^{page 326 note 1} The third person form, ουτός έστιν, found in Matt. iii. 17; John i. 34 and the transfiguration narrative (Mark ix. 7 parr.; II Pet. i. 17) is secondary. The text of Luke iii. 22D, which substitudes the working of Ps. ii. 7, is also secondary; cf. similar phenomena in the western text of Acts vii. 37; xiii. 33 (Ps. ii. 8!). See Jeremias, J. (with Zimmerli, W.), T. W. N. T. V, p. 699 n. 349.Google Scholar The New Testament section (pp. 698–713) of the original article (T. W. N. T. v, pp. 653–713) appears in a revised form in Jeremias, J., Abba, (1966), pp. 191–216Google Scholar; references to this section are to the revised form.

^{page 326 note 2} Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St Mark (1953), p. 162.Google Scholar Taylor's exegesis is that of many scholars.

^{page 326 note 3} Dalman, G., The Words of Jesus (1909), pp. 276–80.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 4} Bousset, W., Kyrios Christos (1926 ^{page note 3}), p. 57 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 1} Cullmann, O., Baptism in the New Testment (1950), pp. 16–18Google Scholar;, The Christology of New Testament (1959), p. 66.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 2} Jeremias,op. cit.

^{page 327 note 3} Fuller, R. H., The Mission and Achievement of Jesus (1954), p. 55;Google ScholarThe Foundations of New Testament Christology (1965), pp. 169 f.Google Scholar; Maurer, C., ‘Knecht Gottes und Sohn Gottes im Passionsbericht des Markusevangeliums’, Z.T.K. L (1953), 1–38Google Scholar; Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstiel (1964 ^{page note 2}), pp. 338, 340.Google ScholarLindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (1961), pp. 139 f.Google Scholar, holds that the reference to Ps. ii. 7 was consciously added to the original text by the early church; this avoids the suggestion that the change from παīς to υιδς produced an allusion to Ps. ii. 7 by sheer coincidence.

^{page 327 note 4} For points (1) to (4) see Jeremias, op. cit.; for (2) see also Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannes-evangelium, I (1965), p. 305Google Scholar; for (5), Hahn, op. cit.; for (6), Maurer, op. cit.

^{page 327 note 5} See the most recent discussion in Gundry, R. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St Mathew's Gospel (1967), pp. 29–32.Google Scholar Cf. Lövestam, E., Son and Saviour (1961), pp. 94–7Google Scholar; Wilckens, U., Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte (1963 ^{page note 2}), p. 164.Google ScholarVermes, G., Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (1961), pp. 222 f.Google Scholar, and Best, E., The Temptation and the Passion (1965), pp. 169 f.Google Scholar, find one source of the title of Son in Gen. xxii. 2, and develop the suggestion of an Isaac typology. At the other extreme, Hooker, M. D., Jesus and the Servant (1959), pp. 68–73Google Scholar, plays down the significance of the Servant christology in the Gospels and in this text; cf. Schweizer, E., T.W.N.T. VIII (article: υιδς, pp. 334–400), pp. 369 f.Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 1} Lindars, op. cit. p. 140 n. 2.

^{page 328 note 2} Translation in Hennecke, and Schneemelcher, (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha, I (1963), pp. 163 f.Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 3} The reading άγαπητός in Luke is probably due to assimilation to the parallels. Cf. also Luke xxiii 35.

^{page 328 note 4} Note that άγαπητός is an attribute of υΙός in the text and not an independent title (as έκλεκτóς is in Isa. xlii. I); cf. Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘The order of some Noun and Adjective Phrases in the New Testament’, Nov. T. V (1962), pp. 111–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 328 note 5} Gundry, op. cit. p. 30, argues that the Johannine preference for ‘Son’ makes it likely that έκλεκτóς is a secondary reading due to assimilation to Isa. xlii. I LXX and perhaps Luke ix. 35. Cf. Schrenk, G., T.D.N.T. IV, p. 189 n. 18.Google ScholarThe Greek New Testament (1966) gives to υΙóς a ‘B’ grade of certainty. Note that the reading υΙóς in π66 and π75 disproves the suggestion that this wording arose in the fourth century in the struggle against adoptionism (Jeremias, J., T.W.N.T. V, p. 687 n. 260.Google Scholar followed by Schnackenburg, op. cit. p. 305).

