^{page 401 note 1} See Morgan, Robert, ‘Expansion and Criticism in the Christian Tradition’, in Pye, M. and Morgan, Robert (eds.), The Cardinal Meaning (The Hague, 1973), pp. 59–101, on p. 63.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 2} ibid., pp. 60f.

^{page 401 note 3} ibid., pp. 69, 71.

^{page 401 note 4} cf. Barr, J., The Bible in the Modern World (London, 1973), p. 117Google Scholar. Note, however, Kelsey, D. H., The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology (London, 1975), chapters 6 and 7, for the great variety of ways in which Scripture can be said to ‘authorise’ a theological position.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 1} cf. Dunn, J. D. G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London, 1977), pp. 45f.Google Scholar; also K¨asemann, E., An die Römer (Tübingen, 1973), p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 2} See Barrett, C. K., The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1957), p. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 1} cf. Mark 15.37–39. The starkness of the centurion's confession,.which in Mark is a response to Jesus' death, is lost in Matthew and Luke. In Matthew, the confession is a response to the stupendous miracles of the earthquake and the appearance of the saints; in Luke, the centurion simply states that Jesus is innocent.

^{page 403 note 2} cf. John 2.23–25; 4.48; 6.2, 14, 30; 7.31; 9.16; 20.29. See Dunn, op. cit., p. 303.

^{page 403 note 3} See Koester, H., ‘Gnomai Diaphorai: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity’, in Robinson, J. M. and Koester, H., Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 114–157, esp. PP. 150–3.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 1} ibid., p. 153. For the positive role played by the miracles in Luke, see Achtemeier, P. J., ‘The Lucan Perspective on the Miracles of Jesus’, J.B.L. 94 (1975), pp. 547–562Google Scholar. Cf. Luke 7.22; Acts 9.35,'42; 13.1a; 16.30, 33; 19.17. Achtemeier says: ‘It is rather clear in Acts that miracles were an effective device for turning people to faith’ (p. 553).

^{page 404 note 2} This was an integral part of Samaritan expectations: cf. Macdonald, John, The Theology of the Samaritans (London, 1964), pp. 362ff.Google Scholar; and also apparently of the Qumran sect., cf. the 4 Q.Test fragment where Deut. 18 is quoted; 1 QS ix.II may also be relevant.

^{page 404 note 3} For Matthew, cf. Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 25ff.Google Scholar; for John, cf. Glasson, T. F., Moses in the Fourth Gospel (London, 1963).Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 4} See Dunn, op. cit., p. 260. Dunn describes the Christology of Hebrews as ‘a polemic against Ebionite Christology’, i.e. any presentation of Jesus in angelic, prophetic or Mosaic terms.

^{page 404 note 5} See especially Moule, C. F. D., The Origin of Christology (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 47ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 405 note 1} For the individualistic nature of John's presentation, see Moule, C. F. D., ‘The Individualism of the Fourth Gospel’, N.T. 5 (1962), pp. 171–190.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 2} cf. Moule, , Origin, pp. 55, 62f.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 3} The phrase is that of ProfMoule, , in ‘The Christology of Acts’, in Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L. (eds.), Studies in Luke Acts (London, 1968), pp. I79f.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 4} op. cit., p. 226.

^{page 405 note 5} For a more forceful view, see Käsemann, E., ‘The Canon of the New Testament and the Unity of the Church’, Essays on New Testament Themes (London, 1964), pp. 95–107.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 6} Such a distinction between ‘Palestinian’ and ‘Hellenistic’ is no longer really viable: cf. Marshall, I. H., ‘Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity’, N.T.S. 19 (1973), pp. 271–287Google Scholar; also Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism (London, 1974), passim.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 7} See Moule, Origin, passim.

^{page 406 note 1} The classic exposition of this view is that of Wrede, W.: see his essay ‘The Task and Method of “New Testament Theology”’, translated in Morgan, Robert, The Nature of New Testament Theology (London, 1973).Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 2} See Kelsey, op. cit., pp. 2O2f., for a valuable note on the different possible ways of relating ‘what it meant’ to ‘what it means’. A simple equation of the two is clearly not the only possibility.

^{page 406 note 3} cf. Morgan, , Nature, p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 1} See his Theology of the New Testament, Vol. 2 (London, 1955), p. 175.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 2} This method thus comes near to making a simple equation of ‘what it meant’ with ‘what it means’.

^{page 407 note 3} Morgan, , Nature p. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 4} ibid., p. 51. See too, Kelsey, op. cit., p. 200.

^{page 408 note 1} cf. Morgan, , Nature, p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 2} cf. Hebblethwaite, B. L., ‘The Appeal to Experience in Christology’, in Sykes, S. W. and Clayton, J. P. (eds.), Christ, Faith and History (Cambridge, 1972), p. 268Google Scholar; also Morgan, Nature, pp. 49f. Bultmann's existentialist interpretation of john avoids this difficulty by the prior source theory of the existence of a later ecclesiastical redactor.

^{page 411 note 1} This is the one unifying factor which Dunn finds in the NT despite the great diversity there. See Unity and Diversity, passim.

^{page 412 note 1} It may be that this is all that is required. However, the fact that Lampe is using Paul's ideas, and not simply his words, means that what Paul thought is still relevant to the exegetical discussion.

^{page 412 note 2} See Lampe's, own essay ‘The Holy Spirit in the Writings of St. Luke’, in Nineham, D. E. (ed.), Studies in the Gospels (Oxford, 1955), pp. 159–200.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 1} See Bornkamm, G., ‘Baptism and New Life in Paul’, Early Christian Experience (London, 1969), pp. 71–86, esp. p. 76.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 2} Moule, , Origin, p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 1} cf. Young, F., ‘A Cloud of Witnesses’, in Hick, J. (ed.), The Myth of God Incarnate (London, 1977), pp. 13–47, on pp. 13f.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 2} cf. Wiles, M., ‘Does Christology rest on a Mistake?’, Christ, Faith and History, pp. 3–13.Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 1} Especially by Ogden, Schubert: see his essay ‘The Significance of Rudolf Bultmann for Contemporary Theology’, in Kegley, C. W. (ed.), The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann (London, 1966), on pp. 120f.Google Scholar