^{page 209 note 1} Robinson, J. M., The New Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 99Google Scholar. Compare Bornkamm, , Jesus of Nazareth, p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 2} Compare Dinkler, , ‘Jesu Wort vom Kreuztrager’, N.T. Studies for R. Bultmann, pp. 110 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 3} John, Knox, The Death of Christ, pp. 52 f.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 1} Hooker, M. D., The Son of Man in Mark, pp. 175 f.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 2} Compare Nineham, D. E., Saint Mark. Writing about xiiiGoogle Scholar. 24–7 he asks, ‘Have scholars who deny all authenticity to the passage been influenced at all by the desire to dissociate Jesus from ideas and language strange to modern minds?’ (p. 356, footnote).

^{page 210 note 3} Cullmann, O., Saluation in History, pp. 187 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 4} Compare H. Palmer, The Logic of Gospel Criticism. He claims that we have no ‘independent knowledge of groups producing, preserving, or altering stories cast in one form or another’, without which the form-critical attempts to grade these as historical evidence are not very convincing (p. 193).

^{page 210 note 5} Cullmann expects to find authentic sayings of Jesus in the gospels. This is the proper approach of form-criticism (Salvation in History, pp. 189–92). Moule suggests that in one sense the post-Easter interpretation was only a re-discovery of what had already been there in the teaching of Jesus (Phenomenon of the N.T., p. 46). See also Riesenfeld (Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings) and Gerhardsson (Tradition and Transmission in the Early Church).

^{page 210 note 6} History of Synoptic Tradition, p. 265.

^{page 210 note 7} N.T. in Current Study, pp. 40 f.

^{page 211 note 1} Critical Introduction to the N.T., p. 97.

^{page 211 note 2} Saint Mark, p. 276. Nineham also suggests that the addition or alteration in some cases may not be due to the theology as much as the practice of the Church in different conditions. See his comment on ‘except a staff’ (Mark vi. 8) on p. 169.

^{page 212 note 1} Fuller gives the example of Matt. v. 17, commenting that because this is merely Jewish and is also inconsistent with the central message of Jesus it is basically inauthentic (Critical Introduction, p. 96). Compare Stauffer, Jesus: Gestalt und Geschichte, p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 2} For example, if Matt. xxii. 7 seems to reflect the destruction of Jerusalem, it is not from Jesus, as Jesus did not predict the future. Beasley-Murray (A Commentary on Mark 13, p. 7) correctly points out that the strength of this argument depends largely on our view of prediction.

^{page 213 note 1} Rediscovering the Parables, pp. 19 ff.

^{page 213 note 2} Hooker, M. D., Son of man in Mark, p. 134Google Scholar. Likewise she says about x. 33 f. that ‘this final prediction of the passion is by far the most detailed, and is for that reason the most open to suspicion’. Compare Higgins, (Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 34Google Scholar) who, using the same argument, concludes that even ix. 31 is a church formulation.

^{page 214 note 1} Critical Introduction to N.T., pp. 96 f.

^{page 214 note 2} See Jeremias's statement of the ways in which the Church has influenced the message of the parables (Rediscovering the Parables, pp. 36 ff.). However, no agreed changes in the parables can simply be applied to the rest of the teaching of Jesus. It may be that there were influences at work in the retelling of the parables that are not to be found elsewhere.

^{page 214 note 3} The criterion is often used in this way against the Little Apocalypse.

^{page 215 note 1} Moule, , Phenomenon of the N.T., p. 60Google Scholar. When writing earlier (p. 54) about the term ‘Abba’, Moule recognizes that this criterion does not always apply.

^{page 215 note 2} Op. cit. p. 62.

^{page 215 note 3} Moule instances the use of ‘Amen’ at the beginning of a sentence–a technique unprecedented and not found in the rest of the N.T.

^{page 215 note 4} Käsemann, , Essays on N.T. Themes, p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 5} Nineham, , Saint Mark, p. 360Google Scholar. He also asks whether elsewhere Jesus ever referred to himself absolutely as the Son. The saying seems unacceptable according to criterion no. 6, and probably also no. 2.

^{page 216 note 1} Saint Mark, pp. 427 f. However, the saying is recorded in Aramaic, which makes it more acceptable according to no. 4.

^{page 216 note 2} Sanders (Tendencies of Synoptic Tradition) argues against Black (Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts) that the discovery of parataxis in Mark does not really serve to prove an Aramaic sayings tradition behind the words of Jesus (p. 250). He also comments that in the Acts of Pilate 5. 2 and 14. 2 there is a higher degree of asyndeton than is to be found in Mark. No one however suggests that these verses are translated from primitive Aramaic sayings (p. 250).

^{page 216 note 3} Manson, T. W., Sayings of Jesus, pp. 18Google Scholar ff. Compare Black, p. 43.

^{page 216 note 4} Eucharistic Words of Jesus, pp. 118 f. Jeremias points out that many words appear in graecized form in I Corinthians. According to criterion no. 2, this would not support their authenticity.

^{page 216 note 5} Emerton has challenged the conclusion that this expression is untranslatable into Aramaic; but Nineham ignores this with the words ‘virtually impossible’ Saint Mark, p. 385).

^{page 216 note 6} Higgins, A. J. B. (Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 48Google Scholar) uses this test negatively when discussing Mark x. 45a and concludes that because the Greek cannot be a translation of Aramaic it must be the creation of the Greek-speaking Church.

^{page 216 note 7} Sanders, pp. 194 ff. Compare Turner, ‘Second Thoughts: VII. Papyrus Finds’, Expository Times, LXXVI (1964).Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 8} Jeremias suggests that if a saying reflects Palestinian conditions its authenticity is assured.

^{page 217 note 1} Burkitt, F. C., Gospel History and its Transmission, pp. 147 f.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 2} Palmer, The Logic of Gospel Criticism, and Sanders, Tendencies of Synoptic Tradition. Compare Butler (Originality of Matthew) and Farmer (The Synoptic Problem).

^{page 217 note 3} Parables of the Kingdom, p. 24.

^{page 217 note 4} Moule, however, warns against any negative use of this criterion. ‘Selection is often at work on the traditions; and I see no reason to reject a tradition merely because it appears in only one stream, provided it is not intrinsically improbable or contradicted by the other.’ (Phenomenon of N.T., p. 71.)

^{page 217 note 5} Carlston, C. E., B.R. 7 (1962), 33 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 6} This is what M. D. Hooker claims has happened with the interpretation of the Son of man. Many scholars assume that the ‘coming’ Son of man is the basis of the teaching and then rule out the ‘suffering’ and ‘activity on earth’ sayings as inconsistent (Son of Man in Mark, ch. 1). Compare Fuchs, Studies of Historical Jesus, p. 105.

^{page 218 note 1} Formal structure of Jesus's Message, pp. 96 f. However, it can equally be argued that ‘the meaning which we attribute to the parable must be congruous with the interpretation of his own ministry offered by Jesus in explicit and unambiguous sayings’ (Dodd, C. H., Parables of the Kingdom, p. 27).Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 2} Jeremias, , Rediscovering the Parables, pp. 8Google Scholar f. Compare Black, , Aramaic Approach, p. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 3} Compare Hunter, , Interpreting the Parables, p. 87Google Scholar; Jones, , Art and Truth of Parables, p. 35Google Scholar; and Jeremias, op. cit. pp. 54 ff.

^{page 218 note 4} Cullmann, , Salvation in History, p. 193.Google Scholar