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
Ch. Dodd in According to the Scriptures argues that the early Church had a distinctive method of biblical study. Quotations and citations of the OT were employed in oral tradition, and by some NT writers, as pointers indicating larger contexts or whole sections of scripture. That such sections of the OT were in common use is demonstrated by two or more NT authors independently referring to the same passage, although perhaps to different verses. Furthermore Dodd holds that the early Church used these longer passages to provide witness to ‘the determinate counsel of God which was fulfilled in the gospel facts’. This body of OT reference material, and its application to the NT events, underlies the theological expositions of the Church, especially that of Paul, the fourth evangelist, and the author of Hebrews.
page 216 note 1 Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (London, Nisbet, 1952), p. 127.Google Scholar
page 217 note 1 Matt. 4.7; Luke 4.12, 10.25 and 1 Cor. 10.9.
page 217 note 2 Grant, F. C., An Introduction to New Testament Thought (Nashville, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950), p. 208Google Scholar; and Scott, E. F., The Lord's Prayer (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951), p. lO5fGoogle Scholar. See also Andrews, M. E., ‘Peirasmos—A Study in Form-Criticism’, ATR, XXIV (1942), pp. 229–244.Google Scholar
page 217 note 3 Manson, T. W., The Sayings of Jesus (London, SCM Press, 1949 (1937)), p. 170.Google Scholar
page 217 note 4 Bowman, J. W. and Tapp, R., The Gospel from the Mount (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1957), p. 128.Google Scholar
page 217 note 5 Richardson, A., A Theological Word Book of the Bible (New York, Macmillan, 1955), P. 253fGoogle Scholar. So also Stendahl, K., The Scrolls and the New Testament (New York, Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 11.Google Scholar
page 217 note 6 Bauer, Walter, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, trans. Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1957), ‘
’.Google Scholar
page 217 note 7 Marsh, J., in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Buttrick, G. A. (New York, Abingdon Press, 1962), IV, 568.Google Scholar
page 218 note 1 Seesemann, H., in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. Kittel, G. and Friedrich, G. (Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1959), VI, 31.Google Scholar
page 218 note 2 Lohmeyer, E., Das Vater-unser (Göttingen, 1946), p. 143f.Google Scholar
page 218 note 3 Taylor, V., Jesus and His Sacrifice (London, Macmillan, 1955), pp. 150, 153.Google Scholar
page 218 note 4 J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark (Naperville, Ill.); Alec R. Allenson (1957), pp. 45. 51, 70.
page 218 note 5 Schniewind, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (Göttingen, 1952), p. 187f.Google Scholar
page 218 note 6 Seesemann, op. cit., VI, 31.
page 218 note 7 I know of only one instance, in an article which I have not seen: Allen, G. F., ‘Man's Need of God’, The Modern Churchman (Sept. 1955) as noted in Expos. Times, 67 (1955). P- 66.Google Scholar
page 218 note 8 Isa. 7.12; Mai. 3.15 and the wilderness references; except for Mai. 3.10 (
), perhaps a rhetorical dare.
page 219 note 1 Matt. 16.1, 19.3, 22.18 and parallels; Matt. 22.35 and John 8.6.
page 219 note 2 Exod. 17.2, 7; Num. 14.22; Deut. 6.16; Ps. 78.18, 41, 56; 95.9 and 106.14, both 
and 
.
page 219 note 3 Marsh (op. cit., IV, 568) holds that Jesus is tempted to test God.
page 220 note 1 Grant (op. cit., p. 208) speaks of a Christian midrash, while Klausner, J. (Jesus of Nazareth (London, George Allen and Unwin, 1925), p. 253)Google Scholar looks to Jesus' own experience in deciding what kind of messiah he is to be; told parabolically.
page 220 note 2 Mark 8.27–33; Manson, T. W., The Servant Messiah (Cambridge, The University Press, 1953), p. 72.Google Scholar
page 220 note 3 Seesemann, op. cit., VI, 31.
page 221 note 1 Taylor, op. cit., p. 153.
page 221 note 2 Contrary to the rather popular tendency to divide the Prayer into two parts, man's attitude to God and man's needs and duties; e.g. Bowman and Tapp, op. cit., p. 121; and Johnson, S., in The Interpreter's Bible, ed. Buttrick, G. A. (New York, Abingdon Press, 1951), VII, 308f.Google ScholarBornkamm, G. (Jesus of Nazareth (New York, Harper and Brothers, 1960), p. 137)Google Scholar divides it into eschatological petitions and petitions for now.
page 222 note 1 Klausner, op. cit., p. 387; Bornkamm, op. cit., p. 136. Johnson (op. cit., VII, 309) calls the Prayer ‘Jesus’ inspired and original summary of His own people's piety at its best'.
page 222 note 2 ibid., with qualification, Jeremias, J., ‘The Lord's Prayer in Modern Research’, Expos. Times, 71 (1960), pp. 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar S. M. Gilmour (in The Interpreter's Bible, VIII, 201) holds the priority of Matt.
page 222 note 3 See Jeremias (op. cit., p. 145) for discussion of Aramaic original and translation. Gilmour (op. cit., VIII, 210) sees 
as Luke's secondary generalisation.
page 222 note 4 See Bauer, op. cit., for options and literature. Stendahl (op. cit., p. 11) speaks of an anticipation of the heavenly banquet.
page 224 note 1 Bultmann, R. (The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. Marsh, J. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963), p. 268)Google Scholar calls Mark 14.38 a saying in all probability ‘introduced from the language of Christian edification’. See also p. 283.
page 224 note 2 K. Kuhn, in Stendahl, op. cit., pp. 94–113. C. U. Wolf follows this kind of eschatological emphasis in ‘Daniel and the Lord's Prayer’, Int., 15 (1961), pp. 398–410.
page 225 note 1 Dodd, op. cit., p. logf.
