^{page 155 note 2} In the following: Mark = the second Gospel; St Mark = the author; Mk = the source Mark. Similarly for the other Gospels.

^{page 155 note 3} The attempts of some Roman Catholic scholars (see Butler, B. C., The Synoptic problem, in A new Catholic Commentary in Holy Scripture; London, 1969Google Scholar, where there is also a summary of their arguments) and most recently of Farmer, W. R., The Synoptic Problem, London, 1964Google Scholar, to establish the priorty of Matthew, must be regarded as unsuccessful since they make the whole synoptic problem more and more complicated. Cf. Perrin, N., Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London, 1967), p. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 4} Studien und Kritiken (1835), p. 574.

^{page 155 note 5} Lehrbuch der Einletung in das N.T. (1886), pp. 473 ff.

^{page 155 note 6} Die Synoptiker (1901), pp. 10–20

^{page 155 note 7} The Four Gospels: a Study of Origins (London, 1924).Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 8} This literary genre reappeared only in 1956 in G. Bornkamm's jesus von Nazareth and in a completely different guise.

^{page 155 note 9} Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu (1907²).

^{page 155 note 10} Ur Markus (1905), and Die Entstehung des Markusevangelium (1908).

^{page 156 note 1} Synoptische Studien, I-III (1925–1931).

^{page 156 note 2} Cf. the works of A. Wright, N. P. Williams, W. W. Holdsworth, etc.

^{page 156 note 3} See Hunter, A. M., Interpreting the N.T. 1900–1951 (London, 1951), p. 41.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 4} Cf. the Redaction-Hypotheses of J. Weiss, J. C. Hawjins, V. S. Stanton, and the Compilation-Hypotheses of E. Meyer, A. J. Cadoux, J. M. C. Crum; see Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1952), pp. 72 f.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 5} Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1921).

^{page 156 note 6} Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (1919).

^{page 156 note 7} K. L. Schmidt, M. Albertz, V. Taylor, R. H. Lightfoot, etc.

^{page 156 note 8} Conzelmann, H., An Outline of the Theology of the N.T. (London, 1969)Google Scholar, remarks: ‘Form criticism showed that each individual priece of tradition had christological significance in itself’, p. 140.

^{page 156 note 9} Cf. J. Jeremias, R. H. Fuller. etc.

^{page 156 note 10} Die Worte Jesu (1898).

^{page 156 note 11} The Poetry of our Lord (Oxford, 1925).Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 12} An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1967).Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 13} G. Bronkamm, H. Conzelmann, E. Haenchen, W. Marxsen, etc.

^{page 156 note 14} Parker's, P. (The Gospel before Mark, 1953)Google Scholar proposed K source used by both St Mark and St Matthew is equated with proto-Matthew, and therefore it is to be classified along with the attempts to establish the priority of Matthew (see p. 155 n. 3).

^{page 156 note 15} Cf. Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (London, 1963), pp. 92 f.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 16} Op. cit. pp. 653 ff.

^{page 156 note 17} Murray, Moreover G. R. Beasley, Jesus and the Future (London, 1954)Google Scholar, insists, but with reservations (see A Commentary on Mk. xiii, London, 1957, p. 11Google Scholar n. 1), on its authenticity.

^{page 156 note 18} The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, I: St Mark(edited by H. Chadwick) (Cambridge, 1953).Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 1} It is to be found nowhere in Q, M, L.

^{page 157 note 2} We start with the passages in Mk xiii where this phenomenon is evident.

^{page 157 note 3} λέγοντες őτι έγώ είμι must rather be considered as a parenthetical insertion by St Mark.

^{page 157 note 4} It is reasonable to suppose that genuine sayings in v. 6 – this saying is also to be found in another from, perhaps taken from another source, in Mk xiii. 21 f. – and vv. 9f. had been expanded in the course of time and under the incresing influence of the apocalyptic world of ideas by addition of inauthentic sayings before reaching St Mark. Otherwise we have to accept a great number of sources for the composition of one and the same chapter, and therefore to attribute to St Mark an extremely difficult task even in our own day and age.

^{page 157 note 5} Cf. Dodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1971), pp. 120–4Google Scholar. Also J. Jeremias, op. cit pp. 53 f.

