^{page 120 note 1} Tödt, H. E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, trans. by Barton, Dorothea M. from the 2nd German ed., 1963 (London: S.C.M. Press, 1965), p. 136.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 2} Perrin, N., ‘Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark’, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 23 (1967–1968), (357–65), notes the difficulty in determining the extent of Markan redaction or composition (p. 364).Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 3} Jeremias, J., ‘παīς θεο⋯’, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Kittel, G. and F, G.riedrich (9 vols., 1932 ff.; trans. by G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964 ff.), v, 715 (and n. 474)Google Scholar; cf. Jeremias, , ‘Das Lösegeld für Viele (Mk. 10. 45)’, Judaica 3 (1947), 249 ff. (especially pp. 258–62).Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 4} Higgins, A. J. B., Jesus and the Son of Man (London: Lutterworth, 1964), p. 44Google Scholar; Marshall, I. H., ‘The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings’, N.T.S. 12 (1965–1966), 342.Google Scholar This rules out Bultmann's view (The History of the Synoptic Tradition; trans. by Marsh, J.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1963, p. 155)Google Scholar that Luke xix. 10 and Mark x. 45 are Hellenistic; cf. also Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), p. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 5} Jeremias, , ‘παīς θεο⋯’, p. 706.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 6} Bultmann, , History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 143Google Scholar; he suggests (p. 144) the section vv. 42–5 is made out of an older saying vv. 43 f. But as the following discussion shows, there is evidence that the saying (v. 45) is quite old and based on a testimonium.

^{page 120 note 7} Jeremias, , ‘παīς θεο⋯’, pp. 706, 709, 710Google Scholar; cf. Mark, xiv. 24Google Scholar; Matt, . xxvi. 28; xx. 28.Google ScholarOtto, R., The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, trans. from the rev. German ed. by Filson, Floyd F. and Woolf, Bertram Lee (new and rev. ed.; London: Lutterworth Press, 1943), p. 252Google Scholar, also finds links with Isa. liii; but Staerk, W., Die Erlösungserwartung in den östlichen Religionen, Soter 11 (1938), 93 f.Google Scholar does not, though he finds Jesus' consciousness of being ‘Son’ and ‘Saviour’ the link between the parousia and the glory sayings.

Cf. Jeremias, , Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. by Perrin, N. from the German 3rd ed. (New York: Scribner's, 1966), p. 179Google Scholar; Lohse, Eduard, Märtyrer and Gottesknecht (2. Auflage; Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), p. 119Google Scholar, felt the allusions to Isa. liii presupposed use of the Hebrew text.

^{page 121 note 1} Jeremias, , Eucharistic Words, p. 181Google Scholar; cf. I Tim. ii. 6 άντίλυτρον ὑπ⋯ρ πάντων (cf. Rom. viii. 32), noting the Semitic word order of the prepositional phrase in Mark xiv. 24. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for ‘all’ ( and designate totality, not sum, hence have no plural). The lack of the article may be explained by comparison with the LXX and the Targumim and the receding distinction between the definite and the indefinite in Aramaic.

Jeremias notes (pp. 227 f.) that -πολλοί is almost a leitmotif of Isa. lii. 13 - liii. 12. Cf. I Enoch xlvi. 4–5; xlviii. 8; lv. 4; lxii. 1, 3, 6, 9; lxiii. 1–11 (where Enoch takes the ‘many’ as referring to the Gentiles); Wisdom of Solomon v. 1–23; cf. ii. 19, 20 (‘many’ refers to both Jews and Gentiles); cf. p. 229.

^{page 121 note 2} Barrett, C. K., ‘The Background of Mk. 10:45’, in New Testament Essays, ed. by Higgins, A. J. B. (Manchester: University Press, 1959), p. 1–18.Google Scholar Cf. pp. 5–7: λύτρον means equivalence or substitution, whereas 'asam means guilt, compensation. Kümmel, W. G., Promise and Fulfilment, trans. by Barton, Dorothea M. (Studies in Biblical Theology No. 23; London: S.C.M. Press, 1957), pp. 72–4Google Scholar, also doubts that λύτρον = 'asam. See also Hooker, Morna D., Jesus and the Servant (London: S.P.C.K. 1959), pp. 74–9Google Scholar; idem, The Son of Man in Mark (London: S.P.C.K. 1967), pp. 141–2.