^{page 328 note 6} France, R. T., ‘The Servant of the Lord in the Teaching of Jesus’, Tyndale Britian, XIX (1968), 26–52.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 1} For the difference in word order between the LXX of Ps. ii. 7 and the baptismal saying see below.

^{page 329 note 2} Zimmerli, W., T.W.N.T. V, pp. 672 f.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 3} Skehan, P. W., ‘A Fragment of the “Song of Moses” (Deut. 32) from Qumran’, B.A.S.O.R. CXXXVI (December 1954), pp. 12–15Google Scholar; cf. Bruce, F. F., Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1961 ^{page note 2}), p. 67.Google Scholar In place of in the MT, the fragment has.

^{page 329 note 4} The interpretation of παĩς as ‘son’ in Wisdom must rest on the Greek text of Isaiah and not on a misunderstanding or theological reinterpretation of the MT. For the view that Wisdom has brought together the παïς-tradition of II Isaiah and the νιóς-tradition of Ps. ii see van Isersel, B. M. F., ‘Der Sohn’ in den synptischen Jesusworten (1964 ^{page note 2}), pp. 75–7.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 1} Jeremias, J., T.W.N.T. V, pp. 699, 702 f.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 2} ibid. p. 699.

^{page 330 note 3} See, for example, Brockington, L. H., A Critical Introduction to the Apocrypha (1961), pp. 58, 70.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 4} Jeremias, J., T.W.N.T. V, pp. 681.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 5} Ibid. pp. 681 f., 700 n. 356.

^{page 330 note 6} Lindars, op. cit. p. 140.

^{page 330 note 7} Jermias, J., T.W.N.T. V, pp. 699 n. 350.Google Scholar See above, p. 328 n. 5.

^{page 330 note 8} Bultman, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (1959 ^{page note 16}), pp. 151. f.Google Scholar; Schnakenburg, R., Das Johannes-evangelium, I (1965), pp. 502–6.Google Scholar According to Bultmann, παĨς in Matthew means ‘child’; the word was misunderstood by Luke. It is, however, by no means certain that the Synoptic and Johannine incidents should be identified; see Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (1963), pp. 188–95. especially p. 194 and n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 1} ‘Child’: Matt. ii. 16; xvii. 18; xxi. 15; Luke ii. 43; viii. 51 and 54 (both fem.); ix. 42; John iv. 51; Acts xx. 12. ‘Servant’: Matt. xiv. 2; Luke vii. 7; xii. 45; xv. 26; probably also Matt. xiv. 2; Luke vii. 7; xii. 45; xv. 26; probably also Matt. viii. 6, 8, 13.

^{page 331 note 2} Haenchen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte (1959 ^{page note 12}), p. 165 n. 4;Google ScholarConzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte (1963), p. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 3} Procksch, O., T.D.N.T.. 1, p. 102Google Scholar; Hooker, op. cit. pp. 67f., 85; Ellis, E. E., The Gospel of Luke (1967), p. 97.Google Scholar

^{page 331 note 4} Procksch, op. cit.

^{page 331 note 5} The argument of U. Wilckens, op. cit. pp. 163–8, that the Pais-christology is of uncertain antiquity fails to take into account the evidence from other NT sources, But, even if Wilckens's view should be justified, this would simply indicate that a Pais-christology (with παīς in the sense of ‘servant’) was a possible creation in a gentile chruch when Luke was writing.

^{page 332 note 1} Marshall, I. H., ‘The Development of Christology in the Early Church’, Tyndale Bulletin, XVIII, (1967), 77–93 (especially pp. 91 f.).Google Scholar More hesitant is Martin, R. P., Carmen Christi (1967), p. 195.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 2} Maurer, op. cit. pp. 24–8. 32.

^{page 332 note 3} Lövestam, , op. cit. p. 95.Google Scholar A possible occurrence of παĨς in a baptismal context has been defended by Jeremias, (T.W.N.T. V, p. 700 n. 356)Google Scholar in John i. 29, 36 where ρυóς may be a translation of Aramaic which may also mean ‘servant’. But it is hard to see why the change of meaning should have taken place. According to McNamara, M., The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (1966), p. 94 n. 62Google Scholar, the meaning of ‘lamb’ is very rare for.

