^{page 231 note 2} History of the Synoptic Tradition, 267 f., 277, 284.

^{page 231 note 3} ‘Jesus in Gethsemane’, Ev. Theol. XII (1952–1953), 262.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 1} For the view that Mark xiv. 32–42 is a single unit see, e.g., Lohmeyer, E., Markusevangelium, p. 313.Google ScholarDibelius, M. (Botschaft und Geschichte, I, 258–71;Google Scholar Eng. version in The Crozer Quarterly, XII (1935, 254 ff.)Google Scholar argued that the primary from of the tradition is reflected in Heb. v. 7 f. rather than in Mark.

^{page 232 note 2} E.g. Kuhn, W. L. Knox, Bussmann.

^{page 232 note 3} Lescow, Th. (Z.N.T.W. LVIII (1967), 216–20)Google Scholar has argued that Luke is here dependent on Kuhn's ‘Mark B’ source (see below), but has hardly proved his case.

^{page 232 note 4} Kuhn, K. G., ‘Jesus in Gethsemane’, Ev. Theol. XII (1952–1953), 216–85.Google Scholar For the primary evidence that there are two sources see pp. 263 ff.; we many mention here simply the double reporting of Jesus’ prayer in xiv. 35, 36 and the fact that the division between ‘the three’ and the remainder of the disciples in v. 33 is later ignored. Kuhn assigns vv. 32, 35, 40, 41 to the ‘A’ source, and vv. 33, 34, 36–8 to the ‘B’ source, v. 39 being in his view editorial. It is not necessary for our purpose to comment on the details of this analysis; the most important point is that if the analysis is in general correct we have two early sources for Jesus’ prayer that the hour (or the cup) might pass from him.

^{page 232 note 5} Cath, Bib. Quarterly XXIII (1961), 143–8.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 1} Even if this was not so in the original ‘Mark A’ (as Lescow, Th. argues, Ev. Theol. XXVI (1966), 147,Google Scholar against Kuhn), it is certainly the case in Mark.

^{page 233 note 2} Cf. Taylor, V., Mark, p. 403.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 3} Cf. Tödt, H. E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, p. 199 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 1} Black, M., Expository Times, LIX, 195.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 2} See Jeremias, J., Z.N.T.W. XLIV (1952–1953), 107 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 3} References to literature in Lescow, Th., Z.N.T.W. LVIII (1967), 223 n. 50.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 4} Dodd, C. H. calls it ‘one of the most strongly attested elements in the Gospel story’: Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 71.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 5} Cf. the strong statement in Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus, p. 104 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 1} Botschaft und Geschichte, I, 261Google Scholar f. Dodd, loc. cit., notes that Psalm xli (LXX) is quoted or echoed not only in Mark xiv. 34 but in Heb. v. 7 f. and John xii. 27–8. It seems that the Psalm as a whole has played a part in the development of the tradition. The detailed arguments by which Dibelius connected Psalms xxxi and xxxix with Heb. v. 7 f., and his views on the derivation of the Marcan perikope from Hebrews (loc. cit. pp. 261, 266), are not altogether convincing; the identification of ekstasis (Ps. xxxi (LXX xxx). 23) with eulabeia (Heb. v. 7) is particularly questionable.

^{page 235 note 2} Riesenfeld, H., Jésus Transfiguré, p. 282,Google Scholar against Dibelius, loc. cit. p. 265.

^{page 235 note 3} The fact (if such it be) that Mark has brought together the prediction of the Passion with the sayings about discipleship in viii. 31 ff., and that viii. 34a is a Marcan formulation (Wrede, W., Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, p. 138)Google Scholar does not necessarily imply that the same has happened in the Gethsemane perikope. Indeed, it cannot do so if Kuhn's analysis of the perikope is correct (loc. cit. pp. 260–85). The two situations are different.

^{page 235 note 4} Conzelmann, H., Theology of St Luke, p. 106 n.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 1} The Gospel Message of St Mark, pp. 48–59.

^{page 236 note 2} Cf. Burkill, T. A., Mysterious Revelation, p. 209.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 3} Lightfoot, R. H., History and Interpretation in the Gospels, p. 94.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 4} See inter alios G. H. Boobyer, St Mark and the Transfiguration Story.

^{page 237 note 1} Nineham, D. E., Mark, p. 160.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 2} N.T.S. x (1964), 431.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 3} Cf. Burkill, op. cit. p. 241.