^{page 121 note 3} Higgins, , Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 46.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 4} Rawlinson, A. E. J., St. Mark (London: Methuen & Co., 1925), pp. 147 f.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 5} He admits that άντί and the Hebrew equivalent occur in Isa. liii. 12, but he does not find this significant!

^{page 122 note 1} Barrett's argument (p. 8) that the contrast, ‘not to be served, but to serve’ would be pointless if the servant is in mind fails to reckon with the fact that it is the ‘Son of Man’ which demands the contrast, inasmuch as it is being defined in terms of the servant. As Barrett points out, the most powerful motive for the contrast arose out of Jesus' ministry as the humble Son of Man, not from literary motives.

^{page 122 note 2} Lohse, , Märtyrer, pp. 123, 126.Google ScholarTödt, , Synoptic Tradition, p. 205, n. 1Google Scholar, says that no proof of Mark xiv. 24 referring to Isa. liii can be found in the ‘for many’, since it was a current Semitism, but the parallel to Mark x. 45 would indicate reference to Isa. liii. Tödt (p. 203) nonetheless finds both references to Isa. liii. to be secondary since I Cor. xi is the more original form of the cup word than Mark xiv. 24. Here he follows Kümmel, Promise, pp. 73 ff. On the points at which he finds I Cor. xi more original Tödt may well be right (Paul preserves the separation of the cup from the bread by the meal in between), but the Hellenistic reformations (which Tödt notes) may account for the lack of a reference to Isa. liii, which, as already established, was transmitted in the Palestinian tradition, and the appending of Isa. liii quite early (Tödt, p. 205). The atonement reference of Isa. liii is not inconsistent with the new covenant motif (Jer. xxxi. 31, see Lohse, Märtyrer, p. 124, n. 3). Mark retains the Mosaic covenant allusion (Exod. xxiv. 8) as in the Palestinian tradition.

^{page 122 note 3} Lohse, , Märtyrer, p. 124, n. 3Google Scholar, thinks ‘pour out’ could come from sacrifice terminology as well; see also p. 125, n. 1; cf.Jeremias, , Eucharistic Words, pp. 118, 122 f.Google ScholarTödt, , Synoptic Tradition, pp. 204–5Google Scholar, credits the association with Isa. liii to the church, but it could go back to Jesus (see Jeremias, ‘παīς θεο’, pp. 712 ff.; Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel According to St Mark [Cambridge: University Press, 1959], p. 342).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 123 note 1} Jeremias, , ‘παīς θεο⋯’, p. 711Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (London: Nisbet, 1952), p. 93Google Scholar; Higgins, , Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 43Google Scholar; Cullmann, O., The Christology of the New Testament, trans. by Guthrie, Shirley C. and Hall, Charles A. M. (rev. ed.; London: S.C.M. Press, 1959), p. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 2} Higgins, , Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 46.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 3} Lindars, Barnabas, New Testament Apologetic (London: S.C.M. Press, 1961), pp. 78–9Google Scholar; cf. Cullmann, , Christology, p. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 4} Ginsberg, H. L., ‘The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant’, Vetus Testamentum 3 (1953), 400–4, especially p. 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barrett, (‘The Background of Mk. 10: 45’, p. 10) emphatically denies a dependence of Daniel on Isa. liii.Google Scholar He finds no connection in the haskil and hisdik since they deal with glory, not suffering, and are common words. Furthermore, they have different meanings in Isa. lii. 13 (‘attain an aim’, thus speaking of the triumph of the servant) and Dan. xii. 3 (which refers back to xi. 3 and xi. 35); cf. the similar use in the Zadokite fragment xiii. 7 and Manual of Discipline iii. 13, ix. 18; Hodayoth (Meg. Gen.). Nevertheless Daniel is a book which speaks of martyrdom, as xi. 33 shows, and Dan. vii speaks of the suffering of the saints of the Most High under the suppression of the nations represented by the beasts (Barrett, pp. 13–14).

