94 siGuRD GRinDheim not include the words “in him” (evp av uvto,n). the mock promise is therefore not a promise to believe in Jesus, but a promise to believe without further qualification. in this case, however, the difference between matthew and mark is not as significant as it may seem. the implication, also in mark’s version, is that the mockers will believe in Jesus. the point of dispute is not whether they will believe in God, but whether they will believe in Jesus, or at least whether they will believe that God is with him. since it is Jesus’ own power to save that is at stake (not merely God’s willingness to save him), and since religious belief is closely as- sociated with salvation (cf. further below), the mockers must be understood to profess their readiness to believe in Jesus. While we cannot recover the original version of the mockers’ words, it remains plausible that both evangelists reflect an authentic tradition, a tradition echoing the fact that Jesus called for faith in his own person 27. even though Jesus’ ipsissima verba may be irrecoverable, the idea that he saw himself as the object of his followers’ faith is reflected in different strands of the synoptic tradition: the millstone saying and the passion narrative. as the evangelists demonstrate no interest in developing this point, it cannot be attributed to their redaction. the idea is amply attested in the Gospel of John, in which it may reflect the evangelist’s theological interest (cf., e.g., John 1,12), but, with the corroborating evidence in the synoptic Gospels, a cumulative case can be made that the basic idea of Jesus calling for faith in himself is rooted in traditions going back to the historical Jesus. Vi. significance if it is plausible that Jesus issued such a call, its significance must be evaluated in light of his Jewish religious context 28. Faith is an im- portant concept in the scriptures of israel 29. the hifil form of !ma, which is usually translated “to believe” or “to trust”, occurs 52 times. this form may be used in a secular sense, describing someone who 27 i am not suggesting that the matthean account of the mockers’ words is more original than the account in mark, nor that their words are recoverable, but rather that the mockers, according to both accounts, must have thought that Jesus had called people to believe in him. 28 e. lohse, “emuna und pistis – Jüdisches und urchristliches Verständnis des Glaubens”, ZNW 68 (1977) 148. in the Greco-Roman context, pist-terminolo- gy is not used in a religious sense to depict the appropriate way to relate to a deity. cf. R. Bultmann, “pisteu,w ktl”, TDNT Vi, 179. 29 For a thorough discussion, see especially YeunG, Faith, 133-140.