^{page 237 note 4} Barrett, C. K., The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition, p. 67,Google Scholar Commenting on Otto, R., The Idea of the Holy, p. 88.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 1} Schoeps, H. J., Paul, pp. 141 ff.Google Scholar; Vermes, G., Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, pp. 193–227;Google ScholarBest, E., The Temptation and the Passion, pp. 169–73;Google ScholarWood, J. E., ‘Isaac Typology in the N.T.’, N.T.S. XIV (1968), 583–9.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 2} For a full treatment see Lescow, Th. in Ev. Theol. XXVI (1966), 153–9.Google Scholar Lescow's account of the ‘demythologizing’ in Matthew depends on his view about the Son of Man, which not all will share.

^{page 238 note 3} Ev. Theol. XII (1952–1953), 482.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 4} Cf. Dahl, N. A., ‘Die Passionsgeschichte bei Matthäus’, N.T.S. II (1955), 25.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 5} Cf. Barth, G. in Bornkamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. J., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 143–7.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 1} Such is Conzelmann's view; but he does not fully consider the possibility that xi. 14–26 does imply the continued activity of Satan in the ministry of Jesus (note the introduction of xi. 16— cf. Mark viii. 11;Google ScholarMatt. xvi. 1).Google Scholar Luke's omission of the word to Peter ύραγε όρίσω μου Σατανα (Mark viii. 33/Matt. xvi. 23) may be due to other causes than the desire to exclude Satan's activity from the time of Jesus' ministry. Cf. Baumbach, G., Das Verständnis des Bösen in den synoptischen Evangelien, pp. 182 f., 188 f., 206 f.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 2} Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St Luke, p. 200.Google Scholar The phrase ότε έγένετο ή ωρα (xxii. 14), which is probably editorial and due to Luke imself, may possible indicate that the hour of the final struggle has begun.

^{page 239 note 3} This implies, as Kuhn, K. G.pointed out, a conception of Jesus' ministry as including peirasmoi (Z.Th.K. XLIX (1952), 221 n. 1;Google Scholar Eng. version, in Stendahl, K. (ed.), The Scrolls and the N.T. p. 269 (n. 51)).Google Scholar Luke's own understanding of the matter is different from that of his source, if Conzelmann is correct.

^{page 239 note 4} Conzelmann, H., Die Mitte der Zeit, p. 67; Eng. trans. p. 81.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 5} Lescow, Th. in Z.N.T.W. LVIII (1967), 221.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 6} Loc. cit. 1, 258–71.

^{page 240 note 1} Malthe-Bruun, Kim, Heroic Heart (New York, 1966) pp. 156, 161 f.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 2} The fact that Jesus kneels to pray, then stands to face the foe, whereas the disciples are to stand and pray, hardly invalidates the comparison (although it may indicate that there is a difference between Jesus' primary struggle and the disciples' subsequent one). Batz, O. (Nov. Test. 11 (1957–-1958), 135 n. I)Google Scholar regards άναοτήναι as an important term in the language of the holy war against evil.

^{page 241 note 1} This is presumably the reference in xxii, 31; see Leivestad, R., Christ the Conqueror, p. 61.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 2} Cf. Kuhn, loc. cit. But Seesemann argues (T.W.N.T. VI, 29 n. 35; 36)Google Scholar that the plural in the Lucan writings means simply ‘dangers’, ‘troubles’.

^{page 241 note 3} For the view that the Fourth Gospel may here be in part rewriting Mark, cf. Bultmann, R., Johannesevangelium, p. 327 n. 7.Google Scholar Dodd, loc. cit., argues that he is rather using parallel traditions.

^{page 242 note 1} The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 373.

^{page 242 note 2} Ibid. n. 1.

^{page 242 note 3} Dibelius, loc. cit. 263.

^{page 242 note 4} Schweitzer, A., Das Abendmahl in Zusammenhang mit dem Leben Jesu und der Geschichte des Urchristentums: 2. Heft: Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis Jesu, p. 92.Google Scholar Cf. Jeremias, J., The Prayers of Jesus, p. 105.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 1} Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu, p. 492.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 2} The relation of the Lord's Prayer to Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane, and to the Gethsemane story as a whole, is a subject which certainly deserves more attention than it has received. Here I can only say that it does not appear to me at all probable that the entire Gethsemane story has been derived in a kind of haggadic way from the Lord's Prayer, or that the opposite process has taken place. The fact that the Lord's Prayer does not appear in Mark remains puzzling.

^{page 243 note 3} ‘New Light on Temptation, Sin and Flesh in the N.T.’, in The Scrolls and the N.T., ed. Stendahl, K., pp. 94–113Google Scholar (German version in Z.Th.K. XLIX (1952), 200–22;Google Scholar see p. 239 n. 3 above). Kuhn argues that the phrase quoted is part of the original perikope (against Montefiore, C. G., The Synoptic Gospels, I, 345,Google Scholar and Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 268).Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 1} Kuhn, , Ev. Theol. XII (1952–1953), 282.Google Scholar A hasty investigation of some subsequently published texts seems to confirm this.