Cf. Manson, W., Jesus the Messiah (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1943), pp. 173 f.Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., ‘The Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community’, in Neotestamentica et Semitica, ed. by Ellis, E. Earle and Wilcox, Max (M. Black Festschrift, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969), pp. 228 f.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 5} On suffering, see i. 1, xlvi. 8, xlvii. 2. The Son of Man is righteous, the people are righteous; the Son of Man is elect, the people are elect. Barrett, ‘Background of Mk. 10: 45’, pp. 14–15, thinks I Enoch lxxi, where Enoch is exalted to become the Son of Man, must have prepared the way for the thought of one who lived on earth being exalted to heaven and awaiting to appear as judge. Cf. Manson, T. W., ‘The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels’, B.J.R.L. 33 (1950), 188 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 1} Barrett, , ‘Background of Mk. 10: 45’, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 2} Ibid. p. 13, n. 43; Mid. Ps. on Ps. cxviii. 18. Cf. A. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century (London: Oxford University Press, 1928), pp. 175–89, especially pp. 188 f.; Joseph Bonsirven, Le Judaïsme palestinien au temps de Jésus-Christ (Paris: Beauchesne, 1935), 11, 96 ff.; G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, The Age of Tannaim (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958), 1, 546–52; Solomon Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (New York: Schocken Books, I961), pp. 307–11; Lohse, Märtyrer, pp. 29–32. On martyrdom effecting atonement, see Siphre Deut. 33 (C. J. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A. Rabbinic Anthology, selected and arranged with comments and intro. by Montefiore and Loewe [New York: Meridan Books, 1960], p. 226). Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man, pp. 47 f., notes that the expression δοναι τήν ψυχήν αύτο⋯ was used of martyrs.

^{page 124 note 3} Barrett, , ‘Background of Mk. 10: 45’, p. 13Google Scholar, doubts the Dead Sea Scrolls have a clear martyr theology. But Bruce, F. F., New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1968), p. 99, believes they did.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 4} Cf. Mek. Ex. xxi. 30, ‘no redemption for heathen nations’; cf. Ps. xlix. 8 f. Jeremias, , Eucharistic Words, pp. 230–1Google Scholar; but Jesus said there was a means of atonement for all people of the world in his vicarious death (p. 231).

^{page 124 note 5} Holtzmann, H. J. (ed.), Hand-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1, 1 Die Synoptiker (2nd ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901), p. 52Google Scholar; cf. Schweitzer, A., The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1914), pp. 2 f.Google Scholar, who doubted Pauline influence. Bultmann, , History of the Synoptic Tradition, pp. 144, 155, believes the verse to be a secondary formulation dependent on Hellenistic ideas.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 6} Tödt, , Synoptic Tradition, p. 203.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 7} Bultmann, , History of Synoptic Tradition, p. 144 (cf. W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos [Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913, 1921], p. 8). Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 45Google Scholar, notes that λύτρον does not appear in Paul (it is found only here and the parallel in Matt. xx. 28 in the NT) and even άντίλυτρον is only found in I Tim. ii. 6, which depends on Mark x. 45. While Paul's theology was distinct, it had its roots in the primitive Christian tradition (see Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St. Mark [2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1966], pp. 445–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Fuller, R. H., The Mission and Achievement of Jesus (Studies in Biblical Theology No. 12; London: S.C.M. Press, 1954), pp. 56 ff., demonstrates Isa. liii was part of the background of this saying and shows the non-Pauline nature of the saying (a view he later rejected).Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 1} Lohse, , Märtyrer, p. 118Google Scholar, doubts that one of the sayings is derived from the other, though Mark is certainly earlier, since it is framed in Palestinian language and refers to the Hebrew of Isa. liii, whereas Luke is more Hellenistic.

Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 144, suggests the source is Mark ix. 35, which he believes original to Mark's text. The absence of έν ύμīν or ύμῷν in ix. 35 could be more original, though the double saying form of the saying in Mark x. 43 f. is more likely original (ix. 35 may have come from a double saying).

^{page 125 note 2} Bousset, , Kyrios Christos, p. 8 n. 1Google Scholar; Bultmann, , History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 144.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 3} Higgins, , Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 39. This Hellenistic tradition (in Luke) and Palestinian tradition confirm the independent descent of the two forms.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 4} Bultmann, , History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 148.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 5} While Luke lacks Mark x. 45 b, he makes up for the omission of the reference to Jesus' death by the setting he provides (cf. Higgins, , Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 37Google Scholar). Yet cf. Bousset, , Kyrios Christos, p. 8, n. 1Google Scholar, on the omission as a reason for taking Luke as the more original form; cf. Tödt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 135.Google Scholar But how, if serving was thought inconceivable of the ‘Son of Man’, could this be glossed by ‘death as a ransom’, which one might have thought (even with the help of a martyrdom theology) was even less conceivable of the Son of Man?

