^{page 213 note 1} An earlier form of this study was originally to be published in the Festschrift to be presented to Professor Stauffer on his 65th birthday, 5 May 1967.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 2} Jesus and his Story (London, 1960), pp. 142–59.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 3} Op. cit. pp. 150, 177.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 4} ‘∑ύ λέγειζ (Mark xv. 2-Matt. xxvii. 1 r-Luke xxiii. 3)’, Studii Classice, 11 (1960), 151–8.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 5} Samuel Hirsch in Archives Israélites, xxvi (1865), 388Google Scholar; Peynado, J. R., ‘An Examination of Bishop Pearson's Exposition of the Apostles' Creed’, The Occident, v (1847), 548Google Scholar; Saalschiitz, J. L., Das Mosaische Recht (Berlin, 1853), p. 624Google Scholar; Philippson, L., Haben wirklich die Juden Jesum gekreuzigt? (Berlin, 1866), p. 39Google Scholar; Rabbinowicz, I.-M., Le Róle de Jésus et des Apótres (Bruxelles, 1866), pp. 134–7Google Scholar; Dubnow, S., Weltgeschichte des jüdischen Volkes, II (Berlin, 1925), p. 535Google Scholar; Sachar, A. L., A History of the Jews (New York, 1930), p. 132.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 6} Histoire des Institutions de Moïse, II (Paris, 1828), p. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 7} ‘Les Juifs Décides', La Vérìté Israélite, III (1861), 11.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 1} Jost, I. M., Geschichte des Judenlhums und seiner Sekten (Leipzig, 1857), p. 406Google Scholar; Weill, M. A., Le Judaïsme, ses Dogmes et sa Mission, 11 (1869), p. 472Google Scholar; Grünebaum, E., Die Sitlenlehre des Judenlhums (Strassburg, 1867), p. 159Google Scholar; Soloweyczyk, E., Kol KoreGoogle Scholar; La Bible, le Talmud et L'Évangile (Paris, 1875), p. 357Google Scholar; Jacobs, J., Jesus of Nazareth in Jewish Encyclopaedia, vii (1904), 166Google Scholar; Fluegel, M., The Messiah-Ideal, 1 (Baltimore, 1896), p. 103Google Scholar; Danziger, A., Jewish Forerunners of Christianity (London, 1904), pp. 47, 279Google Scholar; Joseph, N. S., Why I am not a Christian (London, 1907), p. 5Google Scholar; Abrahams, I., Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels—Second Series (London, 1924), pp. 1–3Google Scholar; Zeitlin, S., ‘Studies in the Beginnings of Christianity’, JQR xiv (1923), 129Google Scholar; Guttmann, M., Das Judentum und seine Umwelt (Berlin, 1927), p. 11Google Scholar; Jacob, E., Christentum in Encyclopaedia Judaica, v (1930), 528Google Scholar; Radin, M., The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth (Chicago, 1931), pp. 80, 111Google Scholar; Polack, A. I. and Simpson, W. W., Jesus in the Background of History (London, 1957), p. 103Google Scholar; Winter, P., On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p. 148.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 2} Geschichte der juden (2nd ed. Leipzig, 1863), pp. 234, 244; op. cit. (3rd ed. Leipzig, 1878), p. 325; ‘Un Mot sur la Dogmatique du Christianisme Primitif’, REJ, xx (1890), 14; but in Sinai et Golgotha (Paris, 1867), p. 340, he took the reply ‘Tu l'as dit’ to mean Yes.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 3} Quelques Dates Importantes de la Chronologic du se Temple, REJ, xxxvii (1898), 16.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 4} The Synoptic Gospels, I (London, 1909), p. 352; op. cit. 11, p. 763.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 5} Op. cit. 11 (2nd ed.London, 1927), p. 336.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 6} Jesus of Nazareth (London, 1929), pp. 342, 346; Jesus von Nazareth in Encyclopaedia Judaica, ix(1932), 67.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 7} ‘Concerning the Reconstruction of the Aramaic Gospels’, BJRL, xxix (1945), 88–91.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 8} The Four Gospels (London, 1933).Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 9} Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, I (München, 1926), p. 990.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 10} So Salvador, Saalschütz, Peynado and Cohen. These are writers on whom the influence of the Talmudic passages about Jesus can with particular clarity be detected.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 1} So Samuel Hirsch and Ludwig Philippson.