^{page 244 note 2} L'évangile de Marc, p. 415.

^{page 244 note 3} Neotestamentica et Patristica (Festschrift for O. Cullmann), pp. 64 f.

^{page 244 note 4} Pp. 31 ff.

^{page 244 note 5} See p. 239 n. 1.

^{page 244 note 6} The baptism narratives are relevant, not only because of their very close connection with the temptation in all three Synoptic Gospels, but because of the possibility that the Aqedah has influenced the tradition here. See G. Vermes, op. cit. p. 222.

^{page 245 note 1} Whether the peirasmoi provided by Jesus' opponents should be included is a matter we cannot discuss here. See J. H. Korn, ρΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΣ, pp. 76–86, and the more cautions attitude of Seesemann, H., T.W.N.T. VI, 36.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 2} E.g. in I Cor. x. 13 it is the former (against Kuhn, loc. cit. (n. 50), 108 f.); in James i. 13 the latter. For the temptation narrative, see especially B. Gerhardsson, The Testing of God's Son.

^{page 245 note 3} In addition to Kuhn's arguments referred to above, the researches of F. Hahn and H. E. Tödt show that there is nothing in the Marcan Gethsemane perikope which cannot go back to the early Palestinian Church. Contrast Bultmann, op. cit. p. 306.

^{page 245 note 4} Lescow, Th., ‘Jesus in Gethsemane’, Ev. Theol. XXVI (1966), 153,Google Scholar on Matthew. Lescow sees in Matt. xxvi. 36 χαθίσατε αύτου έως ού άρελθών έκεί ρροσεύξωμαι (contrast Mark xiv, 32 καθίσατε ώδε έως ρροσεύξωμαι) an intentional echo of Gen. xxii. 5.

^{page 246 note 1} J. H. Korn, ρΕΙΡΑΕΜΟΣ, passim.

^{page 246 note 2} S.–B. I, 140–1.

^{page 246 note 3} Cf. E. Lohmeyer, Das Vater-Unser, p. 144; J. Jeremias, loc. cit.

^{page 246 note 4} On this see recently Bornkamm, G., ‘Sochnschaft und Leiden’, in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche, ed. Eltester, W., pp. 188–98.Google Scholar In Deut. viii. I-6 the themes of paideia and peirasmos are virtually identified.

^{page 246 note 5} The whole section Heb. iii. 7—iv. 13 is a kind of haggadic midrash on the peirasmos theme, based on Ps. xcv.

^{page 248 note 1} For a parallel in Judaism see Daube, D. in Studia Evangelica, I, 539–45.Google Scholar Daube argues that Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane follows an already familiar pattern of Jewish prayer in the face of death: acknowledgement—wish—surrender. He would tend to minimize the wish-surrender antithesis, which Christian writers have naturally tended to emphasize. But in the context of the Gospels, and of the Gethsemane incident with its horror and grief at the prospect of death, the emphasis on the wish-surrender antithesis is surely justified.

^{page 248 note 2} Ev. Theol. xii (1952–3), 263. The theory of T. Boman in the article mentioned in the text, that Jesus' agony of prayer was on the disciples' behalf and not his own, springs from an excessive desire to make a psychologically smooth passage for Jesus from the Upper Room to his arrest. But we need not rule out the possibility that the agony did indeed have something to do with the disciples' failure.

^{page 249 note 1} E. Best does not seem to me to have proved his view (op. cit.) that the overthrow of Satan, in Mark's view, takes place for good at the Temptation.

^{page 249 note 2} The Jerusalem controversies and the cleansing of the Temple are of course of particular importance here, The latter is perhaps to be understood as a ‘Zealotic’ act; cf. Trocmé, E., ‘L' Expulsion des marchands du Temple’ N.T.S. xv (1969), 1–22.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 3} In other words, Calvin was on the right track here after all: see C. E. B. Cranfield, St Mark, p. 434.

^{page 250 note 1} On this see especially C. K. Barrett, Jesus and the Gospel Tradition, pp. 35–53. For the view that Jesus foresaw his Passion on a basis of ‘conditional predestination’, and hoped up till the last moment for a great saving act of God at the last Passover, see Whiteley, D. E. H., ‘Christ's Foreknowledge of His Crucifixion’, Studia Evangelica, I, 100–14.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 1} These comments by themselves imply no judgement on the historicity of the story of Peter's denial. But those who maintain that the whole incident is a literary fiction seem to me to have argued themselves into a highly improbable position. See recently Klein, G. in Z.Th.K. LVIII (1961), 285–328;Google ScholarZ.N.T.W. LVIII (1967), 39–44;Google ScholarLinnemann, E. in Z.Th.K. LVIII (1966), 1–32.Google Scholar