No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Amidst all the current discussion of the 
and 
of the early Church and the NT meaning of these expressions, there is one word which curiously seems to have been overlooked—curiously, because when it is the preaching of the Word of God which is under debate one would have expected the word 
to have received more attention than it has.1 Attention has fallen heavily upon 
—a rare word in the NT, but scarcely at all upon 
—a very common word in the NT. Indeed in the Acts of the Apostles, a book whose chief theme is the spread of the preaching of the Gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, 
occurs not at all, 
only twice (and then in close dependence upon 
), but 
nearly forty times! These figures compel us to pay more attention to the word 
: if the meaning ‘proclamation’ is important in understanding the 
, and the meaning of ‘good news’ is important in understanding the 
, how is the meaning of ‘speaking’ or ‘speech’ important in understanding the designation of the early preaching as 
?
It is the purpose of this article to examine how the evangelists used the term 
in the synoptic Gospels, to see what they and Jesus thought of His words, His speech and its relationship to His being, His person.
page 186 note 1 We may notice the reluctance of English publishers to issue a translation of the excellent article on 
in Kittel's Wordbook (while issuing translations of articles on words already well documented in English).
page 186 note 2 
: Matt. 12.36; 18.16; 26.75; 27.14. Luke 1.65:2.17; 19, 50, 51; 55.5; 7.1; 9.45; 18.34; 2O.26; 22.61; 24.8; 24.11. Mark 9.32; 14.73. 
: Matt. 5.37; 7.24, 26, 28; 10.14; 12.32, 37; 15.12, 23; 19.1, 9 (some MSS.), 11, 22; 22.15, 46; 24.35; 26.1, 44; 28.15. Luke 1.4, 20, 29; 3.4; 4.22; 6.47; 9.26, 28, 44; 12.10; 20.20; 21.33; 22.61; 23.9; 24.17, 44. Mark 5.36; 7.29; 8.38; 10.22, 24; 12.13; 13.31; 14.39.
page 186 note 3 cf. Luke 2.15; Matt. 12.36; 18.23; 25.19; Luke 16.2. Matt. 21.24; Luke 20.3. Mark 11.29. Matt. 5.32. Luke 7.17. Mark 9.10.
page 187 note 1 Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St. Mark (London, 1955), p. 521.Google Scholar
page 187 note 2 McNeile, A. H., The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London, 1915), p. 355.Google Scholar
page 188 note 1 
occurs only twice in Acts, at 15.7 and 20.24.
page 188 note 2 Barrett, C. K., The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London, 1947), p. 65.Google Scholar
page 188 note 3 Creed, J. M., The Gospel According to St. Luke (London, 1930), p. 162.Google Scholar
page 188 note 4 Kittel, G., T.W.N.T. vol. IV, p. 123/23.Google Scholar
page 189 note 1 McNeile, op. cit., p. 24.
page 189 note 2 Taylor, op. cit., p. 341; cf. also Mark 12.24 and Taylor's comment on p. 483.
page 189 note 3 Kittel, 114/34 and 115/12.
page 189 note 4 C. E. B. Cranfield, ‘St. Mark 4.1–34’ in S.J.T. IV.4, pp. 398–414, and V.1, pp. 49–66 (and more briefly in The Gospel According to St. Mark (Cambridge, 1959), pp. 158ff).
page 189 note 5 Cranfield, , The Gospel According to St. Mark (Cambridge,1959), pp. 161–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 189 note 6 Ioc. cit.
page 190 note 1 It may be appropriate here to mention the attempt of Riesenfeld, H. in The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings (London, 1957)Google Scholar to posit the existence of a ‘Holy Word’ handed on by Jesus to His disciples in the manner of a Rabbi. This rather static concept is well criticised by C. F. Evans in Theology, vol. LXI, no. 459, pp. 355–62. That the Word of Jesus re-created the disciples, so that they had themselves a Word to preach about Jesus crucified and risen is one matter; Riesenfeld's is quite another. He is only concerned to suggest a method of the formation of the written Gospels, and even in this it would appear that rather more detailed evidence is required to substantiate his thesis.
page 191 note 1 Daube, D., ‘Exousia in Mark i.22 and 27’, in J.T.S., XXXIX (1938), pp. 45–59Google Scholar; see Barrett, C. K., The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London, 1947), pp. 79–82.Google Scholar
page 191 note 2 C. K. Barrett, op. cit. the whole of chapter 5 is important, but see especially p. 81f.
page 191 note 3 Matt. 8.8.
page 191 note 4 Matt. 8.16.
page 191 note 5 Matt. 9.22.
page 191 note 6 Mark 10.52.
page 191 note 7 Matt. 4.19.
page 191 note 8 Matt. 8.26.
page 191 note 9 Matt. 8.32.
page 191 note 10 Luke 7.8.
page 192 note 1 Richardson, A., The Miracle Stories of the Gospels (London, 1941), p. 53Google Scholar; also Richardson's denials of possible accretions from Hellenism, the accounts are essentially Hebraic in character.
page 192 note 2 Vincent, J. J., ‘Didactic Kerygma in the Synoptic Gospels’, in S.J.T., X. pp. 262–273.Google Scholar
page 192 note 3 Dodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (London, 1936).Google Scholar
page 192 note 4 Matt. 7.28.
page 192 note 5 Mark 6.2–3, Luke 4.38–39, Mark 11.18.
page 193 note 1 Manson, T. W., The Saying of Jesus (London, 1949), p. 9Google Scholar; see also J. J. Vincent, op. cit., pp. 271ff.
page 193 note 2 C. Maurer, Judaica, p. 147, cited by Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (Eng. tr. London, 1954), p. 158.Google Scholar
page 193 note 3 cf. Kittel, op. cit., p. 106/41
page 193 note 4 Mark 4.12 and Rom. 9.32; 1 Cor. 1.23; 1 Pet. 2.4–8; cf. Matt. 15.12.
page 193 note 5 cf. Luke 1.2 with Acts 1.21–25.
page 193 note 6 Mark 1.1.
page 193 note 7 SirHoskyns, E. C., The Fourth Gospel (London, 1940, re-set 1947), p. 160.Google Scholar
page 194 note 1 Kittel, op. cit., p. 122/38.
page 194 note 2 see p. 188, n.1.
page 194 note 3 For Luke's use of 
see Barrett, op. cit., pp. 140–62.
page 194 note 4 cf. Acts 10.34–43, and John 1.14.