^{page 125 note 6} Tödt, , Synoptic Tradition, p. 137Google Scholar; as opposed to Bultmann, , History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 152, n. 1Google Scholar, who says that in Q there are no sayings at all about the Son of Man as divine envoy walking on earth in humility. But to eliminate Matt. xi. 19, viii. 20, etc., he is forced to the untenable position that ‘Son of Man’ in these places is a mere misunderstanding.

^{page 125 note 7} Tödt, , Synoptic Tradition, p. 137.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 8} Ibid. pp. 208–9.

^{page 126 note 1} Ibid., pp. 209 f., he says the lowliness is seen in the Son of Man's sovereignty itself. It is difficult to find Tödt convincing at this point. Does it not misconstrue the meaning of such sayings as Matt. viii. 20 and Luke xix. 10 to speak of sovereignty rather than service?

^{page 126 note 2} Barrett, , ‘Background of Mk. 10: 45’, p. 9.Google Scholar The source of this contrast is probably not, Barrett feels, in the Urmensch mythology, since this is too speculative (p. 10).

^{page 126 note 3} Bousset, , Kyrios Christos, p. 8, n. 1Google Scholar; Tödt, , Synoptic Tradition, p. 136Google Scholar, notes Klostermann, Erich, Das Markusevangelium (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament; Tübingen; Mohr, 1926), p. 109, says most exegetes feel this way, but Tödt disagrees.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 4} Bultmann, , Synoptic Tradition, p. 144.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 5} Cf. Tödt, , Synoptic Tradition, pp. 203, 205Google Scholar; he notes Lohse, , Märtyrer, p. 118Google Scholar, says that the ‘Son of Man’ name and καί as equivalent to in the epexegetic sense confirm the Palestinian origin. But to grant the Palestinian origin is not to refute Bousset's view that v. 45b is a gloss (Tödt, p. 205).

^{page 126 note 6} Ibid. p. 209. The paradox in v. 45 b is characteristic of the suffering sayings and is thus extended by allusion to ‘giving life for many’ (p. 138).

^{page 126 note 7} Schweitzer, , Mystery of the Kingdom of God, p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 1} Ibid. p. 6. Schweitzer believed service is the fundamental law of interim ethics (p. 10). Any correspondence between Jesus' and the disciples' behaviour stops there. It is because of this ‘new element’ that Tödt rejects this saying (Synoptic Tradition, p. 206).

^{page 127 note 2} Higgins, , Jesus and the Son of Man, pp. 36–7.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 3} Barrett, , ‘Background of Mk. 10: 45’, p. 8.Google Scholar He finds this promise of suffering inconsistent with Mark x. 45 and thus prefers Luke xxii. 27. But there need be no inconsistency, especially if a martyrdom theology underlies the saying.

^{page 127 note 4} Tödt, , Synoptic Tradition, p. 137.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 5} Ibid. p. 138; cf., e.g., the shepherd motif, Luke xix. 10, where the element of sovereignty appears to be kept to the absolute minimum.

^{page 127 note 6} Barrett, , ‘Background of Mk. 10: 45’, p. 8Google Scholar; cf. v. 27 and I Enoch xlvi. 3–6, xlviii. 5, lxii. 8; and cf. Ps. viii. 5 f. (See Barrett's n. 8 on Ps. viii, which was interpreted of the supernatural Son of Man figure who was entitled to universal service; cf. Ps. cx. 1; I Cor. xv. 27; Eph. i. 22; Heb. ii. 6–9.)

^{page 127 note 7} Barrett, , ‘Background of Mk. 10: 45’, p. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 8} Lindars, , New Testament Apologetic, p. 78Google Scholar, feels that Mark x. 45 and Luke xxii. 27 were originally separate; cf. Kümmel, , Promise, p. 47, n. 95.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 9} Cullmann, , Christology, p. 65.Google Scholar