^{page 333 note 1} Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus (1959 ^{page note 15}), p. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 2} Turner, C. H., ‘Ό υΙος μου ο γαπητος'’, J.T.S. XXVII (1925–1926), 113–29Google Scholar (cf. idem in F.T.S. XXVIII (1926–1927), 362, and Souter, A. in F.T.S. XXVIII, 59 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 3} Barth, G., in Bornakamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. J., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (1963), p. 126Google Scholar (following Stendahl, K.); Schweizer, E., T.W.N.T. VIII, p. 369 n. 239Google Scholar; Gundry, op. cit. pp. 30, 112.

^{page 333 note 4} Zahn, T., Das Evangelium des Lucas (1913), p. 386 n. 99.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 5} John's use of μονογένής in i. 18 might equally well be taken as evidence that he interpreted an original γαπητος in the baptismal saying in the sense of ‘only’ (Hooker, , op. cit. p. 71).Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 6} Plooji, D., ‘The Baptism of Jesus’, in Wood, H. G. (ed.), Amicitiae Corolla (1933), pp. 239–52 (especially pp. 248 f.)Google Scholar; Lövestam, op. cit. p. 96; Schweizer, E. in T.W.N.T. VIII, p. 369 n. 240Google Scholar; R. Gundry, op. cit. pp. 30. f. Gundry's reference to possible influence from Isa. xli. 8 f.; xliv. 2 LXX is unlikely, since the √γαπα of the Greek version has no direct Hebrew equivalent, Schweizer's reference to Targ. Isa. xlii. I in the same connection is curious.

^{page 333 note 7} Lövestam, op. cit. p. 89; cf. p. 21, where the same tendency is demonstrated for the Midrash on Ps. ii; Lohse, E., T.W.N.T. VIII, p. 363.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 1} Turner, op. cit. pp. 123 f.; E. Best (p. 327 n. 5 above).

^{page 334 note 2} The MT, however, has the double possessive.

^{page 334 note 3} For the Christian character of Test. Levi xviii see de Jouge, M., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1953), pp. 89 f.Google Scholar It remains possible, however, that the section is pre-Christian, in which case it forms part of the background against which Mark i, II must be studied.

^{page 334 note 4} Hooker, , op. cit. pp. 71–3.Google Scholar

^{page 334 note 5} To say that Jesus identifies Himself with Israel or is the king of Israel is not quite the same thing as to say that He is the true Israel. Cf. Hare, D. R. A., The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St Matthew (1967), p. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 1} The wording of Matt. xiii. 18 shows that its translation at this point is not due to assimilation to the baptismal saying.

^{page 335 note 2} The use of is a circumlocution for the first person singular. For this usage see Jobxxx. 25, the only example in the LXX.

^{page 335 note 3} Jeremias, J., T.W.N.T. V, p. 691 and n. 292, pp. 693 f.Google Scholar; Lövestam, op. cit. pp. 95 f.

^{page 335 note 4} Bretscher's, P. G.article, ‘Exodus 4. 22–23 and the Voice from Heaven’ (Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXVII (1968), 301–12)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, appeared after the completion of the present study.

^{page 335 note 5} Bibliography in T.W.N.T. VIII, p. 334.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 6} Schweizer, loc. cit. p. 357.

^{page 335 note 7} Ibid. pp. 367–71. There is of course no thought of ‘adoptionism’ in the later sense of the term. Note also that the use of the same wording in the transfiguration story (Mark ix. 7) rules out the idea of installation into an office at the baptism.

^{page 335 note 8} Marshall, I. H., ‘The Divine Sonship of Jesus’, Interpretation, XXI (1967), 87–103;CrossRefGoogle Scholar cf. ‘The Development of Christology in the Early Church’ (p. 332 n. 1 above). See also Rengstorf, K. H., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (1949 ^{page note 5}), p. 59.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 1} Cf. Lövestam, op. cit. pp. 98–101. Even if the temptation narrative in Q should be secondary, as Van Iersel argues (op. cit. pp. 165–71, cf. Feuillet, A., ‘Le baptême de Jésus’, R.B. LXXI (1964), 322 (pp. 321–52)Google Scholar, it is an argument for the early existence of νιóς in the baptismal saying.

^{page 336 note 2} Jeremias, J., T.W.N.T. V, p. 699 n. 344.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 3} Lindars, op. cit. pp. 139–44. Schweizer, E., T.W.N.T. VIII, pp. 367–9.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 4} Lövestam, op. cit. pp. 37–48. Cf. also Gundry, op. cit. p. 161 n. 3.