ix, 2.

⁵ For Mt. 5:43–48, see below, p. 355.

⁶ Cf. Michel, O., Der Brief an die Römer (Meyer Komm.; 1955),Google Scholar “Bei dem ‘Feind’ hat man an den konkreten Widersacher der christlichen Gemeinde zu denken, der in seiner Person das ‘Böse’ verkörpern kann” (p. 278).

⁷ O. Michel, ibm., uses the adequate term “das Wagnis der Feindesliebe.” It remains to be seen whether we should not actually speak about non-retaliation rather than “love of enemies” also in Paul, but the element of daring and of risk is obvious, and is the point at which the impending judgment makes a difference.

⁸ Cf. Rom. 5:9. — See MacGregor, G. H. C., “The Concept of the Wrath of God in the New Testament,” N.T. Studies 7 (1960/1961), 101–109Google Scholar; and Hanson, A. T., The Wrath of the Lamb (1957), 91, 97, and 101Google Scholar.

^8a This quotation is used also in Hebr. 10:30. Its occurrence in the context of church discipline would argue against our definition of “enemies” as outsiders, were it not for the fact that the ultimate and irrevocable apostasy in Hebr. 10 makes such a “brother” worse than the enemies. This passage is the more significant, since the apostasy here seems to be one under the pressure of persecution.

⁹ The New English Bible ties the reader to this alternative by making full use of άλλά as adversative and translates: “But there is another text: ‘If your enemy. …’” Such an adversative relation between two scriptural quotations would be odd and I cannot find any instance in support. Hence the άλλά is either adversative in relation to the main alternative (to seek one's own vengeance), or generally heightening (so , Michel, op. cit., p. 278)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Latest and fullest discussion in Morenz, S., Th. L.Z. 78 (1953), 187–192Google Scholar; for the text see Griffith, F. L., Stories of the High Priests of Memphis (1900). — Less attention has been given to a most intriguing passage in The Babylonian Book of Proverbs: “Verily, if it is thy quarrel which has flamed up, quench thou it. But be it a quarrel which is just, it is a bulwark, a protecting wall which (establishes) the shame of his adversary, so that his oppressor will act according to the mind of a friend. — In thine adversary not shalt thou place thy whole confidence. Unto him that doeth thee evil shalt thou return good. Unto thine enemy justice shalt thou mete out.”Google ScholarLangdon, S., Babylonian Wisdom (1923), 90.Google Scholar

¹¹ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955), 19–23.Google Scholar Dahood must think that his suggestion has ramifications for Rom. 12:20, since his article bears the title “Two Pauline Quotations from the Old Testament,” but he does not indicate how his interpretation could suggest itself to a reader of LXX or Romans.

¹² So translates Goldin, J., The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Yale Judaica Ser. 10, 1955), 85Google Scholar; lit.: “he will surrender him to you.” — For further references to this widespread emendation see Str.-B. Ill, 302. — Later in ch. 16 of Aboth R. Nathan (, Goldin, p. 86)Google Scholar, we hear about the hate toward the sectarians, apostates, and informers. The proof text is Ps. 139:21 f., which we quoted above.

¹³ This imagery is used also in a setting of theodicy, where God's dealing with mankind is seen in the parable of the baker who from the same fire places coals of fire on his enemy's head and gives bread to his friend, i.e., from the one God came the fire of Sodom and the Manna to Israel. Str.-B. III, 303; Tanh. B § 20(33b).

¹⁴ Str.-B. III, 301 from GenR 45 (28c). —Cf. Paul's cautious addition “but thereby I am not declared just” in 1 Cor. 4:4, although the context indicates that he is rather certain of the outcome, as he is also in 2 Cor. 5:11.

¹⁵ Prof. Frank Cross assisted me in arriving at this translation; for “done to him” cf. Dan. 9:12.

¹⁶ It may be this attitude which, translated into general terms of ethics, is described by Josephus as quoted in note 2 above.

¹⁷ For a reconstruction of the text, see Kuhn, K. G., Die älteste Textgestalt des Psalmen Salomos (Beitr. z. Wiss. d. A.u.N.T. 4:21; 1937)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Cf. Gen. 15:16. — In 1 Thess. 2:16 Paul speaks about the resistance to his mission to the Gentiles as being είs τò άναπληρῶσαι αύτῶν τάs άμαρτίαs πάντοτε. ἒϕθασεν δὲ έπ αύτούς ή όργή εíς τέλοs — cf. also Mt. 23:32 f.; and 1 Cor. 11:31 f.

¹⁹ Eppel, R., Le piétisme juif dans les Testaments des Douze Patriarches (1930), 157–162Google Scholar, notes the limits of universalism, but has not raised the question about the Sitz im Leben. Hence he treats the sayings from the point of view of ethical enlightenment.

²⁰ While the text here, as in many places in the Testaments is quite uncertain μετανοεί seems to refer to the violator, and has to mean that he can and does use the opportunity of repentance when the “pious man” shows mercy toward him by not retaliating.

²¹ In Test. Gad 5:9 it is the prayers of Jacob which rescue Gad from the punishment inflicted by God.

^21a M. Buber has analyzed this difference from the perspective of two different types of faith (the actuality of faith as trust, and “believing that …”); cf. also his examples from rabbinic sources, Two Types of Faith (Eng. Tr., 1951), 73–75Google Scholar.

²² See Preisker, H., in Th.W.B.II, 586.Google Scholar

²³ See Essay II in Selwyn, E. G., The First Epistle of St. Peter (1949)Google Scholar.

^23a Cf. above, note 8a.

^23b Cf. 2 Peter 2:9 where the sentence “The Lord knows (how) to deliver the godly out of temptation,” is continued by a statement much akin to the thought expressed in Rom. 12: 19–20, “but to preserve the unrighteous unto the day of judgment to be punished.”

²⁴ Indicative for the tone of most commentaries is the way in which e.g., Sanday and Headlam (ICC, p. 365) rule out a harsh interpretation since it is harsh. — I have found O. Michel, op. cit., to be the most adequate of the modern commentaries; while he finally comes out on the Augustinian side, he gives a full and unbiased presentation of the comparative material and of the alternatives involved. — Preisker, H., Das Ethos des Urchristentums (1949)Google Scholar, on the other hand reads Rom. 12:20 in the judgmental way and adds: “Ganz offensichtlich ist ein völlig anderer Geist in die christliche Liebe eingedrungen” (p. 184).

²⁵ Cf. Did. 1:3: “But you should love those who hate you, and you will have no enemies.” Dibelius, M., Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (1933 ²), 249Google Scholar, calls this rightly a rationalized form of the logion; see also Köster, H., Synoptische Überlieferung bei den Apostolischen Vätern (T.U. 65; 1957), 221, 263Google Scholar, who ascribes this form to the editorial activity in Did. — Cf. Epict. Enchir. 1, and we are reminded of the tendency which expressed itself in the Test. XII Patr., e.g., Test. Benj. 5:1–3. — For a discussion of Rom. 12:19–21 in comparison with Seneca, see Sevenster, J. N., Paul and Seneca (Suppl. to Novum Testamentum, vol. 5, 1961), 183–5Google Scholar.

²⁶ The substance of this article was presented as a paper at the World Congress for Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, July, 1961, and at the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in St. Louis, Mo., Dec, 1961. At the SBLE Meeting Dr. W. Klassen read a paper on the very same topic “coals of fire;” his paper, which at many points comes to a conclusion opposite to the one here presented, and which, in addition, gives a rich survey of the history of interpretation, is to be published in New Testament Studies in the Fall of 1962.