[1] Mowinckel, S., ‘Die Vorstellungen des Spätjudentums vom heiligen Geist als Fürsprecher und die johanneische Paraklet’, ZNW 32 (1933) 97–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Johansson, N., Parakietoi (1940) esp. 84 f.Google Scholar, 93 f.

[2] Obeng, E. A., A study of Rom. 8:26 f (Diss. Aberdeen, 1980) 19–30.Google Scholar

[3] The phrase ‘spirit of understanding of the mind’ recalls one of the spirits of T. Reub. 2. 3,4 (The power of speech with which comes knowledge). ‘… and the sinner is burnt up “by his own heart” and cannot raise his face to the judge’ appears to speak more of our conscience than of the Holy Spirit.

[4] Matt 5. 44 (par Lk 6. 28); Matt 9. 38 (par. Lk 10. 2).

[5] Matt 10. 32 f.; Lk 12. 8 f.

[6] Rom 8. 34, Heb 7. 25, 1 Jn 2. 1.

[7] Contra Bultmann, R., The Theology of the New Testament 1 (1952) 28–32Google Scholar; see also The History of the Synoptic Tradition (1968) 152Google Scholar; Bornkamm, G., Jesus of Nazareth (1960) 228–31.Google Scholar

[8] Does the concept of the ‘Son of Man’ go back to Dan 7. 13 in which the concept is given a corporate interpretation or is there a still much earlier tradition behind it in which the ‘Son of Man’ is an individual eschatological agent of redemption? Are the simiitudes Christian interpolations, in which case the ‘Son of Man’ would not be a pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic title? These are some of the problems which have to be discussed when examining the background passages to the concept of the ‘Son of Man’.

[9] There is a closeness of meaning between Lk 12. 8 f. and Rom 8. 34. In Lk 12.8 f., Jesus as the ‘Son of Man’ is our advocate at the last judgment. In the Romans passage, the future context gives the saying a last judgment colouring – Paul is assuring Christians that we have a safe and sure intercessor in Christ at the last judgment.

[10] In Mk 8. 38, W and K^* omit λόγους. The effect of the omission is that έμούς is left without a noun thus yielding the meaning ‘and mine’ i.e. my followers. This reading is preferred by C. H. Turner, T. W. Manson. See Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St. Mark (1952) 383Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel according to Mark (1974) 284.Google Scholar Barrett accepts the Markan με καί τοὺς έμοὺς λόµοὺς as the earliest form. See New Testament Essays (1972) 132–4.Google Scholar Whichever reading is accepted, it must be noted that in με we see a reference to Jesus' words; Jesus and his words are inseparable.

[11] Barrett, , NT Essays, 127 f.Google Scholar

[12] Scott, E. F., The Spirit in the New Testament (1923) 73.Google Scholar

[13] Barrett, C. K., The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (1970) 131.Google Scholar

[14] Taylor, V., St. Mark (1952) 508.Google Scholar

[15] Beasley-Murray, G. R., ‘Jesus and the Spirit’ in Mélanges Bibliques, en hommage au R. P. Béda Rigaux ed. Descamps, A. (1969) 474, n. 2.Google Scholar

[16] Wellhausen, J. advanced a theory in his book Einleitung in die ersten drei Evangelien (Berlin, 1911) 141Google Scholar, that the narrative of the twelve did not belong to the story of Jesus. He considered their mission a projection from the risen Christ to the historical Jesus (Matt 28. 16 ff.; Lk 24.44 ff.; Jn 20. 21–23). Jeremias, on the other hand, has argued convincingly for the authenticity of these missions from the early confession of faith in 1 Cor 15. 15. See Eucharistic Words (1955) 102 f.Google Scholar; ‘Artikelloses Χριστός. Zur Ursprache von 1 Cor. 15:3b–5’, ZNW 57 (1966) 211–15Google Scholar; ‘Nochmals: Artikelloses Χριστός in 1 Cor 15:3’, ZNW 60 (1969) 219Google Scholar; New Testament Theology, Vol 1 (1971) 233 f.Google Scholar

[17] Finegan, J., Die Überlieferung der Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu (1934) 16Google Scholar, thinks the passage is a Lucan composition. However, Taylor, V., in The Passion Narrative of St. Luke (1972) 66–8Google Scholar and Black, M., An Aramaic approach to the Gospels and Acts (1967) 179Google Scholar, argue for its pre-Lucan origin.

[18] Jeremias, , Theology, 1, 241.Google Scholar

[19] Nineham, D., The Gospel of St. Mark (1968) 349.Google Scholar

[20] Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the 4th Gospel (1963) 411.Google Scholar

[21] Pesch, R., Naherwartungen: Tradition und Redaktion in Mk. 13 (1968) 133.Google Scholar

[22] Trites, A. A., The New Testament Concept of Witness (1977) 21.Google Scholar See also Harvey, A., Jesus on Trial (1976) esp. 107–11Google Scholar, Falk, Z. W., Hebrew Law in Biblical Times (1964) 70.Google Scholar

[23] Holwerda, D. E., The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in the Gospel of John (1959) 47.Google Scholar

[24] Harvey, , Jesus on Trial, 109.Google Scholar

[25] See Moule, C. F. D., ‘From Defendant to Judge – and Deliverer’, in The Phenomenon of the New Testament (SBT 2nd Series, 1967) 47Google Scholar; see also Bruce, F. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (1967) 154.Google Scholar

[26] Holwerda, , The Holy Spirit, 52.Google Scholar Related to this, we may also cite Bultmann who states correctly that as far as content is concerned the witness of the disciples and that of the Spirit are identical. John, 553 f.

[27] Trites, , NT Witness, 80.Google Scholar

[28] Bultmann, , John, 145, 172, 293, 553.Google Scholar

[29] Moule, , The Phenomenon of the New Testament, 91.Google Scholar He adds however, ‘I am not, of course, suggesting that the Fourth Evangelist is likely to have intended the word in only one sense…he uses a word suggestively as a poet may, with any number of associational overtones.’

[30] See Trites, , NT Witness, 118–19Google Scholar, Snaith, N. H., ‘The Meaning of the Paraclete’, ET 57 (1954) 47–50.Google Scholar

[31] Bultmann, , Theology of the New Testament, 11 (1952) 31 f.Google Scholar, see also John, 563 f.; Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (NCB, 1972) 563 f.Google Scholar

[32] See Büchsel, , TDNT, 2, 474Google Scholar n. 7 and Holwerda, , The Holy Spirit, 56.Google Scholar

[33] Holwerda, , The Holy Spirit, 58.Google Scholar

[34] Bultmann argued that in 15. 26 f. has nothing to do with Mk 13. 11; see John, 553 n. 5. Against Bultmann see Windisch, H., The Spirit Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel (1968) 22. See also 0. Betz, Der Paraklet (1963) 178Google Scholar who also poses the question whether the passage Jn 15. 26 f. could not be linked to Mk 13. 11 in which case the Spirit's witnessing takes place at the trial of the disciples.

[35] See Kremer, J., ‘Jesu Verheissung des Geistes’ in Die Kirche des Anfangs, Festschrift für Heinz Schürmann zum 65 Geburtstag, ed. by Schnackenburg, R. et al. (1977) 260.Google Scholar

[36] Persecution is a common setting to these passages. Besides, an advocatory note is derived from these passages when we understand them against OT legal procedure. This is not equating the Paraclete sayings to these synoptic parallels – the task of the Paraclete goes beyond that stated in the synoptic parallels.