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 2} Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes (1892)Google Scholar; Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Judentums (Leipzig, 1910);Google ScholarÜber die Frage ob Jesus gelebt hat (Leipzig, 1910).Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 3} Already de Wette, W. M. L., Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi (1845), p. 278 described σù ειπας as a ‘Bejahungsformel, ähnlich bei Rabbinen’.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 4} Passamahl, p. 88.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 5} Nachträge in Passamahl (2nd ed. 1908), p. 189.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 1} Beitrdge, pp. 55–6Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 2} Text in Zuckermandel, p. 569; cf. Strack-Billerbeck, 1, 990.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 3} Contra Cullmann, O., The Christology of the New Testament (2nd ed.London, 1963), p. 118. Nor can xxvi. 25 be regarded as one of the pieces of traditional material preserved by Matthew even though they are discordant with his viewpoint (cf. x. 5–6 and xv. 24). For xxvi. 25 records even within itself, on that understanding of au cl-iras, a disagreement between Jesus' expectation and the subsequent course of events.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 1} So, rightly, Strecker, G., Der Weg der Gerechtigekit (2nd ed.Gottingen, 1966), p. 182.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 2} Matt. xvi. 21; xvii. 22–3; xx. 18–19.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 3} ‘The Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes’, Matt. xx. 18 = Mark x. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 4} ‘Σύ εὺπας,Σύ λέγεις in the Answers of Jesus’ J.B.L. xiii (1894), 40–9.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 5} Blass-Debrunner-Funk, , A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1961), p. 221:‘Judas asks with the others μήτι έγώ “It is not I, is i t ? ” and receives the unexpected answer σύ ε⋯πασ’Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 6} So, rightly, Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Matthäus (1929), p. 740;Google ScholarKümmel, W. G., ‘Jesus und die Anfänge der Kirche’, St.Th. vII(1953), 13;Google ScholarHaenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu (Berlin, 1966), p. 477;Google ScholarThrall, M. E., Greek Particles in the New Testament (Leiden, 1962), p. 78.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 7} Hence Dodd', C. H.s paraphrase ‘King is your word, not mine’ is too negative, and clashes with the preceding βασι⋯α reference. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), p. 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 217 note 8} But the explanation of this is ready to hand. In the words of Strathmann, H., Das Evangelium nach Johannes (9th ed.Göttingen, 1959), p. 244: ‘Solch' einen König hat Pilatus noch nicht gesehen.’ Jesus goes on to explain that his kingship involves no political threat.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 9} Das Evangelium nach Johannes (9th ed.Göttingen, 1950), p. 506.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 10} A problem recognized by Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St john (London, 1958), p. 448.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 1} Die Quellen der Synoptischen Überlieferung (1908), p.157Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 2} E.g. (i) the Beelzebub controversy in Mark iii. 23–30 and Q_: Matt. xii. 35–7 = Lukexi. 17–23;(ii) the parable of the mustard seed in Mark iv. 30–2 and Q: Matt. xiii. 31–2 = Luke xiii. 18–19, cf. Kilpatrick, G. D., The Origins of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (Oxford, 1946), p. 10Google Scholarand Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu (Berlin, 1966), p. 172; (iii) the saying about the two baptisms in Mark i. 7–8 and Q,: Matt. iii. 11–12 = Luke iii. 16–17.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 3} Jeremias, J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London, 1966), p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 4} The version of Koh. R. ix. 10 is exactly the same. The differences in the version of b. Keth. 104a are: (i) The threat of death issues from the Rabbis, (ii) The story includes the intervention of R. Judahs maid, (iii) Bar Kappara is sent by the Rabbis to investigate, and ‘he went, and finding that Rabbi was dead, he tore his cloak and turned the tear backwards’, (iv) The response to his return was the question, ‘ Has he gone to his eternal rest ?’ (v) The story ends with Bar Kappar';s reply, ‘You have said it:I have not said it.’Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 5} Thayer, J. H., op. dt. p. 41, followed by Dalman, G., The Words of Jesus (London, 1902), p. 309, followed in turn by Strack-Billerbeck, I, 990.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} As Rabbinowicz, L. notes in Midrash Rabbah: Ecclesiastes (1961), p. 194: ‘Signs of mourning: he knew by now that Rabbi was dead.’Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 1} Hence Strack—Billerbeck, I, 990: ‘Du hast Recht, so ist es.’ Similarly, Dalman, op. cit. p. 309.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 2} Cf. Blinzler, J., Der Prozeβ Jesu (4th ed.Regensburg, 1969), p. 170;Google ScholarDahl, N. A., ‘Die Passionsgeschichte bei Matthaeus’, N.T.S. 11 (1955), 17–32. In the passage Matt. xxvi. 57–64 Dahl wavers only on the Matthaean version of the Temple saying, where, he thinks, ‘Matthäus scheint die altere Überlieferung zu bieten’, op. cit. p. 24. But here too, if Matthew happens to arrive at a version closer to the original wording, it is due to redactional activity, and not to better information. Although allowance has sometimes to be made for parallel oral tradition, there is no trace of such in Matthew's Sanhedrin trial account.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 3} He himself does not favour σύ ε⋯πας óτι έγώ ε⋯μι as the original Markan reading.But if this is rejected, the only other ground on which σύ ε⋯πας could be taken as primary is an Aramaic Ur-gospel. Chwolson took this view. The question of the originality or otherwise of the Lukan version is quite a different matter, since we are not there dealing with a source whichis dependent on Mark.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 4} Contra Robinson, J. A. T., Jesus and his Coming (London, 1957), p. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 5} Note the difference in number and tense.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 6} Rehkopf, F., Die lukanische Sonderquelle (Tübingen, 1959), p.92.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 7} Contra Colpe, C., ό υòς τοũ άνθρώπου, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum N.T. viii (1967), 438.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 8} Matt, xxiii. 39, xxvi. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 9} So, rightly, Schmid, J., Matthäus und Lukas (1930), p. 156.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 10} Blinzler, Prozeβ, p. 157. Contra Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels (10th ed.London, 1961), p. 322Google Scholarand Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St Mark (London, 1952), p. 568.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 1} Behind the Third Gospel (Oxford, 1926), p. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 2} Greek Particles, p. 72.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 3} It is interesting to note that neither of the two most recent advocates of Matthaean priority uses the relationship between Matt. xxvi. 64 and Mark xiv. 62 as an argument. Butler, B. C., The Originality of St Matthew (Cambridge, 1951);Google ScholarFarmer, W. R., The Synoptic Problem (London, 1964). The attempt of Israel Abrahams (Studies, 3), to interpret έγώ ε⋯μι as less than affirmative, in line with the interpretation by some Rabbis and Rashi of Jacob's lying reply in Gen. xxvii. 24, is fanciful. There would have been nothing to explain away, had έγώ ε⋯μι meant less than ‘I am’.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 4} Blinzler, , op. cit. p. 192, correctly writes of Matt. xxvi. 64: ‘gewiβ nicht als Verneinung oder Ablehnung, sondern als Bejahung, zu verstehen’.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 5} Op. cit. p. 119.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 6} Op. cit. p. 118: ‘Jesus neither clearly affirmed nor clearly denied that he was the Messiah.’Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 1} This is not the same as the contrast in ‘The words are yours, but mine are these’.This might have been the effect had Matthew written σύ ε⋯πας πλαήν έγώ λέγω ύμīν. But when Matt, wishes to achieve this effect heinsertsέγώ, e.g. v. 44 (Q:λέγω ύμīν Luke vi. 27)inlinewithv. 22,28,32,39;cf.xxi. 27 where έγώ λέγω ύμīν expresses such a contrast. When Matt, inserts λέγω ύμīν(redaction of Mark in xii. 6, xix. 9, 23 f., xxi. 43, xxiv. 2 and redaction of Q, in viii. 11 and xvii. 20) it highlights the climax of a discourse or discussion with a specially authoritative word of Jesus. It is therefore on the saying and not on the speaker that the emphasis lies. Cullman's defence of his view in the face of the omission of έγώ, on the grounds of a misunderstanding of the Aramaic sense of σύ ε⋯πας by the Greekspeaking evangelist, is weak also in view of the indications in the gospel as a whole that the writer is thoroughly in touch with Palestinian thought.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 2} Gaechter, P., Das Matthäus Evangelium (1964), p. 883.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 3} For a discussion of the variant reading πλήν in Luke xvii. 1, see Rehkopf, op. cit. pp.19 f.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 4} Support for this in Colpe, C., art. cit. p. 464, who rightly points to a similar control exerted by Matt. xxvi. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 1} The redaction of Matt, xi has achieved a parallel train of thought, tracing the άποκάλυψις of ταũτα, xi. 25, to the δυνάμεις, xi. 20–3 which are τά ἔργα τοũ χριστοũ, xi. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 2} So, rightly,Dalman, G., Die Worte Jesu (2nd ed. 1930), p. 253: ‘Auch braucht πλήν λέγω ύμīν… nur zu besagen, daβ Jesus mit Nachdruck seinem ersten Wort ein zweites von gröβerer Wichtigkeit folgen läβt.’Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 3} Support for this, though with a slightly different orientation, in Hummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (2nd ed. München, 1966), pp. 92–3.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} On the significance of χειρ οποίητος cf. Gärtner, B., The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge, 1965), pp. iii–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 224 note 2} Hummel, , op. cit. p. 93.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 1} Cf. Gartner, , op. cit. pp. 115–16.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 2} Barth, G., Matthew's Understanding of the LawGoogle Scholar, in Bornkamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. J., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London, 1963), pp. 81–3.Google ScholarStrecker, G., Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (2nd ed.Göttingen, 1966), pp. 32–3, argues that for Matt, the sabbath stands with θυσία as representative of an alternative and opposite system to the epsi with ἔλεος which Jesus proposes. But this reconstruction involves devaluation of the bearing of the inclusion of μηδέ σαββάτω, xxiv. 20, on the grounds of indebtedness to a Jewish apocalyptic Vorlage within the community tradition. But wherever those two words come from, their insertion implies a less hardened attitude than Strecker suggests.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 3} Hummel, , op. cit. p. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 4} Trilling, W., Der Einzug in Jerusalem in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze (FestschriftJ.Schmid, 1963), PP- 303–9-Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 5} von Dobschütz, E., ‘Zur Erzählerkunst des Markus’, Z.N. W. xxvii (1928), 193–8;Google ScholarKümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (London, 1965), p. 64;Google ScholarSchweizer, E., Das Evangelium nach Markus (Göttingen, 1967), p. 185.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 6} A similar method is adopted by Matthew, and with the same theological objective, in Matt, xii. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 1} This must be a reference to xxvi. 64 because the allusion to υὑòς θεοũ cannot be drawn from the titulus or the interrogation before Pilate.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 2} Thrall, M. E., op. cit. p. 76, cannot be followed when she discounts the position of ύμεīς λέγετε in Luke xxii. 70 on the grounds that ‘the result of the trial was pretty well a foregone conclusion’.Google Scholar