^{page 318 note 1} However, the geographical notes in Luke ix. 18–xviii. 34 are vague, and at times seem contradictory. The obscurity may be due to lack of personal acquaintance with the area. Cf. C. C. McCown, ‘The Geography of Luke's Central Section’, J.B.L. lvii (1938), 51–66.

^{page 318 note 2} The following have no parallel in the other Synoptics: Luke i. 5 ff., 39 ff., 65; ii. 4 ff.; [iv. 44]; v. 16 f.; vii. 17; X. 30 ff.; xix. 1–10; xxiv. 36–41.

^{page 318 note 3} The following have no parallel in the other Synoptics: Luke ii. 22 ff., 41 ff.; v. 17; ix. 31, 51, 53; x. 30 ff.; xiii. 4, 22, 33 f.; xvii. 11; xix. 11; xxi. 20, 24; xxiv. 36–41, 50–3.

^{page 319 note 1} The Four Gospels (London, 1930), pp. 172 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 2} Op. cit. p. 54.

^{page 319 note 3} The following have no parallel in the other Synoptics: Luke i. 8 ff.; ii. 22 ff., 46 ff.; x. 31 f.; xviii. 10; xxiv. 53. Cf. also Acts ii. 46; iii. i–iv. 22; v. 12–42; xxi. 23 ff.

^{page 320 note 1} Luke i. 26–38, 39–56; ii. 1–20, 21–40, 41–52; xi. 27 f.; Acts i. 14; John ii. 1–12; vi. 42; xix. 25–7.

^{page 323 note 1} Cf. Leaney, A. R. C., ‘The Resurrection Narratives in Luke’, N.T.S. II (1955), 110–14.Google Scholar

^{page 324 note 1} E.g., Matt. xii. 16; xvi. 20; xvii. 9; Mark i. 34; iii. 12; v. 43; viii. 30; ix. 9 f.

^{page 324 note 2} Jesus' early claim to Messiahship might be implied in Matt. x., but the latter is much less clear, and, in any case, refers to a time later than that of Luke or John.

^{page 324 note 3} Also at Luke ix. 51, άναλήμψεως would properly refer to the Ascension, rather than to the Passion.

^{page 325 note 1} See Luke i. 15, 34, 41, 67; ii. 25 ff.; iv. 1, 14; x. 21; xi. 13; xii. 12.

^{page 325 note 2} ‘The Central Section of Luke's Gospel’, in Studies in the Gospels, ed. Nineham, D. E. (Oxford, 1955), PP. 37 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 3} Jacob, J. Enz, ‘The Book of Exodus as a Literary Type for the Gospel of John’, J.B.L. lxxvi (1957), 208–16.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 4} The only New Testament writer to record an ordinance of the chalice is Paul (I Cor. xi. 23–7). But cf. Luke xxii. 30 and John vi. 54.

^{page 326 note 1} The related Hebrew peger means ‘dead body’. See Gen. v. ii; II Kings xix. 35; Isa. xxxvii. 36.

^{page 326 note 2} The Gospel According to St Luke: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (New York, 1926), Introduction, p. xxv.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 1} An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1946), p. 61.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 2} ‘Peter's Denials—Mark xiv. 68, Luke xxii. 57’, Expository Times, lxvii (1956), 341Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 1} Matthew and Luke have nothing to correspond to Mark xv. 25. But Matt. xxvii. 45 and Luke xxiii. 44 indicate, even more explicitly than Mark xv. 33, that by noon Jesus was on the cross.

^{page 329 note 1} Matt. i. 23; ii. 6, 15, 18; iv. 15, 16; viii. 17; ix. 13; xii. 7, 18–21; 14 f., 35; xxi. 5, 16; xxvii. 9 f. have no parallel in the other Synoptics. John's references to the Old Testament are too numerous, and often too allusive, to list in full. See especially John i. 1, 5, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 29, 36, 45, 51; ii. 6, 13, 17, 22; iii. 14, 25; iv. 5, 6, 12, 20, 22; v. 10, 29, 39, 45–7; vi. 4, 14, 31 f., 45, 49, 58; vii. 2, 19, 22–4, 27, 38, 41 f., 49, 51 f.; viii. 17, 33, 37, 39–41, 52 f., 56 f.; ix. 16, 28 f.; x. 8, 34 f.; xi. 24, 55; xii. 13, 15, 34, 38–41; xiii. 18; xv. 25; xviii. 28, 31; xix. 7, 14, 24 f., 28, 31, 35–7; xx. 9.

^{page 330 note 1} Besides the passages already named, see Matt. xx. 17; xxvi. 20.

^{page 330 note 2} ‘Die Passionsgeschichte bei Matthaus’, N.T.S. ii (1955), 17–32.

^{page 330 note 3} Parker, Pierson, The Gospel Before Mark (Chicago, 1953).Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 1} E.g., Bacon, B. W., The Gospel of the Hellenists, p. 114; H. Windisch, Johannes und die Synoptiker (Leipzig, 1926), pp. 42 ff.; W. Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (3rd ed., Tübingen, 1933), vi, 246 f.; E. C. Colwell, John Defends the Gospel (New York, 1936), pp. 7–9.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 2} The Gospel According to St John. The following quotations are from pp. 15, 36.

^{page 332 note 1} See Acts x. 36 f.; xiii. 23 ff.; also Acts i. 1–5, 21 f.; ii. 22–32; iii. 13–15; iv. 10; xviii. 25–8.

^{page 333 note 1} ‘John a Primitive Gospel’, J.B.L. lxiv (1945), 155.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 2} Conclusions similar to these are reached by Gardner-Smith, P., St, John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, 1938).Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 1} ‘Was the Author of John Dependent Upon the Gospel of Luke?’, J.B.L. lvi (1937), 285 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 2} Hoskyns, Edward F. and Davey, F. N., The Fourth Gospel (2nd ed., London, 1947), i, 72–87.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 3} The Gospel of the Hellenists, p. 112.

^{page 335 note 4} ‘Some Johannine “Herrenworte” with Parallels in the Synoptic Gospels’, N.T.S. ii (1935), 75–86.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 5} The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), p. 449.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 1} Cf. Parker, Pierson, Inherit the Promise (New York, 1957), pp. 167 f.Google Scholar