^{page 157 note 6} We are not concerned here as to whether these two similes are ipsissima verba of Jesus or not (cf. R. Bultmann, op. cit. [ET by J. Marsh, Oxford, 1963, p. 112]), nor do we discuss their original meaning.

^{page 157 note 7} Mk iv. 3, 9, 12, 16, 18, 20, 23.

^{page 157 note 8} Cf. the meaning of βλέπειν+the prepositions πῶς, τί, etc.

^{page 158 note 1} Allen, W. C., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1915)Google Scholar, suggested the careless translation of an Aramaic participle in v. 40; but we can hardly accept his suggestion since the first participle (τὦν θελόντων) has been translated correctly.

^{page 158 note 2} Lohmeyer, E., Des Evangelium des Marks (Göttingen, 1937), p. 263Google Scholar, V. Taylor, op. cit. p. 495 and Nineham, D. E., St. Mark (Harmondsworth, 1963), pp. 333–4Google Scholar maintain that v. 40 forms a self-contained saying with no connection originally with the scribes; this however can hardly stand, see Jeremias, J., Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London, 1969), p. 114Google Scholar; also Derrett, J. Duncan M., ‘Eating up the Houses of Widows: Jesus' comment on Lawyers?’ in Novum Testamentum XIV, 1–9Google Scholar, who gives the following interpratation: ‘… those that “eat away” the estates of widows, and, with such an end in view, indulge in lengthy preyers: they shall suffer a heavier sentence’, p. 8.

^{page 158 note 3} D, θ and some other MSS omit όρᾶτε, but we shall go too far if we support their originality.

^{page 158 note 4} The reading 'Ηρᾶδου) of ⁴⁵, W, θ and other MSS does not affect out argument and therefore we pass it over.

^{page 158 note 5} So D. E. Niceham, op. cit. p. 213. On the other hand V. Taylor, op. cit. p. 385 prefers a pre-Marcan composition for the whole passage because, as he asserts, St Mark does not insert sayings like St Matthew but adds them at the end.

^{page 158 note 6} Mk viii. 11 f.

^{page 158 note 7} Op. cit. p. 131.

^{page 158 note 8} For зύμη in a bad sense see Strack, H. L.Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum N.T. aus Talmud und Midrash (1922), I, 728 f.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 9} Montefiore, C. G., The Synoptic Gospels, I (1927 ²), 179Google Scholar, asked whether the saying referred to the Pharisees only and τής τοῦ ρώδον had been added.

^{page 158 note 10} Cf. Jeremias, J., Jerusal…, pp. 93–4.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 1} See below.

^{page 159 note 2} It is also remarkable that in John the άμήν-logia of Jesus are always introduced by the formula άμέν άμέν whereas in the Synoptics the άμέν λέγω formula is always to be found. I am grateful to the Rev. A. E. Harvey for pointing this out to me and also for some other valuable suggestions.

^{page 159 note 3} The frequency of the use of the verb βλέπειν in the Synoptic Tradition is: Mark 15, Matthew 20, Luke 17; but only 10 times in a sense of warning.

^{page 159 note 4} In that particular case it seems to us that βλ:έπετε as a warning has been preferred by St Mark – since the verse is clearly Marcan–under the influence of the above source very often used (3 times) for the composition of Mark xiii.

^{page 159 note 5} It must also be borne in mind that no linguistic peculiarities characteristic of St Mark are to be found in these passages.

^{page 160 note 1} Cf. V. Taylor, op. cit. pp. 641–2.

^{page 160 note 2} Grammar of N.T. Greek, II (Edinburgh, 1929), p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 3} The phrase βλέειν πό has been explained by Blass, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichem Griechisch², p. 127, as Hebrew, and by Wellhausen, J., Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin, 1911 ²), p. 32Google Scholar, as Semitic.

^{page 160 note 4} βλέπε σατόν(= ) in B.G.U. 1079. 24, which was certainly not written by a Jew.

^{page 160 note 5} Cf. βλέπειν in V.G.T. and other vocabularies and lexica.

^{page 160 note 6} See зύμη in viii. 15, the rhythm in iv. 26b, the antithetic parallelism in iv. 25, the rhythm and antithetic parallelism together in xiii. 9f. etc.

^{page 160 note 7} Op. cit. p. 348.